The Senate is trying to finalize the big, beautiful bill by the end of the week and The Fed is holding off on cutting interest rates. Money wiz and economist David Bahnsen will explain the importance of both.
Fewer than half of Americans have a rainy-day fund, the housing market is at the risk of a sustained downturn, and Gen Z has stopped buying things. National Correspondent RORY O’NEILL looks at some of the big economic challenges and how people are reacting.
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):
Hi, It's Michael. Your morning show airs live five to
eight am Central, six to nine Eastern and great cities
like Memphis, Tennessee, Telsa, Oklahoma, Sacramento, California. We'd love to
be a part of your morning routine, but we're happier
here now. Enjoy the podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Starting your morning off right. A new way of talk,
a new way of understanding because we're in this together.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This is your.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Morning Show with Michael O'Dell Jordan.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Thank you, Mike mccannada's seven minutes after the hour. On
this Thursday, at the twenty sixth of June, you have
our old twenty twenty five on the air and streaming
live on your right Heart radio app. This is your
morning show. I'm Michael. It looks like we're gonna some relief.
About one hundred million Americans have been dealing in a
brutal heat wave. We've been in that here in Middle Tennessee.
We're gonna get about an eight degree sigh of relief today.
(00:51):
That ought at least allow the air conditioners to catch
up a little bit. President Trump trying to get the
big beautiful bill over the finish line, which begs the question, oh,
by the way. Petexth just began his news conference at
the Pentagon. He's addressing the Iranian intel leak and air strike.
We'll get you that sound coming up. If the Senate
finalizes this big beautiful bill, and can something be big
(01:14):
and beautiful? Big government is the problem, not the solution.
With the Fed still holding off on interest cuts. What's
the impact on the economy for these things and other
things like this, we always turn to an economist and
a money whiz, and I think one of the best
minds in America today David Bonson, who is joining us
in the Bonson Financial Group. Good morning, David, big beautiful bill.
(01:38):
If they can get that done, and I think they
can procedurally, the impact that from looking at it you
see on the economy, especially in light of no interest rate.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Cuts, well, look, I think that they will get something done,
and I think that the bigger benefit to the economy
is what it avoids, which is obviously if all those
taxes were to go up, that yeah, and that would
have been a big negative to the economy. But it
isn't true that there's generally a benefit to the economy
(02:11):
in avoiding something, in other words, in maintaining status quo,
What is the stimulative effect to everybody paying the same
taxes they paid last year. I think that we're still
looking at a political win. Is something that has to
get done to extend those tax cuts from eight years ago,
(02:31):
but I don't think it's a boon to the economy.
And when it looks at markets, markets have known since
the day after the election these tax cuts were going
to get extended. There's never been a point at which
a Republican president with the Republican House and a Republican
Senate wasn't going to extend to the Republican tax cuts
of the same Republican administration.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
But yeah, I'm.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Really hopeful that the impact of the economy will be
more on the big business side. The House was adding
a couple interesting business tax cuts that absolutely nobody is
talking about, but only for forty years, and the Senate
is trying to make those things permanent.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
So I want to see how that kind of comes
out of the Senate.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
What about the no tax on tips and no tax
on social Security that wasn't necessarily baked into the cake,
but not significant enough really to move an economic needle, right,
I mean, it can be a great benefit, but there is,
it's targeting.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
There is a tax on Social Security that is not
in the bill. All they did is extend the standard
deduction for people over sixty five, and so it's about
a fifteen hundred dollars benefit.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
It is not.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
They did not do no tax on Social Security that
would have cost trillions of dollars and that was never
really going to happen. It was one of those hyperbolet
camp campaign promises.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
But no tax on chips. Isn't it atrocity? It's an embarrassment.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
The idea that we as Republicans would favor a different
tax rate for bartenders than we would for bus boys
or for truck drivers is really appalling. But even the
President doesn't apparently believe in it that much because it's only
there for three years and when his term ends, this
goes away. So it is obviously not stimulative. The total
(04:27):
impact of it is very, very small, and it just
as a matter of tax policy, the things that moved
the needle, or like when President Trump wonderfully did in
his first term, which was a lower business tax rate
for everybody, a lower marginal income rates for everybody, selecting
one profession to benefit, and excluding a bunch of other
(04:49):
professions is generally the tax policy that we disagree with
as Republicans.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It's interesting, you know, you're saying things that I bet
people don't want to hear, but you know, you would
often hear on conservative talk radio people speaking against big government.
And this is going to cause spending to go up
and picking and choosing winners and losers, and how unfair
that is. Well, this is kind of doing it. We
don't seem to mind as much when it's our side
(05:14):
doing the picking and choosing of winter loses. But what
you really want to see is across the board and permanent.
That's the kind of stuff that constimulate economy. So this
is far more political than it is economic. What about
the interest rates? David Bonson Financial Group Bonson Financial Group
joining us. He also presides over the Dividend Cafe dot Com,
which we'll talk about a little bit. But you know,
we had the Powell before Congress. He basically said I
(05:37):
was going to cut rates and then all this tariff
stuff started. Now I gotta wait and see what do
you make of that and its impact? That to me
is a continuation of uncertainty.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Well, it is a continuation of uncertainty, and it's a
pretty ridiculous decision by Chairman Powell. I don't believe for
a second that he is being political or sinister. And
I think that if he had come out and said
I was going to cut rates and then the President
started demanding that I cut rates and so now I'm
not going to cut rates because I don't want to
(06:09):
look like I'm being political, at least then it would
have been more honest.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Think I really do.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Think President Trump hurt his own cause by publicly job voning,
because I think that how very likely would have cut
rates by now. I think it's utterly preposterous by his
own reasoning and methodology that he hasn't. And look, the
idea that I got to wait to see what tariffs
do before I cut totally misses the point about inflation.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I think tariffs are a terrible idea.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I think they do raise prices, but even if they
did do so, that would have no impact on what
the FED ought to be doing with rates, because it
is not in the remotely same category of the inflation
that the FED can control via monetary policy.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Right, that's a totally different issue.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
And so let's say prices went up because we had
a bunch of tariffs. Why would the FED having interest
rates higher offset that?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
It wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
It deals with the supply side of the economy, and
so it really doesn't make a lot of sense to
me other than my theory that Chairman Powell believes the
FED should be politically independent and that if he were
to cut rates right now, it would look like he
was doing it because President Trump threatened him on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
So he's not going to do it.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Well, I think President Trump was wrong to threaten him
on Twitter, but I think that Pal is wrong to
not cut rates because of that, just like he would
be wrong to cut rates only because of it. You know,
you're just kind of in this darned if you do,
darned if you don't situation.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Two wrongs in this case make a rate freeze, all right.
So the biggest benefit of some interest rate cuts free
up investment, maybe lower they're not necessarily attached, but it
could have an impact in lowering mortgage rates. That could
help with this housing issue that we're having. Why should
(08:06):
people be wanting to see some rate cuts now?
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Well, it's very important for me to be clear because
it's not very common that I'm advocating for rate cuts.
I think most people want rate cuts because most people
borrow money and they want to pay less when they
borrow money.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
That's not super complicated.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
People that borrow like paying less than they like paying more. People,
on the other hand, who receive interests generally like higher rates.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
If you are a saver, you.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
Like getting a higher rate of interest in your savings account,
and if you are a borrower, you like paying less
to the bank. And so there's just simply two different
parties in the transaction.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
And so the idea that the FED should be picking.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Who gets more, either the lender or the borrower, is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
But what the Fed's supposed to be.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Doing is using the interest rate in this case to
affect their policy objectives. I wish that that wasn't doing that,
but that is what Congress has asked them to do.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And in this particular case, it is appalling.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
To me that anyone would believe we need a tighter
interest rate given the supply side constraints in the economy.
I don't think that we should be going back to
two and three percent mortgage rates ever. Again, in my lifetime,
I don't think we should be going back to zero
percent rates in the overnight ending rate that the Fed controls.
Ever again in my lifetime, I believe that they probably
(09:30):
will do so. But I just want to be clear
that the reason people want it is because they loved
the idea of paying last when they borrow.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
That's fine, Well, there are more voters that are in
the debt business than that are paying debt than are
you receiving interest returns on savings, So politically it sways
one way too as well.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Well that's a question, but you know you made you
just made a really important point as to why the
president should never have an input into what interest.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Rates should be.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Because of that fact, there is never going to be
a president and I'm not just talking about President Trump here,
any president ever that would ever want anything but lower
interest rates.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Right, because of what you just said.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
There's more people who borrow than men, and yet at
the end of the day, it manipulates and distorts the
economy to have it be at an unnatural distortive level.
We just simply right now have a rate that is unnatural.
The other way, it is effectively tightening monetary policy and
leading to other economic compression that I think is problematic.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
All right, Final Moments with David Bonson. I get this
question all the time. I think we've addressed it on
talk radio a million times. I'm sure you've answered it
a million times. But people are joining us in progress,
and we don't often have expertise like this. A lot
of listeners have expressed frustration and why we even have
the FED? How many times have you answered that question?
(10:50):
And can you answer it one more time? Would we
be better off without it? And why do we have it?
And why don't why don't we just get rid of it?
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Well, I mean, first of all, I'll answer as quickly
as I can, and it is a complete waste of
time other than just for arm share posturing, because.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
They are not going to get rid of the FED.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
For those of us who believe the FED is doing
things wrongly would be far better served spending their efforts,
as I do, trying to get a more humble version
of the FED, a right sized FED.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
But the reason I happen to be a person who's.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Very critical of the FED, I did spend a lot
of time in my earlier adult life not believing we
needed one, and I have.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Most certainly come to the conclusion.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
That we ought to have a FED, but it would
be unrecognizable to the FED we have because I believe
simply in the idea of what's called a lender of
last resort. I do not believe the FED should set
interest rates, and do not believe the FED should be
in charge of the economy, and do not believe the
FED should be setting the price of money. But having
a central bank that is available to lend so that
(11:53):
liquidity crises do not become solvency crises. In other words,
when you have very economic events that there is good
collateral and yet money is not moving, having the FED
available as that mass vendor is a very Hamiltonian constitutional,
nineteenth century classical economic principle.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
What we've done is something totally different.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
And so I favor a rules based FED, not just
twelve PhDs sitting on a conference room with their finger
in the air, sometimes getting it right, sometimes getting it wrong,
but with all of us, not just the media, not
just the politicians, the public sitting around going, oh my gosh,
what's the FED going to do to make my life
better today? I don't want that. What I want is
(12:41):
for the economy to work on its own, but that
there is a lender who is available in these types
of pricings and emergencies to keep them from getting worse,
but not by printing money, but by lending against legitimate collateral.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
I think that's a totally legitimate vision for the FED.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
That's one of my smartest brothers. That's David Bonson what's
on the Dividend Cafe this week, We're going.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
To talk about the Middle East, Iran, Israel, oil, why
markets have not swooned in the response of the kind
of escalations.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
There, and why the Middle.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
East this particular issue appears to be a massive victory
for American interest, a massive victory for eliminating a nuclear
threat and I ran, and yet at the same time
we need to understand the Middle East is never going
to be a safe place.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Dividendcafe dot com. This is Paul David Patterson down in
Toledo District.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Believe in My Morning show is your Morning Show with
Michaelville joining.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Hi. It's Michael Your Morning Show could be heard live
weekday mornings five to eight am, six to nine am
Eastern in great cities like Tampa, Florida, Youngstown, Ohio, and
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We'd love to join you on the
drive to work live. But we're glad you're here. Now
enjoy the podcast. Let's have someone on one time, shall we?
I think this is so obvious it needs to be stated.
(14:13):
What do you do when you can't trust the people's house?
What do you do in a matrix culture a shirts
in skins where literally one what's left of one, what's
left of both parties in a two party system that
was never intended is playing such shirts and skins that
(14:36):
they root against America and root four enemies for their
own personal power and game. What do you do in
an era of the death of journalism? You do exactly
what Pete hegseat the Secretary of Defense, is doing right
now from the Pentagon. You're actually briefing the American people
before you brief members of the House in the Senate.
(14:56):
And they earned that. They earned that by ridiculou lessly
trying to mislead the American people about what the air
strikes achieved. So you literally had Raisin Kane, the Joint
Chief of Staff, and Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense,
teaching you what a thirty thousand pound bunker buster is
(15:17):
and does and how it operates, and why you can
look at the surface and know nothing because first it
penetrates the ground, then it explodes beneath the ground. The
damage is under what you can see. So who could
have possibly done a damage assessment or who could have
possibly interpreted a low confident early assessment unless you bring
(15:42):
a big shovel to a mountain. But this is the
hour in which we live, and I think it's extraordinary.
I mean, we did this earlier, but we said used
to be Cuban missile crisis. A White House spokesperson would
stand in front of the White House. The President of
the United States is asking for airtime on all three
(16:03):
major networks tonight to address the American people. And then
you tune in and find out. Now you get a
social media post, the bombing has begun, tell you all
about it, and just a bit ceasefire has been achieved.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I'll tell you all about it now.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Every step of the way, the Left has tried to
argue there's no ceasefire. Iron's denying it, Israel hasn't set
a peep, and then a few hours later Israel and
Iran acknowled's the ceasefire. There was some little extracurricular going
on as we were breaking them up, And the President
made it clear from the air on social media. First
(16:49):
of all, he dropped the F bomb and was mad
at both of them. I said stop. Then on social
media he posts, if you've got planes in the air,
return them to the base, and they did, and to
cease fire is in effect. And that didn't stop the Left. Oh,
they didn't stop anything. In fact, at the most maybe
one to two three months. And when I first heard that,
(17:10):
I was like, how could you possibly know? How could
anyone possibly know? And the only reason I do know
is that Iran has agreed to a ceasefire. That screams
you set us back far.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
We're in a checkmate.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Now. They're not going to go away, and they're going
to try to rebuild, and as long as they're in power,
they're going to seek to destroy Israel and America. So
you haven't completely solved anything, but just certainly removed the
clear in present danger. And a lot of others had
promised to do that for decades and never done it.
But I'm sitting here this morning on the air talking
to you because anybody can tell you what's happening, very
(17:54):
few can connect the dots and understand it. We do
that very well together, don't we. I'm watching the Pentagon
directly to us before the House and the Senate, because
you can't trust half the House in the Senate.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
And I think that's pretty extraordinary to acknowledge.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
We had a lot of I told you sos today
and we didn't want to say that, but James Carvel,
now this is the strategist behind a two term Clinton
presidency and the Clinton apparatus that was in existence up
until about maybe relevantly four years ago. It's no longer
very relevant. The socialist Democrats who are now expanding to
(18:35):
Islamists in the New York City mayor's race. They have
almost completed their sabotage of the Democrat Party. And I
have said it will not survive the decade. It's now
halfway through the decade. I think even you can figure
out it's not going to survive the decade. But Carvel saying, hey,
having a socialist, eh, he's an Islamist, but having a
(18:57):
socialist may earl primary victory like this, Ah, this could
potentially be very dangerous for the party. We said that yesterday.
This is not Trump's worst nightmare. It's first and foremost
business leaders and people trying to conduct business in New
York City's nightmare, and the people of New York City's nightmare.
I mean, you got an Islamis who wants to get
rid of all the police, replace them with social workers,
(19:21):
free childcare, free transportation. I don't even know what a
city grocery is, and I don't even know how they
think they can enforce rent controls in thirty dollars minimum wage.
What a disaster. We said that yesterday. Carvel's acknowledging it.
This nightmare is first the people of New York Cities
(19:42):
and the Democrat Party, not Donald Trump. New York Post headline,
this socialist victory over Cuomo, this well fuel the AOC
twenty twenty eight rumors is not a rumor. She's going
to run and she's going to be the leader. You'd
have to be U sleep in a cave to have
not figured out Bernie Sanders was the leader. He's passed
(20:08):
the torch to AOC. She passed her loudmouthed torch, agitator,
torch in the house torch to Jasmine Crockett. So Jasmine
Crockett is already the new AOC who prove that sounds
of the day, and AOC is the new Bernie, So
Bernie's gonna run for president. Bernie's AOC is going to
be the very early big leader. Now will the DNC
(20:31):
fix it again to keep a socialist from winning? They're
gonna try with Robbie Manuel and Wes Moore. But whether
they succeed or fail, either way, the party is now
fragmented in half. And at that point you're two fringe parties,
not one of a two party system.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
You're gone.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
The parasite will have killed the host in itself in
the process, which leads to this. Individuals are leaving a
party they no longer recognize. Now, remember earlier yesterday, I
think it was, we had the story Diller and Bloomberg.
These are the grass tops billionaires. They're pulling their money
(21:13):
from the DNC because they're ineffective and quite frankly, they're
not serious. This party is no longer worthy of their money.
That's the problem heading into a midterm, especially when you
got Hag and others the Socialist Democrats targeting healthy Otherwise
wouldn't have even been paid attention to races. Now the
DNC has got a fight to keep their candidate against
(21:36):
the socialist Democrat candidates because that's the game they play
and they're winning it. So you've got funding problems, you
got race expansion. Oh, by the way, you have people
leaving your party. The share of registered voters unaffiliated but
either major party has grown nearly nine percentage points since
(21:59):
two thousand. In twenty five years, it's a ten point swing.
That's equal to the abortion swing. You better figure out
where they went so you can see whose advantage it
is the number of registered. By the way, this goes
along with when we have conversations about people voting with
their feet, does it necessarily although it does to some
(22:25):
degree change the makeup of the state they're leaving, But
it changes the population of their state they're leaving, which
changes the amount of members of Congress they have, which
changes the amount of electoral votes the state has in
an electoral college. That's why the Justice Democrats want to
kill the electoral college. But you could make a case
(22:46):
to my prediction of gone by the end of the decade,
unable to win by the end of the decade because
so many people have left Illinois, California and New York
and the addition of electoral value to the states they
went to versus what they've lost and upsets the balance.
I can give you an electoral college checkmate for the
(23:08):
Democrat Party, but here is a popular vote potential checkmate.
The share of registered voters unaffiliated with either party has
grown nearly nine percent. The number of registered independents and
third party members is growing as voters are breaking from
the two party system. What I've been praying for, what
our founding fathers never intended, is both the two party
(23:29):
system to be gone. I'm not a Democrat or a
Republican and this shirts and skins game of power for them,
wealth for them, and silencing and enslavery for us. Yeah,
they can both die as far as I'm concerned. I
just think one's going to die first. As of twenty
twenty five, thirty two percent of registered voters across the
(23:49):
dozens of states and territories with reported data chose not
to affiliate with either the Democrat or the Republican party.
That's up from twenty three percent of the year two
thousand and The trend is also reflected in broader national
exit polls. In twenty twenty four election polls, it showed
that for the first time, self identified independent outnumbered Democrats
(24:13):
and were equal with Republicans. Marianne Marsh, a political analyst
in Massachusetts, said independent and third party registrations are growing
in number in high numbers because of the dissatisfaction with
these major parties. The share of registered voters unaffiliated with
(24:36):
either major party has grown nearly nine percentage points since
two thousand. The analysis shows that the increase in share
of independence has come at the cost of the Democrat Party,
at the cost of leaks, rooting against our own pilot
(25:00):
and our own country like we've had this week because
of CNN, MSNBC, ABCNBCCBS, the death of journalism that's been
revealed through podcasting and social media, because of a party
that is now led by socialists in the case of
(25:22):
New York City, apparently even Islamists. This is a party
leaving its platform and leaving its people. I could show
you by the electoral college, I could show you by
the popular vote. This all points to the ending of
(25:44):
the party, or, as a rooster would probably say, simply.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
This is your morning show with Michael del Trono.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
The suspect in the firebombing of Pro Israel marchers and
ralliers in Boulder, Colorado. He has been indicted. Here's the latest.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
A federal grand jury came back with twelve hate crime
counts against Mohammed Solomon, up from the one he was
already charged with. He's also facing state charges including attempted murder.
Prosecutors alleged that he had plotted his attack earlier this
month for over a year and wanted to kill his victims.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
I'm Brian Shook.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Closing arguments kick off today in the Sean did He
Coombe sex trial in New York after the prosecution announced
it's dropping.
Speaker 6 (26:33):
Some charges include charges of attempted kidnapping and attempted arson.
That means prosecutors are no longer pursuing arguments that did
he had something to do with the Molotov cocktail that
set rapper Kid Cutty' his car on fire? And what
happened to his former assistant, Capricorn Clark? Did he still
face his charges including racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking Both
(26:53):
sides arguments will likely take around four hours.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Did He's lawyers are.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Expected to argue that anything that happened his private life
and that he did not run a criminal enterprise, while
the prosecution is expected to argue that Diddy knew his
actions were illegal.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Kristen Marks, NBC News Radio.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Jada Turner's getting a statue in her hometown in Tennessee,
the city of Brownsville and the Ford Motor Company of
Announceler Company is going to contribute one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. Well, that was abrupt anyway. She gets the
(27:31):
statue and it's right near her old school. I don't
know what happened there. I think it's something I did. Meanwhile,
fewer than half of Americans have a rainy day fund.
I should know my hot water heater pro I just
took a very expensive shower yesterday. The housing market is
at risk of sustaining downturn. Gen Zers are stopping buying things.
Add this all together. These are the fault lines in
(27:52):
a very fragile economy. And Roy O'Neil is here with
how people are reacting to these economic challenges. Good morning, Rory,
and I hope you don't cut off.
Speaker 7 (28:00):
Yeah right, Well, look, fewer than half of Americans, as
he said, have enough cash set aside for three months
of the regular cost of running a household. The idea
is they recommend you have six months set aside, but
bank Rate says half only have less than three months.
But on the plus side, fewer Americans have more credit
card debt now than emergency savings, so that pendulum seems
(28:23):
to be swinging back in the right direction. Another interesting
report that finds gen zers may be struggling a bit
right now. In store and online purchases by those eighteen
to twenty four fell thirteen percent.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Year over year.
Speaker 7 (28:37):
A lot of them coming out of college finding difficult
job markets right now.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
That's forcing them to pull back on their spending.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
You know, whenever we talk about rainy day fund, my
mind just starts spinning because I saw the tough times
we went through COVID post COVID, and I don't think
people had that rainy day fund, and the rainy day
fund couldn't have lasted that long anyway, because it went
beyond six months. What they were really using was their retirement.
So I get this sense that rory that not only
(29:04):
is the rainy Day fund depleted, but probably a lot
of their retirement, which is even worse news for the future.
Something tells me these numbers are even worse. I think
we're all loving.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
Yeah, thankfully, we've seen a strong recovery from the markets
after our four oh one case took a hit after
the tariff announcement, so that if you used.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Your four oh one K, you didn't get a return
because it wasn't in there.
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Anymore, right, So that was well right, And then you know,
it's interesting too, they say that more than a third
of Americans have actually tapped into that emergency savings in
the past year. So a lot of busted hot water
heaters out there apparently, and you know, look that that's
life for you.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
But that's why you're supposed to have some set aside.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Well, Dave Brant. And by the way, I don't know.
The other thing is are we honest about what we
set aside? I mean, I don't think the average American
it's kind of like a gambler that remembers, you know,
accurately the wins and then doesn't quite add up the
losses accurately. So I mean, what we think it takes
to really be able to sustain our household for six months?
I wonder how good we are at estimating that let alone.
(30:06):
Obviously some of us fail to do that. I mean
that money has to be put aside before any money
is spent, before any car decision is made, any home
decision is made, any vacation decision is made, And we
just got to make sure that that ten percent in
my case, goes to a tide. Then that blank until
the sixth month is honestly fulfilled and then you know
(30:28):
the twenty percent for retirement and then you start living
after that.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And that's hard every time.
Speaker 7 (30:33):
By the way, I mean, I don't I hope this
isn't insulting, because I don't mean it to be. But
every time I hear someone say tithe, I hear Reverend
Lovejoy from The Simpsons saying that often often the net top.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
People, not the net.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Yeah, I just do it because it is proven that
when I keep you know, I can't outspend gods what
have But yeah, but I mean, what but you add
all that up, Rory, it's like forty percent. Nobody does
that because taxes and everything and insurance is all forty
doesn't leave enough to live.
Speaker 7 (31:03):
We're supposed to say for college, I'm supposed to be
saving money to replace the roof, you know, after twenty years,
and you know, yeah, where does it go well?
Speaker 1 (31:12):
The answer is we're a lot safer with Iran not
having a weapon of mass destruction. How long that will last?
The economy still fragile, is gonna take more than a big,
beautiful bill. I think that'll do it for today, great
reporting where we'll see everybody tomorrow morning at five.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
We're all in this together. This is your Morning Show
with Michael hild Joe Now
Hi, It's Michael. Your morning show airs live five to
eight am Central, six to nine Eastern and great cities
like Memphis, Tennessee, Telsa, Oklahoma, Sacramento, California. We'd love to
be a part of your morning routine, but we're happier
here now. Enjoy the podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Starting your morning off right. A new way of talk,
a new way of understanding because we're in this together.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This is your.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Morning Show with Michael O'Dell Jordan.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Thank you, Mike mccannada's seven minutes after the hour. On
this Thursday, at the twenty sixth of June, you have
our old twenty twenty five on the air and streaming
live on your right Heart radio app. This is your
morning show. I'm Michael. It looks like we're gonna some relief.
About one hundred million Americans have been dealing in a
brutal heat wave. We've been in that here in Middle Tennessee.
We're gonna get about an eight degree sigh of relief today.
(00:51):
That ought at least allow the air conditioners to catch
up a little bit. President Trump trying to get the
big beautiful bill over the finish line, which begs the question, oh,
by the way. Petexth just began his news conference at
the Pentagon. He's addressing the Iranian intel leak and air strike.
We'll get you that sound coming up. If the Senate
finalizes this big beautiful bill, and can something be big
(01:14):
and beautiful? Big government is the problem, not the solution.
With the Fed still holding off on interest cuts. What's
the impact on the economy for these things and other
things like this, we always turn to an economist and
a money whiz, and I think one of the best
minds in America today David Bonson, who is joining us
in the Bonson Financial Group. Good morning, David, big beautiful bill.
(01:38):
If they can get that done, and I think they
can procedurally, the impact that from looking at it you
see on the economy, especially in light of no interest rate.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Cuts, well, look, I think that they will get something done,
and I think that the bigger benefit to the economy
is what it avoids, which is obviously if all those
taxes were to go up, that yeah, and that would
have been a big negative to the economy. But it
isn't true that there's generally a benefit to the economy
(02:11):
in avoiding something, in other words, in maintaining status quo,
What is the stimulative effect to everybody paying the same
taxes they paid last year. I think that we're still
looking at a political win. Is something that has to
get done to extend those tax cuts from eight years ago,
(02:31):
but I don't think it's a boon to the economy.
And when it looks at markets, markets have known since
the day after the election these tax cuts were going
to get extended. There's never been a point at which
a Republican president with the Republican House and a Republican
Senate wasn't going to extend to the Republican tax cuts
of the same Republican administration.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
But yeah, I'm.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
Really hopeful that the impact of the economy will be
more on the big business side. The House was adding
a couple interesting business tax cuts that absolutely nobody is
talking about, but only for forty years, and the Senate
is trying to make those things permanent.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
So I want to see how that kind of comes
out of the Senate.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
What about the no tax on tips and no tax
on social Security that wasn't necessarily baked into the cake,
but not significant enough really to move an economic needle, right,
I mean, it can be a great benefit, but there is,
it's targeting.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
There is a tax on Social Security that is not
in the bill. All they did is extend the standard
deduction for people over sixty five, and so it's about
a fifteen hundred dollars benefit.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
It is not.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
They did not do no tax on Social Security that
would have cost trillions of dollars and that was never
really going to happen. It was one of those hyperbolet
camp campaign promises.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
But no tax on chips. Isn't it atrocity? It's an embarrassment.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
The idea that we as Republicans would favor a different
tax rate for bartenders than we would for bus boys
or for truck drivers is really appalling. But even the
President doesn't apparently believe in it that much because it's only
there for three years and when his term ends, this
goes away. So it is obviously not stimulative. The total
(04:27):
impact of it is very, very small, and it just
as a matter of tax policy, the things that moved
the needle, or like when President Trump wonderfully did in
his first term, which was a lower business tax rate
for everybody, a lower marginal income rates for everybody, selecting
one profession to benefit, and excluding a bunch of other
(04:49):
professions is generally the tax policy that we disagree with
as Republicans.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It's interesting, you know, you're saying things that I bet
people don't want to hear, but you know, you would
often hear on conservative talk radio people speaking against big government.
And this is going to cause spending to go up
and picking and choosing winners and losers, and how unfair
that is. Well, this is kind of doing it. We
don't seem to mind as much when it's our side
(05:14):
doing the picking and choosing of winter loses. But what
you really want to see is across the board and permanent.
That's the kind of stuff that constimulate economy. So this
is far more political than it is economic. What about
the interest rates? David Bonson Financial Group Bonson Financial Group
joining us. He also presides over the Dividend Cafe dot Com,
which we'll talk about a little bit. But you know,
we had the Powell before Congress. He basically said I
(05:37):
was going to cut rates and then all this tariff
stuff started. Now I gotta wait and see what do
you make of that and its impact? That to me
is a continuation of uncertainty.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Well, it is a continuation of uncertainty, and it's a
pretty ridiculous decision by Chairman Powell. I don't believe for
a second that he is being political or sinister. And
I think that if he had come out and said
I was going to cut rates and then the President
started demanding that I cut rates and so now I'm
not going to cut rates because I don't want to
(06:09):
look like I'm being political, at least then it would
have been more honest.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Think I really do.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Think President Trump hurt his own cause by publicly job voning,
because I think that how very likely would have cut
rates by now. I think it's utterly preposterous by his
own reasoning and methodology that he hasn't. And look, the
idea that I got to wait to see what tariffs
do before I cut totally misses the point about inflation.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I think tariffs are a terrible idea.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
I think they do raise prices, but even if they
did do so, that would have no impact on what
the FED ought to be doing with rates, because it
is not in the remotely same category of the inflation
that the FED can control via monetary policy.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Right, that's a totally different issue.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
And so let's say prices went up because we had
a bunch of tariffs. Why would the FED having interest
rates higher offset that?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
It wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
It deals with the supply side of the economy, and
so it really doesn't make a lot of sense to
me other than my theory that Chairman Powell believes the
FED should be politically independent and that if he were
to cut rates right now, it would look like he
was doing it because President Trump threatened him on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
So he's not going to do it.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Well, I think President Trump was wrong to threaten him
on Twitter, but I think that Pal is wrong to
not cut rates because of that, just like he would
be wrong to cut rates only because of it. You know,
you're just kind of in this darned if you do,
darned if you don't situation.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Two wrongs in this case make a rate freeze, all right.
So the biggest benefit of some interest rate cuts free
up investment, maybe lower they're not necessarily attached, but it
could have an impact in lowering mortgage rates. That could
help with this housing issue that we're having. Why should
(08:06):
people be wanting to see some rate cuts now?
Speaker 4 (08:11):
Well, it's very important for me to be clear because
it's not very common that I'm advocating for rate cuts.
I think most people want rate cuts because most people
borrow money and they want to pay less when they
borrow money.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
That's not super complicated.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
People that borrow like paying less than they like paying more. People,
on the other hand, who receive interests generally like higher rates.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
If you are a saver, you.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
Like getting a higher rate of interest in your savings account,
and if you are a borrower, you like paying less
to the bank. And so there's just simply two different
parties in the transaction.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
And so the idea that the FED should be picking.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Who gets more, either the lender or the borrower, is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
But what the Fed's supposed to be.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Doing is using the interest rate in this case to
affect their policy objectives. I wish that that wasn't doing that,
but that is what Congress has asked them to do.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And in this particular case, it is appalling.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
To me that anyone would believe we need a tighter
interest rate given the supply side constraints in the economy.
I don't think that we should be going back to
two and three percent mortgage rates ever. Again, in my lifetime,
I don't think we should be going back to zero
percent rates in the overnight ending rate that the Fed controls.
Ever again in my lifetime, I believe that they probably
(09:30):
will do so. But I just want to be clear
that the reason people want it is because they loved
the idea of paying last when they borrow.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
That's fine, Well, there are more voters that are in
the debt business than that are paying debt than are
you receiving interest returns on savings, So politically it sways
one way too as well.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Well that's a question, but you know you made you
just made a really important point as to why the
president should never have an input into what interest.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Rates should be.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Because of that fact, there is never going to be
a president and I'm not just talking about President Trump here,
any president ever that would ever want anything but lower
interest rates.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Right, because of what you just said.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
There's more people who borrow than men, and yet at
the end of the day, it manipulates and distorts the
economy to have it be at an unnatural distortive level.
We just simply right now have a rate that is unnatural.
The other way, it is effectively tightening monetary policy and
leading to other economic compression that I think is problematic.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
All right, Final Moments with David Bonson. I get this
question all the time. I think we've addressed it on
talk radio a million times. I'm sure you've answered it
a million times. But people are joining us in progress,
and we don't often have expertise like this. A lot
of listeners have expressed frustration and why we even have
the FED? How many times have you answered that question?
(10:50):
And can you answer it one more time? Would we
be better off without it? And why do we have it?
And why don't why don't we just get rid of it?
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Well, I mean, first of all, I'll answer as quickly
as I can, and it is a complete waste of
time other than just for arm share posturing, because.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
They are not going to get rid of the FED.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
For those of us who believe the FED is doing
things wrongly would be far better served spending their efforts,
as I do, trying to get a more humble version
of the FED, a right sized FED.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
But the reason I happen to be a person who's.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
Very critical of the FED, I did spend a lot
of time in my earlier adult life not believing we
needed one, and I have.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Most certainly come to the conclusion.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
That we ought to have a FED, but it would
be unrecognizable to the FED we have because I believe
simply in the idea of what's called a lender of
last resort. I do not believe the FED should set
interest rates, and do not believe the FED should be
in charge of the economy, and do not believe the
FED should be setting the price of money. But having
a central bank that is available to lend so that
(11:53):
liquidity crises do not become solvency crises. In other words,
when you have very economic events that there is good
collateral and yet money is not moving, having the FED
available as that mass vendor is a very Hamiltonian constitutional,
nineteenth century classical economic principle.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
What we've done is something totally different.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
And so I favor a rules based FED, not just
twelve PhDs sitting on a conference room with their finger
in the air, sometimes getting it right, sometimes getting it wrong,
but with all of us, not just the media, not
just the politicians, the public sitting around going, oh my gosh,
what's the FED going to do to make my life
better today? I don't want that. What I want is
(12:41):
for the economy to work on its own, but that
there is a lender who is available in these types
of pricings and emergencies to keep them from getting worse,
but not by printing money, but by lending against legitimate collateral.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
I think that's a totally legitimate vision for the FED.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
That's one of my smartest brothers. That's David Bonson what's
on the Dividend Cafe this week, We're going.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
To talk about the Middle East, Iran, Israel, oil, why
markets have not swooned in the response of the kind
of escalations.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
There, and why the Middle.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
East this particular issue appears to be a massive victory
for American interest, a massive victory for eliminating a nuclear
threat and I ran, and yet at the same time
we need to understand the Middle East is never going
to be a safe place.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Dividendcafe dot com. This is Paul David Patterson down in
Toledo District.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Believe in My Morning show is your Morning Show with
Michaelville joining.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Hi. It's Michael Your Morning Show could be heard live
weekday mornings five to eight am, six to nine am
Eastern in great cities like Tampa, Florida, Youngstown, Ohio, and
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We'd love to join you on the
drive to work live. But we're glad you're here. Now
enjoy the podcast. Let's have someone on one time, shall we?
I think this is so obvious it needs to be stated.
(14:13):
What do you do when you can't trust the people's house?
What do you do in a matrix culture a shirts
in skins where literally one what's left of one, what's
left of both parties in a two party system that
was never intended is playing such shirts and skins that
(14:36):
they root against America and root four enemies for their
own personal power and game. What do you do in
an era of the death of journalism? You do exactly
what Pete hegseat the Secretary of Defense, is doing right
now from the Pentagon. You're actually briefing the American people
before you brief members of the House in the Senate.
(14:56):
And they earned that. They earned that by ridiculou lessly
trying to mislead the American people about what the air
strikes achieved. So you literally had Raisin Kane, the Joint
Chief of Staff, and Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense,
teaching you what a thirty thousand pound bunker buster is
(15:17):
and does and how it operates, and why you can
look at the surface and know nothing because first it
penetrates the ground, then it explodes beneath the ground. The
damage is under what you can see. So who could
have possibly done a damage assessment or who could have
possibly interpreted a low confident early assessment unless you bring
(15:42):
a big shovel to a mountain. But this is the
hour in which we live, and I think it's extraordinary.
I mean, we did this earlier, but we said used
to be Cuban missile crisis. A White House spokesperson would
stand in front of the White House. The President of
the United States is asking for airtime on all three
(16:03):
major networks tonight to address the American people. And then
you tune in and find out. Now you get a
social media post, the bombing has begun, tell you all
about it, and just a bit ceasefire has been achieved.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I'll tell you all about it now.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Every step of the way, the Left has tried to
argue there's no ceasefire. Iron's denying it, Israel hasn't set
a peep, and then a few hours later Israel and
Iran acknowled's the ceasefire. There was some little extracurricular going
on as we were breaking them up, And the President
made it clear from the air on social media. First
(16:49):
of all, he dropped the F bomb and was mad
at both of them. I said stop. Then on social
media he posts, if you've got planes in the air,
return them to the base, and they did, and to
cease fire is in effect. And that didn't stop the Left. Oh,
they didn't stop anything. In fact, at the most maybe
one to two three months. And when I first heard that,
(17:10):
I was like, how could you possibly know? How could
anyone possibly know? And the only reason I do know
is that Iran has agreed to a ceasefire. That screams
you set us back far.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
We're in a checkmate.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Now. They're not going to go away, and they're going
to try to rebuild, and as long as they're in power,
they're going to seek to destroy Israel and America. So
you haven't completely solved anything, but just certainly removed the
clear in present danger. And a lot of others had
promised to do that for decades and never done it.
But I'm sitting here this morning on the air talking
to you because anybody can tell you what's happening, very
(17:54):
few can connect the dots and understand it. We do
that very well together, don't we. I'm watching the Pentagon
directly to us before the House and the Senate, because
you can't trust half the House in the Senate.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
And I think that's pretty extraordinary to acknowledge.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
We had a lot of I told you sos today
and we didn't want to say that, but James Carvel,
now this is the strategist behind a two term Clinton
presidency and the Clinton apparatus that was in existence up
until about maybe relevantly four years ago. It's no longer
very relevant. The socialist Democrats who are now expanding to
(18:35):
Islamists in the New York City mayor's race. They have
almost completed their sabotage of the Democrat Party. And I
have said it will not survive the decade. It's now
halfway through the decade. I think even you can figure
out it's not going to survive the decade. But Carvel saying, hey,
having a socialist, eh, he's an Islamist, but having a
(18:57):
socialist may earl primary victory like this, Ah, this could
potentially be very dangerous for the party. We said that yesterday.
This is not Trump's worst nightmare. It's first and foremost
business leaders and people trying to conduct business in New
York City's nightmare, and the people of New York City's nightmare.
I mean, you got an Islamis who wants to get
rid of all the police, replace them with social workers,
(19:21):
free childcare, free transportation. I don't even know what a
city grocery is, and I don't even know how they
think they can enforce rent controls in thirty dollars minimum wage.
What a disaster. We said that yesterday. Carvel's acknowledging it.
This nightmare is first the people of New York Cities
(19:42):
and the Democrat Party, not Donald Trump. New York Post headline,
this socialist victory over Cuomo, this well fuel the AOC
twenty twenty eight rumors is not a rumor. She's going
to run and she's going to be the leader. You'd
have to be U sleep in a cave to have
not figured out Bernie Sanders was the leader. He's passed
(20:08):
the torch to AOC. She passed her loudmouthed torch, agitator,
torch in the house torch to Jasmine Crockett. So Jasmine
Crockett is already the new AOC who prove that sounds
of the day, and AOC is the new Bernie, So
Bernie's gonna run for president. Bernie's AOC is going to
be the very early big leader. Now will the DNC
(20:31):
fix it again to keep a socialist from winning? They're
gonna try with Robbie Manuel and Wes Moore. But whether
they succeed or fail, either way, the party is now
fragmented in half. And at that point you're two fringe parties,
not one of a two party system.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
You're gone.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
The parasite will have killed the host in itself in
the process, which leads to this. Individuals are leaving a
party they no longer recognize. Now, remember earlier yesterday, I
think it was, we had the story Diller and Bloomberg.
These are the grass tops billionaires. They're pulling their money
(21:13):
from the DNC because they're ineffective and quite frankly, they're
not serious. This party is no longer worthy of their money.
That's the problem heading into a midterm, especially when you
got Hag and others the Socialist Democrats targeting healthy Otherwise
wouldn't have even been paid attention to races. Now the
DNC has got a fight to keep their candidate against
(21:36):
the socialist Democrat candidates because that's the game they play
and they're winning it. So you've got funding problems, you
got race expansion. Oh, by the way, you have people
leaving your party. The share of registered voters unaffiliated but
either major party has grown nearly nine percentage points since
(21:59):
two thousand. In twenty five years, it's a ten point swing.
That's equal to the abortion swing. You better figure out
where they went so you can see whose advantage it
is the number of registered. By the way, this goes
along with when we have conversations about people voting with
their feet, does it necessarily although it does to some
(22:25):
degree change the makeup of the state they're leaving, But
it changes the population of their state they're leaving, which
changes the amount of members of Congress they have, which
changes the amount of electoral votes the state has in
an electoral college. That's why the Justice Democrats want to
kill the electoral college. But you could make a case
(22:46):
to my prediction of gone by the end of the decade,
unable to win by the end of the decade because
so many people have left Illinois, California and New York
and the addition of electoral value to the states they
went to versus what they've lost and upsets the balance.
I can give you an electoral college checkmate for the
(23:08):
Democrat Party, but here is a popular vote potential checkmate.
The share of registered voters unaffiliated with either party has
grown nearly nine percent. The number of registered independents and
third party members is growing as voters are breaking from
the two party system. What I've been praying for, what
our founding fathers never intended, is both the two party
(23:29):
system to be gone. I'm not a Democrat or a
Republican and this shirts and skins game of power for them,
wealth for them, and silencing and enslavery for us. Yeah,
they can both die as far as I'm concerned. I
just think one's going to die first. As of twenty
twenty five, thirty two percent of registered voters across the
(23:49):
dozens of states and territories with reported data chose not
to affiliate with either the Democrat or the Republican party.
That's up from twenty three percent of the year two
thousand and The trend is also reflected in broader national
exit polls. In twenty twenty four election polls, it showed
that for the first time, self identified independent outnumbered Democrats
(24:13):
and were equal with Republicans. Marianne Marsh, a political analyst
in Massachusetts, said independent and third party registrations are growing
in number in high numbers because of the dissatisfaction with
these major parties. The share of registered voters unaffiliated with
(24:36):
either major party has grown nearly nine percentage points since
two thousand. The analysis shows that the increase in share
of independence has come at the cost of the Democrat Party,
at the cost of leaks, rooting against our own pilot
(25:00):
and our own country like we've had this week because
of CNN, MSNBC, ABCNBCCBS, the death of journalism that's been
revealed through podcasting and social media, because of a party
that is now led by socialists in the case of
(25:22):
New York City, apparently even Islamists. This is a party
leaving its platform and leaving its people. I could show
you by the electoral college, I could show you by
the popular vote. This all points to the ending of
(25:44):
the party, or, as a rooster would probably say, simply.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
This is your morning show with Michael del Trono.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
The suspect in the firebombing of Pro Israel marchers and
ralliers in Boulder, Colorado. He has been indicted. Here's the latest.
Speaker 5 (26:06):
A federal grand jury came back with twelve hate crime
counts against Mohammed Solomon, up from the one he was
already charged with. He's also facing state charges including attempted murder.
Prosecutors alleged that he had plotted his attack earlier this
month for over a year and wanted to kill his victims.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
I'm Brian Shook.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Closing arguments kick off today in the Sean did He
Coombe sex trial in New York after the prosecution announced
it's dropping.
Speaker 6 (26:33):
Some charges include charges of attempted kidnapping and attempted arson.
That means prosecutors are no longer pursuing arguments that did
he had something to do with the Molotov cocktail that
set rapper Kid Cutty' his car on fire? And what
happened to his former assistant, Capricorn Clark? Did he still
face his charges including racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking Both
(26:53):
sides arguments will likely take around four hours.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Did He's lawyers are.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Expected to argue that anything that happened his private life
and that he did not run a criminal enterprise, while
the prosecution is expected to argue that Diddy knew his
actions were illegal.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Kristen Marks, NBC News Radio.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Jada Turner's getting a statue in her hometown in Tennessee,
the city of Brownsville and the Ford Motor Company of
Announceler Company is going to contribute one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. Well, that was abrupt anyway. She gets the
(27:31):
statue and it's right near her old school. I don't
know what happened there. I think it's something I did. Meanwhile,
fewer than half of Americans have a rainy day fund.
I should know my hot water heater pro I just
took a very expensive shower yesterday. The housing market is
at risk of sustaining downturn. Gen Zers are stopping buying things.
Add this all together. These are the fault lines in
(27:52):
a very fragile economy. And Roy O'Neil is here with
how people are reacting to these economic challenges. Good morning, Rory,
and I hope you don't cut off.
Speaker 7 (28:00):
Yeah right, Well, look, fewer than half of Americans, as
he said, have enough cash set aside for three months
of the regular cost of running a household. The idea
is they recommend you have six months set aside, but
bank Rate says half only have less than three months.
But on the plus side, fewer Americans have more credit
card debt now than emergency savings, so that pendulum seems
(28:23):
to be swinging back in the right direction. Another interesting
report that finds gen zers may be struggling a bit
right now. In store and online purchases by those eighteen
to twenty four fell thirteen percent.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Year over year.
Speaker 7 (28:37):
A lot of them coming out of college finding difficult
job markets right now.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
That's forcing them to pull back on their spending.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
You know, whenever we talk about rainy day fund, my
mind just starts spinning because I saw the tough times
we went through COVID post COVID, and I don't think
people had that rainy day fund, and the rainy day
fund couldn't have lasted that long anyway, because it went
beyond six months. What they were really using was their retirement.
So I get this sense that rory that not only
(29:04):
is the rainy Day fund depleted, but probably a lot
of their retirement, which is even worse news for the future.
Something tells me these numbers are even worse. I think
we're all loving.
Speaker 7 (29:15):
Yeah, thankfully, we've seen a strong recovery from the markets
after our four oh one case took a hit after
the tariff announcement, so that if you used.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Your four oh one K, you didn't get a return
because it wasn't in there.
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Anymore, right, So that was well right, And then you know,
it's interesting too, they say that more than a third
of Americans have actually tapped into that emergency savings in
the past year. So a lot of busted hot water
heaters out there apparently, and you know, look that that's
life for you.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
But that's why you're supposed to have some set aside.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Well, Dave Brant. And by the way, I don't know.
The other thing is are we honest about what we
set aside? I mean, I don't think the average American
it's kind of like a gambler that remembers, you know,
accurately the wins and then doesn't quite add up the
losses accurately. So I mean, what we think it takes
to really be able to sustain our household for six months?
I wonder how good we are at estimating that let alone.
(30:06):
Obviously some of us fail to do that. I mean
that money has to be put aside before any money
is spent, before any car decision is made, any home
decision is made, any vacation decision is made, And we
just got to make sure that that ten percent in
my case, goes to a tide. Then that blank until
the sixth month is honestly fulfilled and then you know
(30:28):
the twenty percent for retirement and then you start living
after that.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And that's hard every time.
Speaker 7 (30:33):
By the way, I mean, I don't I hope this
isn't insulting, because I don't mean it to be. But
every time I hear someone say tithe, I hear Reverend
Lovejoy from The Simpsons saying that often often the net top.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
People, not the net.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Yeah, I just do it because it is proven that
when I keep you know, I can't outspend gods what
have But yeah, but I mean, what but you add
all that up, Rory, it's like forty percent. Nobody does
that because taxes and everything and insurance is all forty
doesn't leave enough to live.
Speaker 7 (31:03):
We're supposed to say for college, I'm supposed to be
saving money to replace the roof, you know, after twenty years,
and you know, yeah, where does it go well?
Speaker 1 (31:12):
The answer is we're a lot safer with Iran not
having a weapon of mass destruction. How long that will last?
The economy still fragile, is gonna take more than a big,
beautiful bill. I think that'll do it for today, great
reporting where we'll see everybody tomorrow morning at five.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
We're all in this together. This is your Morning Show
with Michael hild Joe Now
Popular Podcasts
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
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.