September 26, 2024 • 31 mins
Kamala vs Trump on your economic future
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, it's me Michael. You can listen to your morning
show live on the air or streaming live on your
iHeart app Monday through Friday from three to six Pacific,
five to eighth Central, and six to nine Eastern on
great radio stations like Talk six fifty KSTE and Sacramento
or one oh four nine The Patriot in Saint Louis
and Impact Radio one oh five nine and twelve fifty
w h d Z in Tampa, Florida. Sure hope you
(00:22):
can join us live and make us a part of
your morning routine. In the meantime, enjoy the podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well two three starting your morning off right, A new
way of talk, a new way of understanding Well, because
we're in this together.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
This is your Morning Show with Michael Bill Johnny all right.
I'm not a meteorologist, but I did grow up in
New Orleans and under the tutelage of the great Nash Roberts.
I know a thing or two about hurricanes, a cat too.
What happens These hurricanes hit the warm golf waters and
(00:59):
they and they define right now, I would call this
a very loose kind of an intense storm, but there's
a layer of it that can combine and as it tensifies.
In other words, in short, the way a Cat two
looks on a radar versus a Cat four is completely different.
This thing will be very defined and very ugly by
(01:20):
the time it makes length landfall. I would somewhere predict
between ten and eleven PM tonight, with outer bands already
by late this afternoon, stretching as far north as Atlanta.
You got a twenty foot storm surge, which can be
very very deadly for the Big Bend coastline of Florida.
But then you have all of the wind damage and
(01:42):
power outages and potential flooding inland is far north is Atlanta.
This is going to be quite the weather event. All
eyes on Helena today. Then we kind of got a
rise on three interviews. One is commal listitting down with
MSNBC and find the MSNBC saying this one's just not
specific and it's a problem.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
What we don't know is is this the media tiring
of this that even they have too much whatever's left
of journalistic integrity to play this game any further, or
is it a shot across the bow to those handling
Kamalahara step uper game or she's going to lose. The
American people are figuring this out. Biden was rather ch
charming on the view, but there was kind of a
(02:22):
prison shanking, if you will, in discussing and linking her
to the policies and having the control to have made
a difference when she was a vice president, which is
all but kind of subliminally or not so subliminally handling
a storyline that is very pro Trump and certainly makes
her more of an incumbent candidate rather than a distance one.
(02:43):
And then I think a lot of eyes on Malanya's
interview today. She has been absent. She has not been
on the campaign trail. She appeared at the Republican National Convention,
but did not speak. What's up with that? Well, they
directly ask her how the marriage is going, and how
all these attacks have gone, how the assassination attempt played,
(03:04):
as well as her book coming out on October eighth.
We'll have to wait and see that airs later this
morning on Fox and Friends. And we always say it's
the economy stupid, And I guess it begs the question, well,
what happens if we're too stupid to know the economics
of the economy. Well, that's where our money and economist
David Bonsen comes in yesterday's frustration, David was, all right,
(03:28):
here's Kamala Harris unveiling her economic vision in plan and
it was more like a campaign speech than a leader
laying out specific things they would do and what they
would would create. The interview went about the same way.
It's platitudes lines from a speech, but not a specific vision.
And if you ask any other questions like well, where
(03:49):
are getting the money to provide this for people? And
if you don't control the House and the Senate, you
don't have the money, just more debt, as if the
debt doesn't affect an economy, or how about all the
tax increases for companies. You don't think they would pass
that on to consumers or take their companies elsewhere when
your goal is to have manufacturing here? What do you
make of all this? And how could you cliffs note
(04:11):
this for our listeners to understand so they know they're
not being manipulated by the right or the left and
are really talking about economics.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Well, I think that your point before about what the
media's frustration level is right now and what their motive
is in the fact that Kamala is not The Kamala
is not providing specifics. I think your second theory of
the case is very astute. It's them saying, look, we
(04:42):
would love to enable this and support.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
You all the way through.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
She's just too bad.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
We have to we have to call it out because
it's not going to work. On the margin. This is
a tight election. You know it. The other side knows it, and.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
We your allies and the dominant media know it, and
we're telling you that if you don't put a little
more meat on the bone, just continuing to say unconvincingly, Oh,
my economic policy is that I have an economic policy.
My plan for the middle class is that I have
a plan for the middle class.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
It's not going to work. And what I don't really understand.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Is how they think it will help her if she
does put more meat on the bone, because the meat
on the bone is itself what got her in trouble
to begin with. Her plans are not like for the
American people. This is more than me saying to someone
on a radio interview who I happen to know agrees
with me that I don't like Medicare for all, or I.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Don't like green New deal, or I don't like big.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Government spending or higher corporate tax rates.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
It's me saying the American people don't like it. So
what if she supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
And there's a track record to show that it hasn't worked,
So what makes you think it'll work this time? I
guess I would ask you, how do we are? How
do you usually when we're talking about economics, we're really
talking about politics, We're not even talking about economics. Nobody
even understands most of these people running for president really
don't know even know economics one oh one. Most of them,
(06:13):
virtually all of them have never run a business, never
wrote a paycheck in their life, are the heaviest. So
how do you How would you help our listeners understand
when they're they're getting a political assessment, not a true
economic assessment.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, it's what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
As a president, that's all you could hope for, is
a political assessment because in terms of real life economics, like,
where do you get economic application out of a president.
It's after they're elected and you see who they appoint
in positions, right, and so like I'll give you an example,
is Barack Obama campaigned a pretty darn lust of center.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And then what he did is he came in and
hired all the Clinton people.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Okay, hire very Summers, and he had he had Timer
from the New York sad Is his Treasury secretary. Now
they're not right wing conservatives, they're not Milton Freedmen readers,
but they were far more centrist than many of us
on the right worried that Obama would surround himself with
And that's the same thing with very non economic theory,
(07:19):
economic philosophy type people like George W. Bush and candidly
like Donald Trump. Personnelist policy. There's one thing people hear
me say today, it's those three words personnelist policy. He
can say, I want the middle class. Trump can say
I want manufacturing. People can say all the things. First
(07:41):
of all, the politics of it is the legislation barely
ever gets done, So it's mostly a complete waste of time.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
If we were to go back over the course of.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
Presidential campaigns, look at all the things that were said
and promised, and then look at all the things that
became law, you couldn't even get five percent of it.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I'm being dead serious. So it's really about the personnel
who's going to run the Treasury Department, who's going to
run the Fed, Who's going to run the National Economic Council.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
There are these different positions that I think are far
more relevant. And I will tell you the people I
think Harris will surround yourself with are a disaster.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Yeah, David Bonson, you see him a lot on Fox Business.
He's in the Bonxon Financial Group. He's a regular contributor
here on your morning show. Let me ask you, so,
by the way, that's not a big surprise for me
that you would get Clinton type economic appointees under Barack
Obama because at the very beginning it's all John Podesta
running it. Presumably John Podesta will be calling the shots
(08:41):
on Kamala Harris's appointments as well. What do you see?
What did you see on the Trump side? What were
the Trump appointments?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Like?
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Well, see, this is the thing is the good news
in the first term. You know, Barry cut is one
of my best friends. He got brought in to run
the National Economic Council. Our Laugher, Steven Moore were.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Very very high up advisors.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Of that where he ended up giving a Presidential Medal
of Freedom to and so you had a real kind
of supply side trend, and he also hired in a
lot of the Modusa people didn't like this, but he
brought in Steve Manuchin, who was his Treasury secretary. And
by the way, Mnuchua was the only cabinet member who
was there the entire time, from day one to the
very last day. And Manutu was an old Goldman Zachs guy.
(09:27):
So he brought in a blend of operators, people that
knew how to work on the hill, people that could
get stuff done. They were more technocratics. And then he
had real reagunite ideologues. But Bob White iSER Pete Navarro,
he had a few other people who were really anti
free trade. They were a little more nationalistic. There was
some competing ideology. I think a second Trump term would be.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
All competing ideology.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
You know, half of the people of a more traditional
free market type, which happens to be my orientation, and
half the people that are a little more of what
we call.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Big government Republicans.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
And it would be very competitive ideologically.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Why do you think that, Well, for one thing.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It's very clear that he has said, you know, he's taking.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
All kinds of advice from the Lapper Cudo Forbes crowd
and the selection of JD Vance is you know who
JD Vanced.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
The week before he was selected told The New.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
York Times he supported a higher minimum wage, didn't like
cutting the corporate income tax, and he's not going to
say that now. He's a really good team player. But
what I'm saying is there is a group of advisors,
many of which I know very well, inside Team Trump,
that are, you know, kind of frustrated with the old
free market ideology of the raging folks. And I think
(10:53):
that Trump himself is intuitively a tax cutter, a deregulator.
He's definitely pro energy independence. I think there would be
good people, but I don't think it would happen as
easily as it did the first term.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think there'd be.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Some kind of internal battles for the president's hear first term.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Of Donald Trump was surprisingly flawless on foreign policy, and
it was very strong economically, especially with the pointees COVID
and the decisions made after COVID were its undoing all right,
So how much of that are we overreading? Because you know,
this is very political, but it seems to me that
(11:31):
Donald Trump might be most interested in a you know,
trump Ism after him and moving forward. So what you're
kind of describing is trump Ism, the passing of the
torch from the Reagan Revolution to trump Ism. And then
maybe we're overreading too much into JD. Vance and his
role for trump ISM's future and for closing the deal
(11:52):
in the rust belt politically to get him elected potentially
or hopefully. Yeah, reading that were more, you're actorate, and
it's going to be a mixed bag in a second.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Term, It's going to be a mixed bag.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I personally am not convinced that his what gets Crump
out of bed in the morning is the future of
trump is. I think it's far more personal for him.
And some people can think that's a good thing and
some can think it's.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
A bad thing.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
But no, I don't think he waits up thinking about
the legacy of an ideology.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I think it's intensely personal for him.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
And with Advance, we have to remember that when he
selected him, Biden was still the opponent and Trump was
about to run.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Away with this race.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
He really was.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
It was after the debate it was very clear that
Trump was putting states like Virginia and Minnesota in play,
and the sun Belt states were going to be ten
point wins, and the rost belt states were looking right,
they were going to be four or five point wins.
This was going to be a massacre.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Well, that's why I said the October surprise ended up
being the June surprise, andhindsight's twenty twenty. He'd be better
off with Marco Rubio probably today. All right, So the
bottom line is what is the state of the economy
And does it really matter which of these two wins?
And why?
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Well, it always matters because personnel is policy, It matters,
is of the court. It matters is of a number
of different issues, and there's pros and cons and I
you know, and basically I can't think of anything I
agree with with Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And there are.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Things I agree with, right, but I'm not going to
lie to people and say that I agree with everything
about Trump.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
I'm not going to cheerlead for them. There's things I
disagree with. We always say disagree with emphatically.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Yeah, but we always say it's about the economy stupid.
And so if the question is should be we worried
the American people are too stupid on the economy to
know it's the economy, or what would really be economy
versus politics. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
I think it's the problem with thing it's the economy,
is that the number one biggest issue in the economy
is a test of government spending.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
And on the biggest issue in the economy, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, that's right, that's right, always fascinating, that's our money,
Wiz David Bonson with the Bonson Financial Group, treasure your
time every week. Thanks for joining us, Thanks so much.
This is your morning show with Michael del Chrono. Clear
the decks. I don't want any contributors, I don't want
any correspondents. I want a moment alone with my listeners.
(14:25):
All right. There was something unprecedented that happened this year,
a presidential debate before either's convention. Unheard of, ridiculous, But
it happened in June, and as you were watching, it
was quickly apparent nobody gave Joe his juice, his drugs.
(14:51):
Let them go out there sleepy, They let them go
out there cognitively impaired, and they let them go out
there and commit political suicide. Why and if that wasn't
intentional or obvious enough immediately cut back to the studio
at CNN, where the messaging in the first three seconds
(15:11):
turned to there are strategists and there are party leaders
right now scrambling to change this ticket. The whole thing
was theater. And so they use Joe Biden. First of all,
they used COVID the first time to hide Joe Biden,
to get him in to try to get Kamala, and
(15:34):
then Joe doesn't leave. Now they use Joe to get
the delegates, throw them in a trunk and hand it
to Kamala. Now you've got to try to pretend that
Kamala Harris is something new, an underdog, a challenger, a
passing of a torch to a next generation, when she's
(15:56):
really an incumbent running against that's another incumbent, a former president.
Tricky stuff. Boil it all down in its most simplest form.
Can you hide this cackling, unable to even fake an
(16:17):
interview candidate in plain sight? And the answer is no.
So think about what we did yesterday, the gallop holding,
and what it showed. If this election was based on issues, honestly,
if you didn't have Trump derangement syndrome or Trump fears
or Trump boogeyman narratives. If it was just issues, the
(16:39):
Republicans lead on nine out of ten. So you got
to ask yourself, is abortion that big first of all?
Abortions are up, not down. Nothing happened, but it was
moved to the States and to the people in the
States are choosing kill the babies. So for that continuance,
for that false narrative, you're going to throw out the
(17:02):
nine issues that really matter, from the border to the economy,
to energy to foreign policy. Because if this election was
based on the issues, Donald Trump would be on his
way to a landslide. So what's clouding it? Narrative? But
(17:22):
what did Gallup show? Party better able to handle the
most important problems five point advantage for the Republicans. Party
able to keep America prosperous Republican Party by six percent.
Party better able to keep America safe from international threats
Republican Party by fourteen percent. I don't have to remind
you national securities and the number one reason for the
(17:44):
formation of a federal government the protection of its people.
And then just like, why are we doing a presidential
interview in June? Why didn't they give him his drugs?
Why did they let him Why did they let everybody
see him as cognitively impaired. Finally got back to the
CNN studio immediately, he's got to be removed. Theater was
(18:09):
yesterday theater. That's my question of the day for you,
was yesterday theater. Why this time does Kamala finally do
an interview with the leftist of left MSNBC and they're
that hard on her and they turn on her that fast.
Don't miss this. This isn't finally a journalist. It's fed
(18:31):
up with this candidate who's worse than Sarah Palin, that
she doesn't understand anything and can't even fake an interview.
So the question becomes, did Stephanie rule Katie Kirk Kamala
Harris and then go on other MSNBC shows and say this,
someone's ridiculous. You ask our question. She won't answer. It
(18:51):
was that her intent that they finally found some journalistic
integrity and they can't play this game anymore and they're
ready to jettison her. Or was that a message to
her handlers we're gonna lose. Did you see the gallup pole?
America's figuring this out. You're not getting away with hiding
her in plain sight. You're not getting away with her
no answers, She's gonna lose trainer. Lock her in a
(19:17):
room like Sarah Palin. Give her some answers, because that
interview yesterday stuck out to me, just like the debate
stuck out, and you could tell they were Katie Kurriker
and their own I mean, listen to Democrats. Do you
really think that the mayor of New York is being
indicted because of money from Turkey? This is a mayor
(19:44):
of the number one city in the largest blue state
telling everybody our borders a mess and it has failed us.
And that's his own party taking them out, kind of
like what they did to commonly yesterday.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Listen, there are people there that are stressed, that feel
that they're at capacity. Communities around the country that have
legal immigration many have said we're at capacity, and many
feel like the government has said to them, well, adapt
sit down.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
Be quiet.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
This is how it is because they have What would
a Harris administration do for those communities who've taken in many,
many legal immigrants but are at capacity?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
All right? As a future leader, she's yup and' yup
and yeppin', so she knows the problem. What's their plan
to solve it. Can't get around the question of you've
been the borders are why haven't you solved it already?
In fact, she's not going to give us a line
from a speech again, a line from campaign trails again
(20:50):
that the border is broke. She didn't fix it and
it's Donald Trump's fault because she didn't fix it and
Congress wasn't able to fix it. Like you wouldn't say, Michael,
when you're a president, what are you going to do
to fix the border? And I'm going to turn to Congress.
That wasn't the question what Congress could do. The president
has the authority to solve the border at any second.
(21:13):
In fact, the ninety five policies they did is what
broke the border. Bottom line. Stephanie's right, she doesn't get
a straight answer, because here's the answer she gets.
Speaker 6 (21:23):
Well, first of all, we do have a broken immigration
system and it needs to be fixed. And if we
take a step back, months ago, some of the most
conservative members of the United States Congress came together with
others proposed a border security bill that would have put
fifteen hundred new border agents on the border to help
those hard working border agents who are there right now,
(21:45):
working around the clock, would have put more money into
stemming the full of fentanyl which is killing Americans around
our country and devastating community.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
We also would have made the lawlessness lawful, would have
made the prominent problem per it. This is selective recall
of what was in the bill. But all you're describing
is why Congress couldn't come to a conclusion, not what
you and Joe could have done all along now. But
you could do day one, which was the original question.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
You would have put.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
More resources into our ability to prosecute transnational criminal organizations,
which in my career I've prosecuted. Donald Trump got word
of the bill, realized it was going to fix a
problem he wanted to run and told him to kill
the bill, don't put it up for a vote.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
He killed a bill that would.
Speaker 6 (22:33):
Have actually been a solution because he wants to run
on a problem instead of fixing the problem.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Were this reporter is sitting there thinking, we've heard you
say this at the convention. We've heard you say this
in every speech, We've seen your commercials say this, and
I think what's going through remind is and I've seen
the gallup pole and nobody buys it. He owns the
issue of the border. You don't. And your party's been
in charge twelve of the last sixteen years and credited
(23:00):
greatly with breaking it. In fact, the only break in
the breaking we had with a few years of Donald Trump.
Now she's not thinking of that like you're thinking about
it or I'm thinking about it. She's thinking of like,
holy crap, you're never going to get elected. You're like
a wind up doll. And the same message comes out
of you no matter who asks you.
Speaker 6 (23:21):
And that's part of what needs to be addressed. And
my pledge is that when elected president, if the American
people will have me, I will bring that bill back
and I will sign it into law and won't.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Sign into the law because Congress won't pass it. That's
what the reporters.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
We need a comprehensive plan that includes what we need
to do to fortify not only our border, but deal
with the fact that we also need to create pathways
for people to earn citizenship.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Now I've done to one minute. She also asked her
questions about the economy and really good ones. Wait a minute,
you want to bring and keep manufacturing jobs in America,
but you want to raise their taxes. You know, that's
kind of a problem. I mean, how much taxes can
you raise before they leave? Listen?
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Fine, to make sure corporations are paying their fair share,
but they're not leaving our country.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
Well, listen, I work with a lot of CEOs. I
have spent a lot of time with CEOs, and I'm
going to tell you that the business leaders who are
actually part of the engine of America's economy agree that
people should pay their fair share. They also agree that
when we look at a plan such as mine that
is about investing in the middle class, investing in new ITAs.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
And then when she gets in a cross examination, she says, well,
if you don't control the Senate in the House, how
are you going to get the funding for all these
programs you're wanting to pay And she had no answers.
So then the reporter goes down another show and says,
this is frustrating. We got a candidate you asked direct
questions of and you can't get a straight answer. Why
(25:01):
are they finally tired of playing the charade? Do they
finally have an ounce of journalistic integrity that they're refusing
to play the game any longer? Or was yesterday a
message to those handling her, you're gonna lose. Teach this
freaking puppet how to fake an answer for crying out loud? Now,
(25:28):
why do I say all of this, Because just as
the big question is who's going to win the presidency,
no matter what we talk about on a given day,
whether it's a hurricane or another topic, or concussions or
this or that that's ultimately was on everybody's mind, the
answer is, we can't tell you. And if you got
any more deeper or specific, the question would be, all right,
(25:48):
what's the October surprise? I'm beginning to wonder on September
twenty sixth, if there's not a big October surprise coming,
I don't think it's probably true. But that felt so
so much like what they did to Biden in June.
Are they beginning something with Kamala in September or is
it just a shot across the bow? Get your candidate better?
(26:12):
Because I don't put anything past him. Never mind, Donald
Trump is the devil and you're the devil for voting
for him, because we're not a republic where a democracy
and democracy is the Democrat Party platform and it's candidates
and if you oppose them or disagree with them, you
got to go. You're an enemy of the state. Ask
(26:34):
the mayor of New York City who spoke out against
immigration and what it's doing to his city. They're indicting him.
Trust me, they'll kill anybody that doesn't play along with
the narrative, and they'll do anything to stay in power.
Ask Joe Biden. This is more of a look for,
(26:56):
not a journey of discovery, but a look for. They
don't like the way things look right now, and they've
been making very dramatic plays. Is there a dramatic play
coming or it's just just MSNBC's way of sending a
clear message to the Kamala Harris handlers, you better step
(27:19):
up your game.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
I'm Dennis from People of Mississippi and my morning show
is your morning show, Michael Dolgor.
Speaker 7 (27:30):
Michael, did I ask hear you say that it wouldn't
matter to my financial well being who wins this election.
I'm gonna just have to disagree if that's what you said.
I live through the Jimmy Carter years, and it matters.
I respectfully disagree if that's.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
What you said. No, that is not what I said.
I asked the question how much does it matter? And
we got the answer. The only part that doesn't matter
is neither party is serious about addressing debt, and debt
is what's hurting us the most, causing the most inflation,
and causing the most burden. It absolutely matters, but you
have to take it in full context. If Kamala Harris
(28:08):
is elected president but the Republicans control the House and
the Senate, then the answer is no, there's no threat.
Nothing can happen to you. All of her ideas simply
will not happen. The only thing that we know for
sure is Donald Trump will surround himself with better people.
He'll do the policies that have worked in the past
and will work again, And if he can get all
(28:29):
of it through Congress, he would be much better for
your life. But Kamala Harris winning without control of the
House in the Senate and neither addressing debt is an
ongoing problem that still will be unaddressed. All right, One
of the things we've got to keep our eye on
the ball on is Hurricane Helene. Listen, when it comes
to hurricanes, I'll cut to the chase. It's all about size.
(28:50):
She's a cat too. Now she'll be a cat for
by landfall. It's all about definition. This is a very
large storm, a very defined storm. Then it becomes about
path storm surge and flooding and wind damage. Helene's got
it all. And joining us right now is Jack Crumbley
to give you more details on how just right I
(29:11):
am and this is going to be a storm surge
event and a weather event inland right Jack.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Absolutely, this is a churning up and strengthening as we speak.
Like you said, it's now a Category two hurricane Helen
could well be a Category four by the time it
makes landfall this evening. It's moving at twelve miles an
hour in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico
right now, really gaining strength. And once it does make landfall,
potentially you know, one hundred and thirty mile an hour winds,
and you mentioned storm surge, it could see some areas
(29:38):
of twenty foot storm surge, which the National Weather Service
has described as unsurvivable.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
My dad had a home right on the Gulf coast
for Katrinda. He wasn't there. He was in New Orleans,
which was its own special nightmare. But when I tell
you his home wasn't just gone. There was nothing but
a clean slab sitting there. I don't think people have,
you know, most hurricanes, a twenty foot storm surge, that's unthinkable.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
That is a devastating level of storm surge.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Absolutely, how about because of the trajectory into the Big
Bend region. And then I mean, we're seeing right now
outer bands as far north as almost Chattanooga, Tennessee. But
we're talking about a really intense tropical storm coming through
downtown Atlanta not long after its landfall. I think the
(30:35):
inland story might be Helena's lasting story.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Well, and then certainly that's going to be part two
of it. Right hitting in the Big Bend and potentially
blasting Tallahassee is sort of part one, and then the
second punch in the whole thing is going to be
as it moves further north, like you're describing, You've got
cities like Atlanta and like Asheville, North Carolina that are
already under tropical storm warnings. The tropical storm force wins
in this storm extend almost three hundred and fifty miles
(31:04):
from the center of the storm, So that's the same
distances is going like from New York City to Pittsburgh.
And so you've got areas like in the southern Apalachians,
Northern Georgia, western South Carolina, western North Carolina that have
already seen a significant amount of rain that are now
going to be under the risk of excessive rain, widespread
flash flooding, and they're being warned about that right now.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And you know what, often these things are overplayed. Helene's
going to be a monster. We're going to be talking
about Helene a lot tomorrow. Great report.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, I don't think this one's being over is being No, it.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Couldn't be enough. I'm one. My prayers are now. Are
they taking it seriously? Evacuated and as prepared as they
should be. We're all in this together. This is your
Morning Show with Michael hild Join the
Hey, it's me Michael. You can listen to your morning
show live on the air or streaming live on your
iHeart app Monday through Friday from three to six Pacific,
five to eighth Central, and six to nine Eastern on
great radio stations like Talk six fifty KSTE and Sacramento
or one oh four nine The Patriot in Saint Louis
and Impact Radio one oh five nine and twelve fifty
w h d Z in Tampa, Florida. Sure hope you
(00:22):
can join us live and make us a part of
your morning routine. In the meantime, enjoy the podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Well two three starting your morning off right, A new
way of talk, a new way of understanding Well, because
we're in this together.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
This is your Morning Show with Michael Bill Johnny all right.
I'm not a meteorologist, but I did grow up in
New Orleans and under the tutelage of the great Nash Roberts.
I know a thing or two about hurricanes, a cat too.
What happens These hurricanes hit the warm golf waters and
(00:59):
they and they define right now, I would call this
a very loose kind of an intense storm, but there's
a layer of it that can combine and as it tensifies.
In other words, in short, the way a Cat two
looks on a radar versus a Cat four is completely different.
This thing will be very defined and very ugly by
(01:20):
the time it makes length landfall. I would somewhere predict
between ten and eleven PM tonight, with outer bands already
by late this afternoon, stretching as far north as Atlanta.
You got a twenty foot storm surge, which can be
very very deadly for the Big Bend coastline of Florida.
But then you have all of the wind damage and
(01:42):
power outages and potential flooding inland is far north is Atlanta.
This is going to be quite the weather event. All
eyes on Helena today. Then we kind of got a
rise on three interviews. One is commal listitting down with
MSNBC and find the MSNBC saying this one's just not
specific and it's a problem.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
What we don't know is is this the media tiring
of this that even they have too much whatever's left
of journalistic integrity to play this game any further, or
is it a shot across the bow to those handling
Kamalahara step uper game or she's going to lose. The
American people are figuring this out. Biden was rather ch
charming on the view, but there was kind of a
(02:22):
prison shanking, if you will, in discussing and linking her
to the policies and having the control to have made
a difference when she was a vice president, which is
all but kind of subliminally or not so subliminally handling
a storyline that is very pro Trump and certainly makes
her more of an incumbent candidate rather than a distance one.
(02:43):
And then I think a lot of eyes on Malanya's
interview today. She has been absent. She has not been
on the campaign trail. She appeared at the Republican National Convention,
but did not speak. What's up with that? Well, they
directly ask her how the marriage is going, and how
all these attacks have gone, how the assassination attempt played,
(03:04):
as well as her book coming out on October eighth.
We'll have to wait and see that airs later this
morning on Fox and Friends. And we always say it's
the economy stupid, And I guess it begs the question, well,
what happens if we're too stupid to know the economics
of the economy. Well, that's where our money and economist
David Bonsen comes in yesterday's frustration, David was, all right,
(03:28):
here's Kamala Harris unveiling her economic vision in plan and
it was more like a campaign speech than a leader
laying out specific things they would do and what they
would would create. The interview went about the same way.
It's platitudes lines from a speech, but not a specific vision.
And if you ask any other questions like well, where
(03:49):
are getting the money to provide this for people? And
if you don't control the House and the Senate, you
don't have the money, just more debt, as if the
debt doesn't affect an economy, or how about all the
tax increases for companies. You don't think they would pass
that on to consumers or take their companies elsewhere when
your goal is to have manufacturing here? What do you
make of all this? And how could you cliffs note
(04:11):
this for our listeners to understand so they know they're
not being manipulated by the right or the left and
are really talking about economics.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Well, I think that your point before about what the
media's frustration level is right now and what their motive
is in the fact that Kamala is not The Kamala
is not providing specifics. I think your second theory of
the case is very astute. It's them saying, look, we
(04:42):
would love to enable this and support.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
You all the way through.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
She's just too bad.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
We have to we have to call it out because
it's not going to work. On the margin. This is
a tight election. You know it. The other side knows it, and.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
We your allies and the dominant media know it, and
we're telling you that if you don't put a little
more meat on the bone, just continuing to say unconvincingly, Oh,
my economic policy is that I have an economic policy.
My plan for the middle class is that I have
a plan for the middle class.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
It's not going to work. And what I don't really understand.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Is how they think it will help her if she
does put more meat on the bone, because the meat
on the bone is itself what got her in trouble
to begin with. Her plans are not like for the
American people. This is more than me saying to someone
on a radio interview who I happen to know agrees
with me that I don't like Medicare for all, or I.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Don't like green New deal, or I don't like big.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
Government spending or higher corporate tax rates.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
It's me saying the American people don't like it. So
what if she supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
And there's a track record to show that it hasn't worked,
So what makes you think it'll work this time? I
guess I would ask you, how do we are? How
do you usually when we're talking about economics, we're really
talking about politics, We're not even talking about economics. Nobody
even understands most of these people running for president really
don't know even know economics one oh one. Most of them,
(06:13):
virtually all of them have never run a business, never
wrote a paycheck in their life, are the heaviest. So
how do you How would you help our listeners understand
when they're they're getting a political assessment, not a true
economic assessment.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Well, it's what we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
As a president, that's all you could hope for, is
a political assessment because in terms of real life economics, like,
where do you get economic application out of a president.
It's after they're elected and you see who they appoint
in positions, right, and so like I'll give you an example,
is Barack Obama campaigned a pretty darn lust of center.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And then what he did is he came in and
hired all the Clinton people.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Okay, hire very Summers, and he had he had Timer
from the New York sad Is his Treasury secretary. Now
they're not right wing conservatives, they're not Milton Freedmen readers,
but they were far more centrist than many of us
on the right worried that Obama would surround himself with
And that's the same thing with very non economic theory,
(07:19):
economic philosophy type people like George W. Bush and candidly
like Donald Trump. Personnelist policy. There's one thing people hear
me say today, it's those three words personnelist policy. He
can say, I want the middle class. Trump can say
I want manufacturing. People can say all the things. First
(07:41):
of all, the politics of it is the legislation barely
ever gets done, So it's mostly a complete waste of time.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
If we were to go back over the course of.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
Presidential campaigns, look at all the things that were said
and promised, and then look at all the things that
became law, you couldn't even get five percent of it.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
I'm being dead serious. So it's really about the personnel
who's going to run the Treasury Department, who's going to
run the Fed, Who's going to run the National Economic Council.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
There are these different positions that I think are far
more relevant. And I will tell you the people I
think Harris will surround yourself with are a disaster.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Yeah, David Bonson, you see him a lot on Fox Business.
He's in the Bonxon Financial Group. He's a regular contributor
here on your morning show. Let me ask you, so,
by the way, that's not a big surprise for me
that you would get Clinton type economic appointees under Barack
Obama because at the very beginning it's all John Podesta
running it. Presumably John Podesta will be calling the shots
(08:41):
on Kamala Harris's appointments as well. What do you see?
What did you see on the Trump side? What were
the Trump appointments?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Like?
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Well, see, this is the thing is the good news
in the first term. You know, Barry cut is one
of my best friends. He got brought in to run
the National Economic Council. Our Laugher, Steven Moore were.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Very very high up advisors.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Of that where he ended up giving a Presidential Medal
of Freedom to and so you had a real kind
of supply side trend, and he also hired in a
lot of the Modusa people didn't like this, but he
brought in Steve Manuchin, who was his Treasury secretary. And
by the way, Mnuchua was the only cabinet member who
was there the entire time, from day one to the
very last day. And Manutu was an old Goldman Zachs guy.
(09:27):
So he brought in a blend of operators, people that
knew how to work on the hill, people that could
get stuff done. They were more technocratics. And then he
had real reagunite ideologues. But Bob White iSER Pete Navarro,
he had a few other people who were really anti
free trade. They were a little more nationalistic. There was
some competing ideology. I think a second Trump term would be.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
All competing ideology.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
You know, half of the people of a more traditional
free market type, which happens to be my orientation, and
half the people that are a little more of what
we call.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Big government Republicans.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
And it would be very competitive ideologically.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Why do you think that, Well, for one thing.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
It's very clear that he has said, you know, he's taking.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
All kinds of advice from the Lapper Cudo Forbes crowd
and the selection of JD Vance is you know who
JD Vanced.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
The week before he was selected told The New.
Speaker 4 (10:29):
York Times he supported a higher minimum wage, didn't like
cutting the corporate income tax, and he's not going to
say that now. He's a really good team player. But
what I'm saying is there is a group of advisors,
many of which I know very well, inside Team Trump,
that are, you know, kind of frustrated with the old
free market ideology of the raging folks. And I think
(10:53):
that Trump himself is intuitively a tax cutter, a deregulator.
He's definitely pro energy independence. I think there would be
good people, but I don't think it would happen as
easily as it did the first term.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think there'd be.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Some kind of internal battles for the president's hear first term.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Of Donald Trump was surprisingly flawless on foreign policy, and
it was very strong economically, especially with the pointees COVID
and the decisions made after COVID were its undoing all right,
So how much of that are we overreading? Because you know,
this is very political, but it seems to me that
(11:31):
Donald Trump might be most interested in a you know,
trump Ism after him and moving forward. So what you're
kind of describing is trump Ism, the passing of the
torch from the Reagan Revolution to trump Ism. And then
maybe we're overreading too much into JD. Vance and his
role for trump ISM's future and for closing the deal
(11:52):
in the rust belt politically to get him elected potentially
or hopefully. Yeah, reading that were more, you're actorate, and
it's going to be a mixed bag in a second.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Term, It's going to be a mixed bag.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I personally am not convinced that his what gets Crump
out of bed in the morning is the future of
trump is. I think it's far more personal for him.
And some people can think that's a good thing and
some can think it's.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
A bad thing.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
But no, I don't think he waits up thinking about
the legacy of an ideology.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I think it's intensely personal for him.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
And with Advance, we have to remember that when he
selected him, Biden was still the opponent and Trump was
about to run.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Away with this race.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
He really was.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
It was after the debate it was very clear that
Trump was putting states like Virginia and Minnesota in play,
and the sun Belt states were going to be ten
point wins, and the rost belt states were looking right,
they were going to be four or five point wins.
This was going to be a massacre.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Well, that's why I said the October surprise ended up
being the June surprise, andhindsight's twenty twenty. He'd be better
off with Marco Rubio probably today. All right, So the
bottom line is what is the state of the economy
And does it really matter which of these two wins?
And why?
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Well, it always matters because personnel is policy, It matters,
is of the court. It matters is of a number
of different issues, and there's pros and cons and I
you know, and basically I can't think of anything I
agree with with Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And there are.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Things I agree with, right, but I'm not going to
lie to people and say that I agree with everything
about Trump.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
I'm not going to cheerlead for them. There's things I
disagree with. We always say disagree with emphatically.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Yeah, but we always say it's about the economy stupid.
And so if the question is should be we worried
the American people are too stupid on the economy to
know it's the economy, or what would really be economy
versus politics. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
I think it's the problem with thing it's the economy,
is that the number one biggest issue in the economy
is a test of government spending.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
And on the biggest issue in the economy, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Yeah, that's right, that's right, always fascinating, that's our money,
Wiz David Bonson with the Bonson Financial Group, treasure your
time every week. Thanks for joining us, Thanks so much.
This is your morning show with Michael del Chrono. Clear
the decks. I don't want any contributors, I don't want
any correspondents. I want a moment alone with my listeners.
(14:25):
All right. There was something unprecedented that happened this year,
a presidential debate before either's convention. Unheard of, ridiculous, But
it happened in June, and as you were watching, it
was quickly apparent nobody gave Joe his juice, his drugs.
(14:51):
Let them go out there sleepy, They let them go
out there cognitively impaired, and they let them go out
there and commit political suicide. Why and if that wasn't
intentional or obvious enough immediately cut back to the studio
at CNN, where the messaging in the first three seconds
(15:11):
turned to there are strategists and there are party leaders
right now scrambling to change this ticket. The whole thing
was theater. And so they use Joe Biden. First of all,
they used COVID the first time to hide Joe Biden,
to get him in to try to get Kamala, and
(15:34):
then Joe doesn't leave. Now they use Joe to get
the delegates, throw them in a trunk and hand it
to Kamala. Now you've got to try to pretend that
Kamala Harris is something new, an underdog, a challenger, a
passing of a torch to a next generation, when she's
(15:56):
really an incumbent running against that's another incumbent, a former president.
Tricky stuff. Boil it all down in its most simplest form.
Can you hide this cackling, unable to even fake an
(16:17):
interview candidate in plain sight? And the answer is no.
So think about what we did yesterday, the gallop holding,
and what it showed. If this election was based on issues, honestly,
if you didn't have Trump derangement syndrome or Trump fears
or Trump boogeyman narratives. If it was just issues, the
(16:39):
Republicans lead on nine out of ten. So you got
to ask yourself, is abortion that big first of all?
Abortions are up, not down. Nothing happened, but it was
moved to the States and to the people in the
States are choosing kill the babies. So for that continuance,
for that false narrative, you're going to throw out the
(17:02):
nine issues that really matter, from the border to the economy,
to energy to foreign policy. Because if this election was
based on the issues, Donald Trump would be on his
way to a landslide. So what's clouding it? Narrative? But
(17:22):
what did Gallup show? Party better able to handle the
most important problems five point advantage for the Republicans. Party
able to keep America prosperous Republican Party by six percent.
Party better able to keep America safe from international threats
Republican Party by fourteen percent. I don't have to remind
you national securities and the number one reason for the
(17:44):
formation of a federal government the protection of its people.
And then just like, why are we doing a presidential
interview in June? Why didn't they give him his drugs?
Why did they let him Why did they let everybody
see him as cognitively impaired. Finally got back to the
CNN studio immediately, he's got to be removed. Theater was
(18:09):
yesterday theater. That's my question of the day for you,
was yesterday theater. Why this time does Kamala finally do
an interview with the leftist of left MSNBC and they're
that hard on her and they turn on her that fast.
Don't miss this. This isn't finally a journalist. It's fed
(18:31):
up with this candidate who's worse than Sarah Palin, that
she doesn't understand anything and can't even fake an interview.
So the question becomes, did Stephanie rule Katie Kirk Kamala
Harris and then go on other MSNBC shows and say this,
someone's ridiculous. You ask our question. She won't answer. It
(18:51):
was that her intent that they finally found some journalistic
integrity and they can't play this game anymore and they're
ready to jettison her. Or was that a message to
her handlers we're gonna lose. Did you see the gallup pole?
America's figuring this out. You're not getting away with hiding
her in plain sight. You're not getting away with her
no answers, She's gonna lose trainer. Lock her in a
(19:17):
room like Sarah Palin. Give her some answers, because that
interview yesterday stuck out to me, just like the debate
stuck out, and you could tell they were Katie Kurriker
and their own I mean, listen to Democrats. Do you
really think that the mayor of New York is being
indicted because of money from Turkey? This is a mayor
(19:44):
of the number one city in the largest blue state
telling everybody our borders a mess and it has failed us.
And that's his own party taking them out, kind of
like what they did to commonly yesterday.
Speaker 5 (20:02):
Listen, there are people there that are stressed, that feel
that they're at capacity. Communities around the country that have
legal immigration many have said we're at capacity, and many
feel like the government has said to them, well, adapt
sit down.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
Be quiet.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
This is how it is because they have What would
a Harris administration do for those communities who've taken in many,
many legal immigrants but are at capacity?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
All right? As a future leader, she's yup and' yup
and yeppin', so she knows the problem. What's their plan
to solve it. Can't get around the question of you've
been the borders are why haven't you solved it already?
In fact, she's not going to give us a line
from a speech again, a line from campaign trails again
(20:50):
that the border is broke. She didn't fix it and
it's Donald Trump's fault because she didn't fix it and
Congress wasn't able to fix it. Like you wouldn't say, Michael,
when you're a president, what are you going to do
to fix the border? And I'm going to turn to Congress.
That wasn't the question what Congress could do. The president
has the authority to solve the border at any second.
(21:13):
In fact, the ninety five policies they did is what
broke the border. Bottom line. Stephanie's right, she doesn't get
a straight answer, because here's the answer she gets.
Speaker 6 (21:23):
Well, first of all, we do have a broken immigration
system and it needs to be fixed. And if we
take a step back, months ago, some of the most
conservative members of the United States Congress came together with
others proposed a border security bill that would have put
fifteen hundred new border agents on the border to help
those hard working border agents who are there right now,
(21:45):
working around the clock, would have put more money into
stemming the full of fentanyl which is killing Americans around
our country and devastating community.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
We also would have made the lawlessness lawful, would have
made the prominent problem per it. This is selective recall
of what was in the bill. But all you're describing
is why Congress couldn't come to a conclusion, not what
you and Joe could have done all along now. But
you could do day one, which was the original question.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
You would have put.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
More resources into our ability to prosecute transnational criminal organizations,
which in my career I've prosecuted. Donald Trump got word
of the bill, realized it was going to fix a
problem he wanted to run and told him to kill
the bill, don't put it up for a vote.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
He killed a bill that would.
Speaker 6 (22:33):
Have actually been a solution because he wants to run
on a problem instead of fixing the problem.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Were this reporter is sitting there thinking, we've heard you
say this at the convention. We've heard you say this
in every speech, We've seen your commercials say this, and
I think what's going through remind is and I've seen
the gallup pole and nobody buys it. He owns the
issue of the border. You don't. And your party's been
in charge twelve of the last sixteen years and credited
(23:00):
greatly with breaking it. In fact, the only break in
the breaking we had with a few years of Donald Trump.
Now she's not thinking of that like you're thinking about
it or I'm thinking about it. She's thinking of like,
holy crap, you're never going to get elected. You're like
a wind up doll. And the same message comes out
of you no matter who asks you.
Speaker 6 (23:21):
And that's part of what needs to be addressed. And
my pledge is that when elected president, if the American
people will have me, I will bring that bill back
and I will sign it into law and won't.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Sign into the law because Congress won't pass it. That's
what the reporters.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
We need a comprehensive plan that includes what we need
to do to fortify not only our border, but deal
with the fact that we also need to create pathways
for people to earn citizenship.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Now I've done to one minute. She also asked her
questions about the economy and really good ones. Wait a minute,
you want to bring and keep manufacturing jobs in America,
but you want to raise their taxes. You know, that's
kind of a problem. I mean, how much taxes can
you raise before they leave? Listen?
Speaker 5 (24:09):
Fine, to make sure corporations are paying their fair share,
but they're not leaving our country.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
Well, listen, I work with a lot of CEOs. I
have spent a lot of time with CEOs, and I'm
going to tell you that the business leaders who are
actually part of the engine of America's economy agree that
people should pay their fair share. They also agree that
when we look at a plan such as mine that
is about investing in the middle class, investing in new ITAs.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
And then when she gets in a cross examination, she says, well,
if you don't control the Senate in the House, how
are you going to get the funding for all these
programs you're wanting to pay And she had no answers.
So then the reporter goes down another show and says,
this is frustrating. We got a candidate you asked direct
questions of and you can't get a straight answer. Why
(25:01):
are they finally tired of playing the charade? Do they
finally have an ounce of journalistic integrity that they're refusing
to play the game any longer? Or was yesterday a
message to those handling her, you're gonna lose. Teach this
freaking puppet how to fake an answer for crying out loud? Now,
(25:28):
why do I say all of this, Because just as
the big question is who's going to win the presidency,
no matter what we talk about on a given day,
whether it's a hurricane or another topic, or concussions or
this or that that's ultimately was on everybody's mind, the
answer is, we can't tell you. And if you got
any more deeper or specific, the question would be, all right,
(25:48):
what's the October surprise? I'm beginning to wonder on September
twenty sixth, if there's not a big October surprise coming,
I don't think it's probably true. But that felt so
so much like what they did to Biden in June.
Are they beginning something with Kamala in September or is
it just a shot across the bow? Get your candidate better?
(26:12):
Because I don't put anything past him. Never mind, Donald
Trump is the devil and you're the devil for voting
for him, because we're not a republic where a democracy
and democracy is the Democrat Party platform and it's candidates
and if you oppose them or disagree with them, you
got to go. You're an enemy of the state. Ask
(26:34):
the mayor of New York City who spoke out against
immigration and what it's doing to his city. They're indicting him.
Trust me, they'll kill anybody that doesn't play along with
the narrative, and they'll do anything to stay in power.
Ask Joe Biden. This is more of a look for,
(26:56):
not a journey of discovery, but a look for. They
don't like the way things look right now, and they've
been making very dramatic plays. Is there a dramatic play
coming or it's just just MSNBC's way of sending a
clear message to the Kamala Harris handlers, you better step
(27:19):
up your game.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
I'm Dennis from People of Mississippi and my morning show
is your morning show, Michael Dolgor.
Speaker 7 (27:30):
Michael, did I ask hear you say that it wouldn't
matter to my financial well being who wins this election.
I'm gonna just have to disagree if that's what you said.
I live through the Jimmy Carter years, and it matters.
I respectfully disagree if that's.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
What you said. No, that is not what I said.
I asked the question how much does it matter? And
we got the answer. The only part that doesn't matter
is neither party is serious about addressing debt, and debt
is what's hurting us the most, causing the most inflation,
and causing the most burden. It absolutely matters, but you
have to take it in full context. If Kamala Harris
(28:08):
is elected president but the Republicans control the House and
the Senate, then the answer is no, there's no threat.
Nothing can happen to you. All of her ideas simply
will not happen. The only thing that we know for
sure is Donald Trump will surround himself with better people.
He'll do the policies that have worked in the past
and will work again, And if he can get all
(28:29):
of it through Congress, he would be much better for
your life. But Kamala Harris winning without control of the
House in the Senate and neither addressing debt is an
ongoing problem that still will be unaddressed. All right, One
of the things we've got to keep our eye on
the ball on is Hurricane Helene. Listen, when it comes
to hurricanes, I'll cut to the chase. It's all about size.
(28:50):
She's a cat too. Now she'll be a cat for
by landfall. It's all about definition. This is a very
large storm, a very defined storm. Then it becomes about
path storm surge and flooding and wind damage. Helene's got
it all. And joining us right now is Jack Crumbley
to give you more details on how just right I
(29:11):
am and this is going to be a storm surge
event and a weather event inland right Jack.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Absolutely, this is a churning up and strengthening as we speak.
Like you said, it's now a Category two hurricane Helen
could well be a Category four by the time it
makes landfall this evening. It's moving at twelve miles an
hour in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico
right now, really gaining strength. And once it does make landfall,
potentially you know, one hundred and thirty mile an hour winds,
and you mentioned storm surge, it could see some areas
(29:38):
of twenty foot storm surge, which the National Weather Service
has described as unsurvivable.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
My dad had a home right on the Gulf coast
for Katrinda. He wasn't there. He was in New Orleans,
which was its own special nightmare. But when I tell
you his home wasn't just gone. There was nothing but
a clean slab sitting there. I don't think people have,
you know, most hurricanes, a twenty foot storm surge, that's unthinkable.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
That is a devastating level of storm surge.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Absolutely, how about because of the trajectory into the Big
Bend region. And then I mean, we're seeing right now
outer bands as far north as almost Chattanooga, Tennessee. But
we're talking about a really intense tropical storm coming through
downtown Atlanta not long after its landfall. I think the
(30:35):
inland story might be Helena's lasting story.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Well, and then certainly that's going to be part two
of it. Right hitting in the Big Bend and potentially
blasting Tallahassee is sort of part one, and then the
second punch in the whole thing is going to be
as it moves further north, like you're describing, You've got
cities like Atlanta and like Asheville, North Carolina that are
already under tropical storm warnings. The tropical storm force wins
in this storm extend almost three hundred and fifty miles
(31:04):
from the center of the storm, So that's the same
distances is going like from New York City to Pittsburgh.
And so you've got areas like in the southern Apalachians,
Northern Georgia, western South Carolina, western North Carolina that have
already seen a significant amount of rain that are now
going to be under the risk of excessive rain, widespread
flash flooding, and they're being warned about that right now.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And you know what, often these things are overplayed. Helene's
going to be a monster. We're going to be talking
about Helene a lot tomorrow. Great report.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, I don't think this one's being over is being No, it.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Couldn't be enough. I'm one. My prayers are now. Are
they taking it seriously? Evacuated and as prepared as they
should be. We're all in this together. This is your
Morning Show with Michael hild Join the
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.