July 16, 2025 • 48 mins
🔥 In This Episode:
✅ Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller’s Dangerous ICE Warning Policy
We kick things off with a fiery takedown of Mayor Tim Keller’s decision to tell Albuquerque police to warn citizens when ICE is conducting immigration operations.
Mark and Krysty break down:
- Why this is borderline obstruction of justice
- How it creates a permission structure for violence against ICE agents
- Why Keller’s reckless political play is dangerous for public safety
✅ LAPD Smacks Down a City Councilwoman — And It’s Glorious
In Los Angeles, a city councilwoman asked the LAPD to do the same thing — warn citizens about ICE.
Let’s just say the LAPD educates her on how the law actually works… and you’re going to want to hear this exchange.
✅ Trump vs. Jerome Powell — What’s Really Going On?
Why is Trump so determined to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell?
We break down:
- The economic pressures behind Trump’s push
- What it could mean for interest rates, inflation, and your wallet
- Why this fight could shake up the coming midterm elections
âś… The Surprising Secret to True Happiness
Krysty wraps up the show with a fascinating new study on what leads to lasting happiness — and guess what?
It’s not money, fame, or success. It’s family.
We break down why we probably knew this all along, but it matters more today than ever.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
All right, we're back with.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Yours truly.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Our esteemed leader.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Is that what it is?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Esteemed leader.
No, no, no, you guys did agreat job in my absence.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Well, other than ripping, we were ripping India a
little bit.
When you're not here, you getripped.
That's how it goes.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah, I am.
I mean for our listeners.
I'm in colorado taking care ofmy mother who has dementia and
is in memory care.
I tune in to listen to you guysand all three of you ladies I
mean two ladies and a gentlemanhere yeah ripping into me yeah,
yeah, well, look, I mean like Idon't prep for the show.
That's the biggest insult I waslike if you guys think I can
(00:46):
cold read anything, that's agood point I mean give me credit
if you think?
I'm cold reading.
I'm doing a dang good job it's.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
It's a fair, it's a.
It's a good point.
I do apologize for how nastyyour daughter's got.
Uh, I tried to keep them inline, but you know how they are.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Oh yeah, yeah, they don't.
They didn't feel free.
Along with your encouragement,your enthusiasm, I think we're.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
You know this is a.
This is a tough environmenthere.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
You know what I mean.
Is that what it is?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It is.
It's dog, eat dog, and so ifyou're not here, you're getting
shredded.
That's how it goes, and andwhile while we appreciate you
caring for your mom and what youdid, is is great.
What your sister's doing, whatmy sister's doing is better is
great um, is incredibly kind andcaring and, and, I think, godly
um, but in in the thunderdomehere, I mean you gotta, you
(01:30):
gotta, you gotta take care ofbusiness, and if you're not here
I'm sorry, but it's.
I don't know what's gonna godown, it just happens that's
right.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Well, no, the girls did a great job.
Um, we got lots of comments.
We're gonna read a few of those, um, in just a few minutes.
But, yeah, I know I think youguys did a great job and I I
mean I may need to find a newgig.
Those in just a few minutes.
But yeah, I know I think youguys did a great job and I mean
I may need to find a new gig.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
We may just have the girls now just do the show.
We're evaluating your positionon the show.
Thank you, we're seeing howthat goes.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I love that this was my show to start with and that I
invited you to join me.
Oh really yes, it is true ohplease.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
It was your brilliant idea to host a podcast.
Yes, that's a very unique move,very unique move.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
During your governor's race, I wanted us to
do a podcast and I wanted you tojoin me on it, and then you
were like, no, I'm busy, thatsounds like a great idea me
popping off while running, whilethey're listening to every
little thing and they're justgoing to clip it and turn it
into something else, try tomorph it into something else.
Oh gosh, yes, something else.
Oh please, we'll do whatever,but anyways, no.
So I just.
I do want a little credit forthe fact that this was my idea.
I said you'd be brilliant at it.
(02:27):
It turns out we're doing prettysolid.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
You are.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Yeah, it's true we are, but I love that now you've
invited me and now you're goingto review me it's like I'm the
ceo of the company and we'relike we're going to have a
review and see who you need tokeep you on or if we're going to
ask you to step down from yourrole.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
How many CEOs have been bouncedwhen the board decides it's not
happening, it's not working?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
anymore.
Wait a minute, you're the board.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Look, ava, ella and I are the board of directors and
again we appreciate the workyou're doing.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm just not sure where thefuture is going.
We'll see and again you'regoing to have a great chance to
show your leadership and showyour ability moving forward.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Wow, thank you, god bless you Well, god bless you,
sir.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
So just let's just see what happens.
Okay.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Okay, Get to the show .
Guys Tell people what we'regoing to look at.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah, we're going to.
We got all kinds of stuff goingon.
A little bit of mail to startthings off.
Interesting issue betweensanctuary cities and the law
enforcement community that istasked with protecting them.
And we have a story of a citycounselor in Los Angeles who
wants to go to the LAPD and saywe need you to rat out ice to
tell us when they're coming andwe'll tell you what the LAPD
response was.
(03:32):
And there's not as the sameissue, but something along those
lines happening in Albuquerque,which we'll we'll get to in a
bit as well.
Then we're going to take a deepdive on the economy a little bit
, because everybody is talkingabout or at least Trump is
talking about getting rid ofJerome Powell as the head of the
Fed.
And this is not an economicshow, but there are some basic
things we started to payattention to, and part of what
(03:54):
we do, other than this show is,is real estate, and especially
in mountain communities.
Well, we're starting to see thereal estate market soften a bit
.
As this is happening.
You're seeing Trump more andmore say to Powell you got to
cut interest rates.
This is, you know, look out.
And so we're going to start totalk a little bit about that as
well, and it's a big deep diveon what's happening with that,
(04:15):
some of the numbers that youshould care about because of the
economy, and then we're goingto get into a little bit of
election stuff and then finally,you have a study that you want
to talk about from Harvard, butI think it was really, really
interesting.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Yeah, it was, it wasn't.
It's a.
I think it was an 85 year oldstudy, if I remember right, and
just going on for 85 years.
Yeah, 85 years, and it's talksabout what really is the
benchmark for real happiness andpeople, and I thought it was so
fascinating I wanted to shareit with our listeners today, so
I clipped some of that to talkabout a little bit All right,
lead it with some mail.
Let's start with some mail.
(04:47):
This one gets my favorite ofthe whole time.
Okay, Okay, I was like geez,Louise, people.
Tracy Scott wrote in Okay,Tracy says I appreciate Ava
reading the copy before the show.
It drives me crazy when Christymispronounces or fumbles over
names.
Please correct nuclear, by theway, Just going to say it like
(05:08):
that because that's the way Isay it.
Pronunciation Otherwise, I loveyou guys and listen to every
show.
Okay, listen, Tracy.
If it drives you crazy that Ifumble over words and I
mispronounce names, well thenjust consider yourself lucky,
because I'm sure you have like alaundry list Mark of the things
that drive you crazy that I do.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah, then just consider yourself lucky Cause
I'm sure you have like a laundrylist Mark of the things that
drive you crazy that I do.
Yeah, let's start.
We could try, we could do that.
Yeah, let's start with theletter a.
So no, come on, I mean, it'sjust Tracy.
I understand your point, butI'll tell you this much reading
clips off the cuff.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I'm off the cuff.
I don't mean that I'm sorry, Idon't read things off the cuff.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I just mean reading clips in front of people is is
tricky because there's a ton ofthem.
I have you read a lot of stuffand there's no way you're
memorizing it and your?
Your eyesight is not the bestand you're looking at it off on
iPad.
So you do deserve some grace onall this.
We were just joking around itand, by the way, eva said at the
time that I'm going to readthings smoother than mom.
(06:03):
Then she just went and ate itand started chewing.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
You did, I did not.
I made one small mistake.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yes, well, and I know how to say nuclear.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
So I think those are important things to consider.
Listen, I do.
I appreciate it, tracy.
Keep in mind I have had corneasurgery I am almost blind
legally, by the way, and I havecontacts then but they're the
best I can get.
So I'm doing the best I can.
Tracy, I'm so sorry if thatdrives you crazy, but I guess
you have to take a number afterMark, because there's a lot of
things I do.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
There are a lot of things, Tracy.
If you want a list of the truethings Christy does wrong, let
me know and I'll shoot you alist.
Reading the clips doesn'thappen to be one of them.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
All right, john Beverly says great show.
Ava and Ella both did great andI enjoyed seeing them.
Such awesome young ladies withgreat intelligence and insight
into the things going on in ourcountry.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Oh very nice.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
This was very thoughtful, I thought.
Vicky Blather says I enjoyhaving your daughters be part of
your show today.
They were delightful.
Debbie, we call her Producer.
Debbie, from Minnesota, said Ijust finished watching the girls
on the podcast.
They need to do one a monthwatching the girls on the
podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
They need to do one a month.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I loved it.
Easy Debbie Once a month.
Are we going to sign a contractmaybe?
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, all of a sudden we're going to start having a
union walkout and things likethat.
Let's calm down, we might go onstrike, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
And then, okay, this one.
So, girls, you did a great job,though I did listen and I
really appreciate it, that we'rereally thoughtful towards our
family and our daughters, and Ijust want to say, as her mom,
thank you so much for sayingthose things.
Okay, now this one is Boldenthe at, I think.
I think that's Bolden that Idon't know.
I never this is to you, mark Inever appreciated your
(07:35):
unwavering support of Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
There's some that would disagree with that
assessment.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
I know, I know, but still, I have been watching your
videos recently and feel weseem to be aligning on some
issues.
I was a Democrat, but now Ifind myself more in the middle
rather than left or right.
I agree with you on this issue.
I I get it, but but go issue byissue.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
And the only point we made on last week's show is
when a leader of a party thatyou don't happen to be involved
in, or the party that you quotedon't like, or whatever, when
(08:14):
they do the right thing, stoptrying to make it the wrong
thing and stop trying to jump onthe other side of that issue,
support that person, and thenyou you, I'm sure you can get
back to fighting at some otherpoint.
I'm sure there's gonna beplenty of other things
politically to be able to fightabout, but when people do the
right things, support them,right, you know, I mean, and
that's it.
That's all we were saying aboutthat.
Okay, so here we go.
Let's get to this.
(08:35):
First of all, this is a storyyou pulled on what's going on
with ice in Albuquerque and whatthe mayor is trying to pull off
here, and this is diceyterritory and I'll get into why
after you break down what'sgoing on.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Right.
So there's a headline.
Mayoral candidates spar overKeller's plan to alert public to
ICE action.
So here's a few of the details.
A social media statement postedby Mayor Tim Keller announcing
his intention to keep the publicbetter informed about federal
immigration enforcement actionsprompted an angry reaction
Monday from his mayoral opponentwho called the practice quote
dangerous.
Keller announced Friday thatthe public can call the
(09:10):
Albuquerque Police Department toquote verify if federal
immigration agents are operatingin our city.
Here's a few more details onthat.
Apd followed up theannouncement by issuing a
statement saying the federalofficials have agreed to share
more information with policeabout immigration operations in
the city.
Now Darren White, who's runningfor mayor and who we've had on
(09:31):
the show before, this is what hehad to say about this
particular thing.
He said responded by asking theUS attorney for the District of
New Mexico, ryan Ellison, toinvestigate whether the city's
initiatives violate federal law.
Disclosing information about USimmigration and customs
enforcement operations couldendanger federal agents and the
(09:52):
public, white contends.
He says in a quote I'm veryconcerned about the police
department establishing sometype of tip line for people to
call to verify whether ICE isworking in certain neighborhoods
, white said Monday in aninterview Now.
Keller's statement said thatAPD is taking steps to quote
(10:12):
bring more clarity aroundimmigration enforcement.
That's why we've created a newway to verify if federal
immigration agents are operatingin our city.
The post said, quote you cannow call APD.
Apd issued a statement Mondayclarifying that the public can
call 242 COPS, which is APD'snon-emergency number, to quote
inquire about a specificpresence in the city and whether
that is an ICE operation.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Okay, here's the problem with this, and what
you're seeing is, increasingly,ice agents are coming under
attack and you're going to seemore and more problems.
Some people have been shot andkilled because they're attacking
ICE agents.
This has now been normalized.
Parts of the left are sayingwe're going to do everything we
can to try to stop ICE.
This is going to lead to peopledying Like.
(10:56):
It is not a.
It's a terrible idea, andKeller's trying to wrap it in
softer language.
But what he's hoping toaccomplish out of this, it seems
, is to be able to try to walkthis line of being able to say
yeah, I'm on your side, we'regoing to try to stop ICE from
doing what they're doing.
But he knows he can't say thatbecause, literally, that's
(11:17):
obstruction of justice.
He could go to jail for it, forit.
And beyond that, this thoughtprocess that you can try to
stand in the way of federal lawenforcement because you don't
like it as a local official islunacy and it is leading to an
erosion of leadership and it'sleading to an erosion of
authority by people who areelected to lead us.
(11:38):
It makes zero sense and it'sdangerous.
And Keller, by doing this,again smart enough to try to
walk this line.
So he's not.
We're going to show you anexample of not walking the line,
of being just completelybonkers crazy.
But this is craziness.
This, this whole approach oftrying to say, hey, we're going
to step in and try to stopfederal law enforcement, it's a
(11:59):
dangerous thing to do, it's apermission structure for
violence.
That's what it is.
What you're creating here is apermission structure to people
who are mentally unstable thatsay, oh well, I can start to
take action against ICE, I cando it.
They take things from whetherKeller has said it or not or
whether other leaders who havesaid it or not, but they give
(12:20):
this tacit permission structurethat you can go out and attack
federal law enforcement.
You can't, and you're going toput other people in danger.
And the more often that youdecide to make it more difficult
for ICE, the more they aregoing to go into these
communities to get the peoplethat are dangerous out of there.
And when they go in thesecommunities to get those
dangerous people, if there areother people that are here
(12:40):
illegally, they end up going too.
That's something Keller neverwants to address, because if
Keller stepped up and said letus help you get into our jails
and get the people out of herethat are here illegally and that
have committed violent crimesget into our jails.
Let's work together.
That way.
They're not going intoneighborhoods, but they are now,
and so Keller is partly tryingto walk this line, which I think
(13:03):
is a very dangerous line.
It's a terrible mistake.
I think it's going to hurt himlong term, but when you start to
see this sort of thing, it'scraziness.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, and I guess I don't understand, like, isn't
the federal funding getting cut?
I mean, the more he's not, he'snot willing to help and
participate and just basicallylike dying on this sanctuary
hill city policy.
Like doesn't?
I've heard that that's going tobe some sort of retraction back
on funding.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
I have no idea, yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
It's going to be interesting to see, like how
that actually shapes, shapes up,and what Tom Homan has to say
about, hey, the fact I'm goingto start letting the public know
and you can call in with yourfresh tips, I mean it's like,
yeah, it's, it's, it's wild.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
And so I pulled an example of what you know, this
art.
So Darren hits back, which Ithink if Darren Darren's well
positioned to make this point,because obviously he's been in
law enforcement his whole adultlife Tim Keller has presided
over the largest explosion ofcrime in the city's history.
So you know you've got two verydifferent candidates here, okay
, and what Darren is saying inhis criticism here is that if
(14:03):
you start to create thisenvironment where people are
calling and saying, hey, is ICEin this neighborhood?
No, yeah, ice is in thatneighborhood.
All of a sudden, what happensthen?
What happens?
You are providing a structureto be able to say go get them.
Okay, guess what?
They have guns too.
And so when these things startto happen, it's a nightmare.
You're putting people in danger, innocent people that want
(14:26):
nothing to do with this.
You're putting people that areon the mental edge of their
faculties.
You're pushing them intosomething that could lead to
death.
It's not smart.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Well, I guess I don't understand why they would say
that they need that, thatthey're even allowing this, like
what's the benefit to thepublic?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
His broad language is like in our city Okay, that's
broad language.
We're talking neighborhoodshere.
We're talking to say, hey,there are four black SUVs in
this neighborhood.
What's going on?
Is APD going to give them thedetails?
Oh yeah, we got an ICE,enforcement and 346.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Yeah, that's what it said, Conroe Lane.
Actually that's what Medinasaid further in the story that I
didn't clip to put in here, butMedina did.
They said yes, absolutely, I'mgoing to, I'll call into people,
we'll call in, we'll find outwhat's going on and we'll let
dispatch know so they can tellpeople that call in what's
actually happening.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, all of it seems crazy.
It's completely and totallyirresponsible and weird that
Medina's in the middle ofsomething totally irresponsible,
a guy who's completelyincompetent, right, and so in
Keller at the same way.
This is the sort of thing thatthat you know you keep doing
this stuff and again these guyscan keep walking down this road
because they think it helps them.
It doesn't.
They're eroding support slowlyover time, as a party over this,
(15:34):
because again you can say oh,where, where, where are the
numbers on immigration andeverything else?
That's not the point.
The point is, when you'recreating an environment of chaos
, you, with nothing in returnremember, keller has no vision
of where to go.
Keller has no plan to say we'regoing to reduce crime, we're
going to make this city safer,cleaner, we're going to reduce
(15:56):
the homeless population, we'regoing to get people to help.
He hasn't done any of that.
So, again, this is a nightmare,and so what it's going to lead
to is what you're about to see.
This is the Los Angeles CityCouncil meeting, and I want you
to listen to Imelda Padilla sheis one of the LA City Council
women and listen to what sheasked LAPD for.
(16:17):
I mean, this is ludicrous.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
I'm asking a creativity question here.
What can your department do todo more to warn us, to warn the
business community that outsideof our LA borders, coming in
from Inglewood, coming in from Idon't know Valley, I don't know
, you can warn us so that we canwarn our folks, in the spirit
of your loyalty to the city ofLos Angeles?
Speaker 8 (16:45):
in the spirit of your loyalty to the city of Los
Angeles.
So you're asking me to warn youabout an enforcement action
being taken by another agencybefore it happens.
Yeah, yeah, we can't do that.
Why not?
That would be obstruction ofjustice.
You may want to talk to thecity attorney about that.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Where is the city attorney?
Aren't they here?
I see her officers.
Where is she?
Speaker 5 (17:05):
We'll hear from the city attorney.
After we hear from LAPD, we canrevisit it then.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Okay, yeah, because I mean they're en route, we know
they're coming.
We know they're coming to bringdisruption.
There's no way that we can know.
Speaker 8 (17:22):
I can't.
I don't know how to evenrespond to that.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Wasn't she just here?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Who her?
Who took the city hits?
Where'd she?
Speaker 5 (17:29):
go, we'll come back.
She had to attend to some otherbusiness, but we can come back.
We'll give you the opportunityto ask her I need to know.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Yeah, we don't do that.
We, we we're not gonna, we'renot gonna broadcast.
For, like the fbi is lookingfor a terrorist suspect, say
right, are we gonna tell youknow, hey, the fbi is coming
looking for a terrorist suspect?
Say, right, are we going totell, hey, the FBI is coming
looking for you?
Speaker 1 (17:49):
There's a difference between someone's coming because
they're going to go get.
Speaker 8 (17:53):
I'm using that as an example, but no, we're not
allowed to do that.
That would be completelyinappropriate and illegal.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Very similar.
I'm sorry but that's verysimilar to what's happening in
albuquerque in the, in thelanguage that they're using.
I mean, honestly, there aregoing to be at some point
somebody's going to get arrestedover this.
I just hope no one gets hurt.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
I was gonna say because it's completely
irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Yeah, because you have a very look I we have a
great deal of respect for apd.
They do incredible work, okay.
But harold medina, in sayingwhat he's saying on this, it's
foolish and it's dangerous andit's not wise.
And obviously the mayor and thestuff he does, this stuff is
stupid.
I mean, stop doing this stuff.
You don't get in the way ofwhat federal law enforcement is
(18:35):
doing.
But just make no mistake.
You know, the only differencebetween what's happening in LA
and what the story is that wasin the journal is the language
is a little softer here.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
It's a little softer.
I mean it's really not.
I mean she's.
You basically have a citycouncilman saying, hey, let let
us know, you know you got towarn us so we can warn our
people about ice agents comingin.
Okay, and he's saying, no,that's a destruction of justice.
How is this any different?
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Like she pretend it depends on what he does.
It depends on what he does andwhat.
What APD says.
Well, it depends on how APDhandles it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Maybe we're going to make a secret call then and
we're going to be like, hey, canyou tell us?
Yeah Well, I don't know what'sgoing on in this neighborhood
right now and see what they say.
I mean it's ridiculous, rightit is.
They actually say that.
I mean I, holy cow.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I know I just this is , and again I say this, I don't
know if I say it every week onthe show, but this has nothing
to do with your political party.
I mean you, this one.
This is inviting chaos andviolence.
It is, it is, and these are,these are people that have no
business running either a cityor a police department.
Stepping in and putting othernew Mexicans in danger.
(19:43):
It just makes zero sense.
You don't get to obstruct lawenforcement.
You don't get to do that, andso I hope this does not happen.
I hope the Medina is wiser thanthis, I hope that the mayor is
wiser than this, but I thinkDarren White is right to go
after him.
I think it's time we have anadult step in and try to protect
the people of this city and ofthis state, and for too long
(20:03):
you've had people that haveeither been soft on these issues
or work against public safety,and the result is exploding
violence.
We are the most violent statein the country, and it's not by
accident.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Right.
It's just we got to wake up andwe got to.
We got to vote differently.
So I hope people are evenpaying attention to that and
knowing what's going on.
I mean, you know, like that'sour hope is.
I mean you know, like that'sour hope.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Well, we'll find out.
This is a big mayor's election.
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You got seven choices for mayor or something like
that oh yeah, I think there'seight.
I think there's eight right now, I think I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Whatever it is, the lot is right, yeah.
Okay, I want to take a deepdive.
Okay, and this is a deep diveissue to most of us, right, and
(20:51):
I want to go through somethinghere.
So the details on this kind ofinteresting.
So today, wednesday, presidentTrump came out and told GOP
lawmakers that he is likely totry to fire federal Fed chair
Jerome Powell.
Okay, now that's a littletricky, because he can't just
fire Jerome Powell because he'snot cutting interest rates.
He has to fire him for cause.
He cannot just be like you'renot cutting rates, you, he has
to fire him for cause.
He cannot just be like you'renot cutting rates, you're fired.
You can't do that.
Jerome Powell has a term, afour-year term that he serves
(21:11):
and that turns up, I think, inanother year or so, okay, so a
couple of details here.
It says President Trump told GOPlawmakers that he will likely
fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
Two sources briefed on thematter told the New York Post.
Sources confirmed an earlierreport by Bloomberg News, citing
sources familiar with thematter, which said Trump
discussed the plan with GOPlawmakers in Congress on Tuesday
.
An administration insider closeto the commander in chief,
(21:35):
speaking on the condition ofanonymity, confirmed the nature
of those talks to the Post.
They expressed approval forfiring him.
The president indicated helikely will soon.
So here's one other thing itsays.
It also comes after what onesenior administration official
branded a deceptive testimony tothe Senate Banking Committee on
June 24th about June 25thrather about the central bank's
(21:59):
$2.5 billion Palace ofVersailles revamp of its DC
headquarters.
Ok, that matters for a reason.
Okay, that quote, right therematters.
And the reason it matters isbecause what they're going to do
is go after Jerome Powell onthe issue of the revamp of the
fed building.
Right, so they're going to sayhe's basically incompetent in
this and is a basically $900million over budget.
(22:21):
Okay, so that's why they'regoing after him on this, not
because that's what they'regoing to try to use to bounce
him right.
So here's what trump is reallymad about, and I think it is
that you've had interest ratesthat have been seven, eight,
nine percent right, depending onwhat you're getting the money
for over the past couple ofyears, ever since remember,
biden spent all the money.
The economy overheated right itwas.
(22:43):
He was told don't do it.
He did it anyway.
Inflation soared, so the fedhad to raise interest rates.
It's a common thing that you doto bring back down inflation.
Okay, it worked.
Inflation comes back down again.
Okay, and then now trump comesin and says we're going to have
tariffs and things of thatnature, try to bring in some
additional money.
And then the fed says well,that could raise inflation fears
(23:05):
again, so we're going to leaverates high.
Trump's like it's not going toincrease inflation, stop it,
bring rates down.
So they go back and forth.
So over this time now we'regetting to the point where it's
tough as a business to getrelatively affordable money.
It's tough when you're tryingto get a house and you're paying
far more than you would haveeven a couple of years ago.
So I pulled some numbers on themarket here in the US housing
(23:28):
supply.
Let's start with the supplynumbers here.
Abe, let's go in just a littlebit here, tighter on those
numbers if you can.
And sorry, to the other side,to the left side, and you can
see there we go.
Perfect, okay, number of homesfor sale is up 12%.
Okay, we've got 2 million homesfor sale in the country.
That's up.
Okay, newly listed homes isslightly down.
(23:48):
But keep on going Ave, keepgoing down here.
There you go.
Median days on market going up.
That is a telltale sign thatthe it's softening.
So total number of houses is up, their duration on the market
is up and the month supply isabout a three month supply.
So let's go back to the demand.
What's going on with demand inhousing versus the supply?
So we move on to the demandchart here, and that demand
(24:10):
chart's interesting as well.
It's got some interesting dataon it.
Number one, if you look hereokay, homes sold above their
list price.
So let's go to that number onthe left and that's down 4%.
Okay, so those numbers arestarting to come down, ok.
And then homes with price drops, in other words, homes where
they had to drop the price tosell it, ok, that is up four and
(24:34):
a half points.
Ok, and then, and then sale tolist price and that's down
slightly.
So again, these numbers showyou, ok, things are starting to
soften a little bit.
What about in Albuquerque?
So in Albuquerque is kind of akey zone that we look at for
home sales here.
Ok, a couple of differentthings are happening.
Sale price is still going up,okay, which is interesting here
(24:56):
in the Albuquerque area.
Okay, median sale price isslightly going up, and things of
that nature.
However, what I want you tolook down at is new listings and
days on the market.
Okay, that first section, thebottom two numbers 2024,.
We had about 1400 new400 newlistings.
2025, 1,637.
So we're starting to see morehouses come on the market and
(25:18):
the days on market are startingto increase right.
So you're seeing those numbersstart to increase here, and so I
think what you start to noticein all of this is with a
softening real estate market andthe ability to get a hold of
money.
So I want to go to businessesnow, okay.
So here's a little chart onbusinesses here.
What's something we're in themiddle of is, you know, getting
(25:41):
lines of credit here for workthat we're doing, right, and
it's tough to do.
It's, it's not an easy thing todo.
Here's a look at the rates.
Okay, and look how long now.
Remember we go back to 2020,2021, we were 3%, three and a
half percent, right, and then,of course, those rates had to
skyrocket to deal with anincompetent handling of the U S
(26:01):
economy, right.
And so now what you see isthose, those numbers that have
remained really pretty high overtime.
So borrowing costs forbusinesses are still really high
.
Why does that matter?
Because if you're going to relyon growth to build the economy,
which is what Trump is doing,it's going to rely on people
putting money into the economy.
You can't have interest ratesat eight, eight and a half
(26:22):
percent for businesses.
So he's saying so he's lookingat Powell, going come on, let's
go cut rates and Powell's likewell, wait a minute, I don't
want this to skyrocket inflation, you know.
And so that's the tug of warback and forth in all of this
and why it's happening.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Couldn't he like cut it just a little bit to see how
it goes?
Speaker 2 (26:39):
well, no, and that's one of his arguments, that you
cut it a half point or whatever.
Coming up here, I they, I thinkhe probably will in September.
Okay, that's, I think the nextFed meeting, I think, is in
September.
But yeah, and Trump is sayingthis thing should be cut two or
three points.
Right, that's what Trump wantsto see, because then you would
see money flood into the economy.
Right, you would then see, youwould see very, very robust, you
know, investment in the USeconomy.
(27:00):
However, could that lead to, youknow, an explosion in inflation
?
Inflation, again, I don't know,we're not economists, I don't
know.
I'm just trying to give yousome basis on why I think Trump
is pushing so hard for, hey, cutsome rates here.
Because you don't cut rates,you're just keeping things
artificially high, you'rekeeping people on the sidelines,
you're making borrowing moneytoo expensive, you can't move.
I mean, we've talked aboutmoving and stuff like that.
(27:20):
We've talked about, you know,you know getting a different
house, moving to a differentspot, and we don't do it because
right now, rates are seven anda half percent.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Yeah, it's crazy.
It's crazy high.
You can't get as much house foryour money.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Right, and then we get back.
So one more thing on this, andthat is the tariffs and you talk
about my gosh, you know tariffs.
Are they going to lead toinflation?
They're not.
But something interesting ishappening with tariffs and that
is money that's coming into thefederal government.
For the first time in years, wehad a month where we were in
(27:53):
the black, and it is because oftariffs.
Look right here June 2025, theUS government made $26 billion
more than they sent out WhoaOkay, by the way.
June 2024, $71 billion in thered.
June 2023, 2024, 71 billion inthe red.
June 2023, 227 billion in thered, 88 billion in the red in 22
(28:15):
.
21, 174 billion in the red.
2020 was COVID, obviously.
Okay, that's a little different.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
You get a pass on that one 864 billion in the red.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay, the last time that we were in the black in a
month was 2019.
And it was because it was themonth of September.
It was a big tax collectionmonth, so that for one month we
did better, right, but then wentback into the red.
Okay, but this whole thoughtthat, oh my gosh, you know,
tariffs are going to destroy theeconomy.
Everything else not founded, atleast not right now.
(28:47):
So what's interesting is Istart looking up clips on this
and CNBC is talking about it allthe time.
It's really interesting.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
So here's what they said about the tariffs how much
we've been collecting inrevenues, and I did this in part
because Wilfred's here and hecan talk about the UK trade deal
.
But just this is the monthlynumbers, and they have gone up a
lot.
June is actually set foranother big increase of $27
billion.
That is money coming into UScoffers from tariffs.
(29:14):
We are collecting a lot ofrevenue.
So far, guys, $121 billion hasflowed into the US government
since the start of the fiscalyear.
It's still a tiny portion ofthe overall revenues that the US
government gets, but it'sincreasingly a lot.
Especially, we haven't seen itin terms of the consumer paying
off.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Meaning the consumer paying higher prices.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
We have not seen it, right?
Yeah, yeah, it hasn't trickleddown yet.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah, so so one of those.
So I just I think some of thisstuff's really interesting.
So when you hear about the fedthing, you know Trump trying to
be a dictator.
I don't think that's what'sgoing on.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Right.
Well, you even have the KenLangone.
He's the founder of Home Depot.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Langone yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Oh, Langone, Okay Again my mispronunciation.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Italian Langone.
I think it was fantastic.
He should go with Langone.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Well, I would go with Langone.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah, if I look at the same.
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
You Tracy out there?
Yeah, easy on the Tracy, she'sa regular listener.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I don't know if Tracy's a guy or girl actually
I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Oh no, it's a girl.
Okay Well, I don't actuallyknow, but anyway, okay.
Founder of Home Depot wasactually a Trump critic for a
while.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Yeah, he definitely had his doubts.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
And now he's thinking hey, hey, hey, this might
actually be working.
Let's give Trump you know alittle bit of credit here.
So let's take a listen to whathe had to say on CNBC.
Speaker 7 (30:30):
America.
80 years ago, when the war wasover, we made our mind up.
We're not going to be theconquering hero.
(30:54):
We're going to go in and helpthese countries rebuild
themselves.
And we did.
To our credit, we did Japanese,japan.
Look at what happened.
They're on their feet now.
There aren't many American carssold in Germany, but whatever's
sold in Germany, this is a 10%tar tariff.
Every other car in america is amercedes.
(31:15):
I got a mercedes, I got an audi, I I can name the all the cars
we drive.
Most of them are foreign.
Now they sell a hell of a lotmore cars here than we do there.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Two and a half percent tariff, that's wrong
interesting, right, yeah, and sothat's what I don't hear myself
, ava, am I okay, sorry, okay,thanks, av, I appreciate it.
Um, so, interesting point,which is what we've said before.
You know, we get a lot of snidecomments when we do this, we do
this angle, say, well, americancars aren't any good.
But yeah, they are, americancars are great and, and I'll
(31:48):
tell you, we make great cars,you know, you don't, don't show
me the value of a Chevy Tahoewith 50,000 miles on it versus
the value of an Audi Q7 with50,000 miles on it.
Go ahead, go, go, do thatnumber for me, cause the Audi Q7
is like BMW, right, I mean the,the, the value craters for a
(32:09):
reason.
So we make, we make good carsin this country, okay, and none
of them sell there.
So Langone's point is obviouslyTrump trying to even the
playing field here and I think,in general, just kind of an
understanding of what he'strying to do with the economy,
right, and again.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I mean we all love free trade, right?
Like when he comes out and says, oh, I, everybody love free
trade, but that's just not theway the world works and that's
not how they've been trading theU S government for years.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So I just think people of America forget the
government, I just sit here andgo.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Well, why would this not need to be evened out?
I guess I've just neverunderstood that.
I, you know, I I didn'tunderstand, until I just
listened to this clip, that itwas really based largely after
world war two and that we'retrying to help rebuild countries
.
I didn't know that part of itactually, so that's kind of
fascinating to me.
That ended a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
They're doing okay, they're hanging in.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
They seem to be doing okay now, so I think we need to
even things back up a littlebit.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
No, it's very fair, and so we'll see what happens
here.
I don't know if all thisstuff's going to work, I don't
know.
We never pretend to beeconomists on this show.
We do have people that aresmart in the economy
occasionally on to kind of setus straight.
But but I think I just we justwanted you to know, kind of
what's going?
On underneath all that.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Well now.
So we have midterms coming uphere pretty soon.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I mean not right away , but within a year.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
And really I just think that this message that you
know, we've been talking abouteverything from the, the mayoral
election in New York, whichthat's even going to have a
trickle down effect into thesemidterms, believe it or not and
even in all this, like if it's,if we oppose Trump strong enough
, that's all we got to do as ademocratic party, and I think
what we're seeing is that it'snot going to actually cut it
(33:42):
when it comes to midterms.
They're going to have to havesome more information or a
bigger platform or a biggerstrategy to to really come up in
those midterms, right, I think?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
that's kind of the latest that we're seeing.
Yeah, and some of these numbersare interesting.
So we may stop this cliphalfway through and comment on
it, but Harry Anton talked alittle bit about exactly what
you're saying.
So what happens in the midterms?
And where is the DemocraticParty, where is the Republican
Party on where things are?
Because when you have apresident, all the focus tends
to go on them.
What, what are their numbers?
What are they?
You know what's going on, butrealistically, if you look at
what lies underneath, that'swhat's more important.
(34:13):
Do people say to themselves, ok, I may not love everything
Trump is doing, however, do Ithink the Democrats will do a
better job, and so that's what'skind of interesting in all this
.
So let's listen to his numbers.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Bottom line is this Democrats are behind their 2006
and 2018 paces when it comes tothe generic congressional ballot
.
What are we talking about here?
All right, the Democrats versusthe Republicans on the generic
congressional ballot, themargins.
Look at where we are now.
Democrats are ahead, but byjust two points.
Look at where Democrats werealready ahead by in 2017.
They were behind by sevenpoints.
(34:46):
How about 2005 on the genericcongressional ballot, behind
excuse, points, ahead by sevenpoints, and now they're only
ahead by two points.
Their lead is less than half.
Less than half of where it wasin either 2017 or 2005 in July
of those years, the year beforethe midterm election.
Yes, donald Trump may beunpopular, but Democrats have
(35:07):
not come anywhere close tosealing the deal at this
particular point.
Wave looks, wave, wave looksvery different.
Yes, all right, this is thegeneric ballot test.
This is when you test people inthe generic question.
Of course, the House racesaren't generic.
There are 435 of them.
What happens when you go raceby race?
What happens when you go raceby race?
Well, it's the same idea Houseseat ratings with the GOP
(35:28):
president, like back in 2005,and, of course, 2017.
More net pick up seat chances?
Well, last time around.
Look at that.
Democrats were ahead by 33seats.
How about in 2005?
Democrats were ahead by 7 seats.
What's going on right now?
It's actually RepublicansActually Republicans with more
net pick up chances at plus 12,according to the Cook Political
Report, when you add in thelikelies, the leans and the
(35:49):
toss-up races.
So it's not just on the genericballot where Democrats are
behind their 2017 and 2005 pace.
It's actually when it comesseat by seat, you see that, at
least at this particular point,republicans actually have more
net pickup opportunities.
This doesn't look anything likeit.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Yeah, okay.
What's interesting about thatis and it's a well-known thing
in politics that Democrats needto have a five plus point
advantage on the generic ballotto win the house.
That's kind of roughly where ithas to be At least.
If it's below that, they'regoing to lose exactly what those
numbers show Republicanspicking up 12 seats here.
What's interesting is nowyou've got to remember, and
everybody kind of looks at theelection of 2024 and you realize
(36:29):
, for the first time in ourlifetimes there are more
Republicans in the country thanDemocrats.
Like that number has beenshifting for 15 years.
Democrats used to have an eight,10 point advantage in the
country.
Reagan, when Reagan ran, he was15 points below, republicans
were and Reagan ended up winning.
And then that number went, youknow, shrunk down because Reagan
(36:49):
kind of moved the country rightand Reagan ended up winning.
And then that number shrunkdown because Reagan kind of
moved the country right and thenDemocrats stretched out the
advantage again.
Ok.
And then now, for the firsttime in our lifetimes, and again
it makes sense because you havea party right now.
That doesn't have a message.
There is no message.
Opposing Trump is not a message, that's not a plan, and so they
have to come up with a plan andto be able to say, okay, we're
(37:09):
going to do X, y and Z.
So this whole thing of orangeman bad doesn't work anymore.
It just doesn't work.
Trump's been in political lifefor 15 years, you know.
And so now you look at it andyou can't do that.
So and then when you end up andyou just take some of these
other issues the immigrationissue, all these different
issues and you see that you havea party that doesn't have a
(37:30):
plan, that they're not.
These things aren't going tochange.
You're not going to see amassive.
Now I don't necessarily thinkrepublicans are going to pick up
12 seats, don't get me wrong.
But I don't think you're goingto see a wave election for
democrats right now.
Now if they can grab an issueor the economy tanks or
something like that, well, andthat changes everything, right,
right.
But if things kind of just movealong and economy solid and you
(37:51):
continue to kind of fight theseskirmishes about various little
issues, there's going to be aproblem here and I think you're
going to see kind of fight to adraw.
And when you're in apresidential midterm meaning the
midterm of your president fromyour party and you fight to a
draw.
That's a massive win.
Massive win, massive win.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
Well, it will be interesting because I think that
the thing that we've seen sofar from people that are going
to be running in our midtermshere on a state level right is
the argument that is, you know,all the cuts are so bad and
we're going to be.
You know, we're in dangerous,we're in precarious times and
you need to keep us in office tomake sure that things are going
to stay solid and we're goingto fix things, and you know,
that's kind of the message, thepoints that we hear from our
(38:29):
reps here in the state.
I just think, hmm, that's kindof what's going to be
interesting is what really, ofall those fear mongering
statements are actually going tocome to fruition.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Yeah, but the other thing that worries me though,
honestly, just as a gut levelthing.
Yeah, I'm worried that we don'thave a lot of there's not a lot
of candidates up for running onthe Republican side.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Yeah Right, I agree.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I'm not hearing.
I'll be honest with you.
I'm not hearing a lot of namesand I don't think it's great.
It concerns me a little bit.
I see some of the trepidation,I see some of the concern and I
think there's some really smartpeople on the Republican side
that realize we've got to.
There's some things that needto be done as far as registering
voters and doing things on theground that can help, because I
think there are people that sawhow close we got and people that
(39:16):
are uninformed, look and go ohokay, well, that's where I start
and I'll just keep gettingbetter.
Well, that's not how it works.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
Right.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
Right, and so we saw that in the last election.
Like you're not guaranteed tobe within five or six points,
you're not.
You've got to run a goodcampaign to get even that close
and then, if you can do someother things and they can work
out your way, you can win.
You can win in this state, youcan still win.
But there are people, I think,that are kind of going.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
I don't know Well, because the thing is is like,
just because things have shiftedon a national level, I think
what people still are a littlehesitant on that actually pay a
lot of attention to things inthis state is does that mean New
Mexico?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
But it has.
I mean we've gone over thosenumbers right?
The numbers are getting closerand closer, but is it?
Speaker 3 (39:53):
is it this election cycle, or is it?
Is it coming?
Speaker 2 (39:55):
later Could it be another one.
Speaker 3 (39:56):
Yeah, I know, I know it's very tricky, because it
just be you know, trump's stilllost here.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Yes, he lost by less than he did last time, but he's
still lost, and so uh, it's amatter of seeing like no, that's
a really good point, you know,I just believe me nobody knows
like we do.
Like there are no second placesin elections, I mean there's
just no question about that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Knowing how tight these races could potentially be
, it's a lot for people.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Well, they've also gerrymandered the three seats in
the state, the congressionalseats in this state have been
the democratic legislature inthe state of New Mexico
sufficiently gerrymandered themto the point where it's really
tough.
So it's tough to go tocandidates now and say we want
you to run an Albuquerque,because Albuquerque has been
carved out to be a 10, 12 pointdeficit.
You know you go to CD three, umledger Fernandez, a seat.
(40:41):
It's a 15 point deficit.
Down South Gabe Vasquez, a seat.
He's uniquely, you know,incompetent.
However, you know his, hisseat's been gerrymandered eight,
nine points.
So now he'll, he'll always becloser than that, cause he's
always going to shed a bunch ofvotes, cause he doesn't know
what he's doing, but at the sametime he's still holding onto
the seat.
So we'll see.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Yeah, it's going to be really interesting Okay.
I put this little um, our laststory in, just cause I thought
it was super interesting and Ithought it was something that
mind and like we said earlier inthe show, you know I have a
family member.
I know a lot of people outthere have family members that
deal with Alzheimer's anddementia and now that I am
facing that in my own familywith my mother, it is just a
hard watch and so and it's just,it's really hard, as anybody
(41:20):
knows.
So I've always taken steps tosee what can I do to make sure I
lessen my chances of gettingthose things.
Well, this Harvard study theytracked 724 people for the last
85 years to answer one simplequestion, and that is what makes
a good life.
And I thought this was prettyinteresting because basically
when I read this, it started in1938 with 724 men.
(41:42):
They only have started thissurvey with men.
John F Kennedy was actually oneof the men they started the
survey with, which I thought waskind of interesting.
And now it's lasted 85 yearsand they have about 60 of those
original 724 men still alivethat are in their nineties, that
are still participating in this, and basically what they show
is individuals with strong andsupportive relationships exhibit
significantly lower rates ofchronic diseases, including
(42:05):
cardiovascular issues, diabetes,arthritis and just physical and
mental health.
Okay, they're in better shape.
And it said this.
This is what I thought wasinteresting that even if you're
in a marriage that is highconflict or a loveless marriage,
they suffer worse than if youwent and got divorced.
Ultimately, the belief is thatyou stay married.
(42:26):
If you can stay married andhave good commitment with each
other, you'll be better off.
But if you're in a lovelessmarriage or a high conflict
marriage, they say no, you'llactually live longer if you go
ahead and get a divorce.
Speaker 2 (42:37):
Yeah, you pull the plug on that If you pull the
plug.
Okay, that's noted, noted, okay, thank you, noted, okay, noted.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
However, listen to this Okay yeah, sorry,
no-transcript, their argumentsdidn't take a toll on cognition.
So basically, if you like,argue with each other, whatever
(43:03):
it is, banter whatever, but youstill trust each other at the
core of everything, then you,cognitively, will still do
pretty well, okay, then he wenton to say it's basically all of
this comes down to.
It all boils down torelationship is the most key
thing in your life to say, toevaluate, to have good health
and a good life.
(43:24):
Right, that's basically howthis all boils down to and I
added this because I thoughtthis was pretty interesting that
money, you know, people say, oh, if I had enough money, if I
was rich, if I was super wealthy, I would be super happy.
Well, actually they say that upto a point of having enough
money to meet your basic needsdid raise your wellbeing, right,
so you don't want to bestressing about rent and
utilities.
And can I take care of myfamily?
(43:44):
That's different.
But once you reach thatthreshold and you have enough to
get by, right, and you're notscraping by every single day
beyond a comfortable threshold,additional wealth actually
produce little extra happiness.
Now, I might argue that becausewe've never been in that boat.
But I'm like, hey, I don't knowIf I could just cruise around
and go on trips my whole life, Idon't know.
(44:05):
I might be a lot happier, butaccording to the study, that is
not actually adding to yourhappiness.
And then it said you knowpeople might argue well, if
you're super smart, you makemore money, then you're happier.
Well, they actually said that'snot true, that even the higher
IQ ranges it really didn't haveanything to do with if you again
made more money with a higherIQ, okay.
(44:25):
So I thought that was kind ofan interesting thing.
Finally, your childhood and yourrelationships with your parents
growing up actually impacts youin your later life.
Which I pulled these two.
So if you had a really goodrelationship with your mother,
they were associated with peak,having higher salaries, actually
$87,000 more a year.
If you had a good relationshipwith your mother, okay in your
(44:47):
professional life.
And it affected your personallife.
And it actually said that,conversely, men with poor
childhood relationships withtheir mothers were more likely
to develop dementia in old age.
I don't know why that is, butthat's what they pulled.
And then, in reverse, okay, ifyou keep going talking about
fathers, right, relationshipsmen with their fathers
correlated.
(45:08):
If you had a good one you hadlower anxiety, greater enjoyment
of vacations and increased lifesatisfaction by the age of 75.
I just thought that was superinteresting and basically it
said, if you had great memoriesof your childhood and good
parental relationships, itreally does lead to a lifelong
(45:28):
source of strength and happinessand kind of something to aim
for.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
So I thought it was just I don't know, I thought it
was super interesting, and Ithink that that's what we talk
about all the time that one ofGod's greatest blessings to us
is the family.
And when you take the familyand you try to devalue it and
say it's not that important, youdon't.
You know, don't worry aboutthese relationships, or don't
have kids, or it's about me, orit's about I'm telling you, god
(45:53):
designed us to live in families.
I firmly believe that, and it'snot that it's right for
everybody, but it does lead tobetter outcomes, it just does,
and so the family should beprotected at all costs.
And far too often now, I worrythat, in a government sense,
we've devalued the family.
We've actually incentivized thebreakup of the American family.
(46:13):
It's been devastating in a lotof different communities, and so
it's important to realize andthis data just shows it which is
that the family is something weneed to invest in, we need to
pour into and we need toencourage people to take part in
, because if they do, it leadsmore statistically to their
happiness.
And this isn't this isn't aboutanything other than trying to
(46:34):
inflict your type of life on meand dah, dah, dah.
No, this is about more likelyto be happy, because when you're
alone or you're.
You're living your life foryourself.
I don't think that's what Godintended for us.
Speaker 3 (46:44):
I really don't and obviously, like even people that
are widowed and things of thatnature that their spouses have
gone on, it is about beingconnected in community, so
finding a small group or goingto a church or a volunteer group
or something that you're stillstaying really active with
people.
They say that that really helpsand obviously, like me,
studying dementia andAlzheimer's now for the last
five years or so, been settingup on all this.
(47:06):
It is interesting because mymother was single for 40 years,
right, and she spent a lot oftime alone and, compared to you,
know other people that we knowthat are older, that have each
other and have a lot ofcommunity.
It's just interesting.
I'm not saying that was thewhole reason that she developed
it, because I think there'sother things that happened along
the way for her, but I will sayher lack of community and her
(47:26):
lack of a spouse or a partner Ido think it had impact on her.
And loneliness basically on thistoo.
I didn't clip this one, butthey said loneliness was as
dangerous as smoking andalcoholism for your health and I
don't think that's coming outas any shock to anybody, but
anyway.
So I guess it means love eachother and if you don't have a
spouse, that's okay.
Get involved with the community, get in there with other people
that you can and make sure thatyou connect with other people.
(47:48):
I think that's really whattheir their takeaway was from
the survey, so no doubt, okay.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, thanks very much for joining us.
We do appreciate it and we willbe back with you on Sunday.
Again, don't forget to go on tono doubt about a podcastcom and
sign up for email and, ofcourse, if you have not become a
subscriber to our YouTubechannel, please do that.
We're closing in on 15,000.
We're trying to get to thatnumber, so we would love your
(48:16):
help in doing that and, ofcourse, we'll have a fresh show
right out of the oven for you.
Nice and warm.
Speaker 6 (48:18):
on Sunday.
You've been listening to the noDoubt About it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
No doubt about it.
Speaker 6 (48:38):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
There is no doubt about it.
All right, we're back with.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Yours truly.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Our esteemed leader.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Is that what it is?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Esteemed leader.
No, no, no, you guys did agreat job in my absence.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Well, other than ripping, we were ripping India a
little bit.
When you're not here, you getripped.
That's how it goes.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah, I am.
I mean for our listeners.
I'm in colorado taking care ofmy mother who has dementia and
is in memory care.
I tune in to listen to you guysand all three of you ladies I
mean two ladies and a gentlemanhere yeah ripping into me yeah,
yeah, well, look, I mean like Idon't prep for the show.
That's the biggest insult I waslike if you guys think I can
(00:46):
cold read anything, that's agood point I mean give me credit
if you think?
I'm cold reading.
I'm doing a dang good job it's.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
It's a fair, it's a.
It's a good point.
I do apologize for how nastyyour daughter's got.
Uh, I tried to keep them inline, but you know how they are.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Oh yeah, yeah, they don't.
They didn't feel free.
Along with your encouragement,your enthusiasm, I think we're.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
You know this is a.
This is a tough environmenthere.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
You know what I mean.
Is that what it is?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It is.
It's dog, eat dog, and so ifyou're not here, you're getting
shredded.
That's how it goes, and andwhile while we appreciate you
caring for your mom and what youdid, is is great.
What your sister's doing, whatmy sister's doing is better is
great um, is incredibly kind andcaring and, and, I think, godly
um, but in in the thunderdomehere, I mean you gotta, you
(01:30):
gotta, you gotta take care ofbusiness, and if you're not here
I'm sorry, but it's.
I don't know what's gonna godown, it just happens that's
right.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Well, no, the girls did a great job.
Um, we got lots of comments.
We're gonna read a few of those, um, in just a few minutes.
But, yeah, I know I think youguys did a great job and I I
mean I may need to find a newgig.
Those in just a few minutes.
But yeah, I know I think youguys did a great job and I mean
I may need to find a new gig.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
We may just have the girls now just do the show.
We're evaluating your positionon the show.
Thank you, we're seeing howthat goes.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
I love that this was my show to start with and that I
invited you to join me.
Oh really yes, it is true ohplease.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
It was your brilliant idea to host a podcast.
Yes, that's a very unique move,very unique move.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
During your governor's race, I wanted us to
do a podcast and I wanted you tojoin me on it, and then you
were like, no, I'm busy, thatsounds like a great idea me
popping off while running, whilethey're listening to every
little thing and they're justgoing to clip it and turn it
into something else, try tomorph it into something else.
Oh gosh, yes, something else.
Oh please, we'll do whatever,but anyways, no.
So I just.
I do want a little credit forthe fact that this was my idea.
I said you'd be brilliant at it.
(02:27):
It turns out we're doing prettysolid.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
You are.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Yeah, it's true we are, but I love that now you've
invited me and now you're goingto review me it's like I'm the
ceo of the company and we'relike we're going to have a
review and see who you need tokeep you on or if we're going to
ask you to step down from yourrole.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
How many CEOs have been bouncedwhen the board decides it's not
happening, it's not working?
Speaker 3 (02:46):
anymore.
Wait a minute, you're the board.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Look, ava, ella and I are the board of directors and
again we appreciate the workyou're doing.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm just not sure where thefuture is going.
We'll see and again you'regoing to have a great chance to
show your leadership and showyour ability moving forward.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Wow, thank you, god bless you Well, god bless you,
sir.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
So just let's just see what happens.
Okay.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Okay, Get to the show .
Guys Tell people what we'regoing to look at.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah, we're going to.
We got all kinds of stuff goingon.
A little bit of mail to startthings off.
Interesting issue betweensanctuary cities and the law
enforcement community that istasked with protecting them.
And we have a story of a citycounselor in Los Angeles who
wants to go to the LAPD and saywe need you to rat out ice to
tell us when they're coming andwe'll tell you what the LAPD
response was.
(03:32):
And there's not as the sameissue, but something along those
lines happening in Albuquerque,which we'll we'll get to in a
bit as well.
Then we're going to take a deepdive on the economy a little bit
, because everybody is talkingabout or at least Trump is
talking about getting rid ofJerome Powell as the head of the
Fed.
And this is not an economicshow, but there are some basic
things we started to payattention to, and part of what
(03:54):
we do, other than this show is,is real estate, and especially
in mountain communities.
Well, we're starting to see thereal estate market soften a bit
.
As this is happening.
You're seeing Trump more andmore say to Powell you got to
cut interest rates.
This is, you know, look out.
And so we're going to start totalk a little bit about that as
well, and it's a big deep diveon what's happening with that,
(04:15):
some of the numbers that youshould care about because of the
economy, and then we're goingto get into a little bit of
election stuff and then finally,you have a study that you want
to talk about from Harvard, butI think it was really, really
interesting.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Yeah, it was, it wasn't.
It's a.
I think it was an 85 year oldstudy, if I remember right, and
just going on for 85 years.
Yeah, 85 years, and it's talksabout what really is the
benchmark for real happiness andpeople, and I thought it was so
fascinating I wanted to shareit with our listeners today, so
I clipped some of that to talkabout a little bit All right,
lead it with some mail.
Let's start with some mail.
(04:47):
This one gets my favorite ofthe whole time.
Okay, Okay, I was like geez,Louise, people.
Tracy Scott wrote in Okay,Tracy says I appreciate Ava
reading the copy before the show.
It drives me crazy when Christymispronounces or fumbles over
names.
Please correct nuclear, by theway, Just going to say it like
(05:08):
that because that's the way Isay it.
Pronunciation Otherwise, I loveyou guys and listen to every
show.
Okay, listen, Tracy.
If it drives you crazy that Ifumble over words and I
mispronounce names, well thenjust consider yourself lucky,
because I'm sure you have like alaundry list Mark of the things
that drive you crazy that I do.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah, then just consider yourself lucky Cause
I'm sure you have like a laundrylist Mark of the things that
drive you crazy that I do.
Yeah, let's start.
We could try, we could do that.
Yeah, let's start with theletter a.
So no, come on, I mean, it'sjust Tracy.
I understand your point, butI'll tell you this much reading
clips off the cuff.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
I'm off the cuff.
I don't mean that I'm sorry, Idon't read things off the cuff.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I just mean reading clips in front of people is is
tricky because there's a ton ofthem.
I have you read a lot of stuffand there's no way you're
memorizing it and your?
Your eyesight is not the bestand you're looking at it off on
iPad.
So you do deserve some grace onall this.
We were just joking around itand, by the way, eva said at the
time that I'm going to readthings smoother than mom.
(06:03):
Then she just went and ate itand started chewing.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
You did, I did not.
I made one small mistake.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yes, well, and I know how to say nuclear.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
So I think those are important things to consider.
Listen, I do.
I appreciate it, tracy.
Keep in mind I have had corneasurgery I am almost blind
legally, by the way, and I havecontacts then but they're the
best I can get.
So I'm doing the best I can.
Tracy, I'm so sorry if thatdrives you crazy, but I guess
you have to take a number afterMark, because there's a lot of
things I do.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
There are a lot of things, Tracy.
If you want a list of the truethings Christy does wrong, let
me know and I'll shoot you alist.
Reading the clips doesn'thappen to be one of them.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
All right, john Beverly says great show.
Ava and Ella both did great andI enjoyed seeing them.
Such awesome young ladies withgreat intelligence and insight
into the things going on in ourcountry.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Oh very nice.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
This was very thoughtful, I thought.
Vicky Blather says I enjoyhaving your daughters be part of
your show today.
They were delightful.
Debbie, we call her Producer.
Debbie, from Minnesota, said Ijust finished watching the girls
on the podcast.
They need to do one a monthwatching the girls on the
podcast.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
They need to do one a month.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I loved it.
Easy Debbie Once a month.
Are we going to sign a contractmaybe?
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Yeah, all of a sudden we're going to start having a
union walkout and things likethat.
Let's calm down, we might go onstrike, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
And then, okay, this one.
So, girls, you did a great job,though I did listen and I
really appreciate it, that we'rereally thoughtful towards our
family and our daughters, and Ijust want to say, as her mom,
thank you so much for sayingthose things.
Okay, now this one is Boldenthe at, I think.
I think that's Bolden that Idon't know.
I never this is to you, mark Inever appreciated your
(07:35):
unwavering support of Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
There's some that would disagree with that
assessment.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
I know, I know, but still, I have been watching your
videos recently and feel weseem to be aligning on some
issues.
I was a Democrat, but now Ifind myself more in the middle
rather than left or right.
I agree with you on this issue.
I I get it, but but go issue byissue.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
And the only point we made on last week's show is
when a leader of a party thatyou don't happen to be involved
in, or the party that you quotedon't like, or whatever, when
(08:14):
they do the right thing, stoptrying to make it the wrong
thing and stop trying to jump onthe other side of that issue,
support that person, and thenyou you, I'm sure you can get
back to fighting at some otherpoint.
I'm sure there's gonna beplenty of other things
politically to be able to fightabout, but when people do the
right things, support them,right, you know, I mean, and
that's it.
That's all we were saying aboutthat.
Okay, so here we go.
Let's get to this.
(08:35):
First of all, this is a storyyou pulled on what's going on
with ice in Albuquerque and whatthe mayor is trying to pull off
here, and this is diceyterritory and I'll get into why
after you break down what'sgoing on.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Right.
So there's a headline.
Mayoral candidates spar overKeller's plan to alert public to
ICE action.
So here's a few of the details.
A social media statement postedby Mayor Tim Keller announcing
his intention to keep the publicbetter informed about federal
immigration enforcement actionsprompted an angry reaction
Monday from his mayoral opponentwho called the practice quote
dangerous.
Keller announced Friday thatthe public can call the
(09:10):
Albuquerque Police Department toquote verify if federal
immigration agents are operatingin our city.
Here's a few more details onthat.
Apd followed up theannouncement by issuing a
statement saying the federalofficials have agreed to share
more information with policeabout immigration operations in
the city.
Now Darren White, who's runningfor mayor and who we've had on
(09:31):
the show before, this is what hehad to say about this
particular thing.
He said responded by asking theUS attorney for the District of
New Mexico, ryan Ellison, toinvestigate whether the city's
initiatives violate federal law.
Disclosing information about USimmigration and customs
enforcement operations couldendanger federal agents and the
(09:52):
public, white contends.
He says in a quote I'm veryconcerned about the police
department establishing sometype of tip line for people to
call to verify whether ICE isworking in certain neighborhoods
, white said Monday in aninterview Now.
Keller's statement said thatAPD is taking steps to quote
(10:12):
bring more clarity aroundimmigration enforcement.
That's why we've created a newway to verify if federal
immigration agents are operatingin our city.
The post said, quote you cannow call APD.
Apd issued a statement Mondayclarifying that the public can
call 242 COPS, which is APD'snon-emergency number, to quote
inquire about a specificpresence in the city and whether
that is an ICE operation.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Okay, here's the problem with this, and what
you're seeing is, increasingly,ice agents are coming under
attack and you're going to seemore and more problems.
Some people have been shot andkilled because they're attacking
ICE agents.
This has now been normalized.
Parts of the left are sayingwe're going to do everything we
can to try to stop ICE.
This is going to lead to peopledying Like.
(10:56):
It is not a.
It's a terrible idea, andKeller's trying to wrap it in
softer language.
But what he's hoping toaccomplish out of this, it seems
, is to be able to try to walkthis line of being able to say
yeah, I'm on your side, we'regoing to try to stop ICE from
doing what they're doing.
But he knows he can't say thatbecause, literally, that's
(11:17):
obstruction of justice.
He could go to jail for it, forit.
And beyond that, this thoughtprocess that you can try to
stand in the way of federal lawenforcement because you don't
like it as a local official islunacy and it is leading to an
erosion of leadership and it'sleading to an erosion of
authority by people who areelected to lead us.
(11:38):
It makes zero sense and it'sdangerous.
And Keller, by doing this,again smart enough to try to
walk this line.
So he's not.
We're going to show you anexample of not walking the line,
of being just completelybonkers crazy.
But this is craziness.
This, this whole approach oftrying to say, hey, we're going
to step in and try to stopfederal law enforcement, it's a
(11:59):
dangerous thing to do, it's apermission structure for
violence.
That's what it is.
What you're creating here is apermission structure to people
who are mentally unstable thatsay, oh well, I can start to
take action against ICE, I cando it.
They take things from whetherKeller has said it or not or
whether other leaders who havesaid it or not, but they give
(12:20):
this tacit permission structurethat you can go out and attack
federal law enforcement.
You can't, and you're going toput other people in danger.
And the more often that youdecide to make it more difficult
for ICE, the more they aregoing to go into these
communities to get the peoplethat are dangerous out of there.
And when they go in thesecommunities to get those
dangerous people, if there areother people that are here
(12:40):
illegally, they end up going too.
That's something Keller neverwants to address, because if
Keller stepped up and said letus help you get into our jails
and get the people out of herethat are here illegally and that
have committed violent crimesget into our jails.
Let's work together.
That way.
They're not going intoneighborhoods, but they are now,
and so Keller is partly tryingto walk this line, which I think
(13:03):
is a very dangerous line.
It's a terrible mistake.
I think it's going to hurt himlong term, but when you start to
see this sort of thing, it'scraziness.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, and I guess I don't understand, like, isn't
the federal funding getting cut?
I mean, the more he's not, he'snot willing to help and
participate and just basicallylike dying on this sanctuary
hill city policy.
Like doesn't?
I've heard that that's going tobe some sort of retraction back
on funding.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
I have no idea, yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
It's going to be interesting to see, like how
that actually shapes, shapes up,and what Tom Homan has to say
about, hey, the fact I'm goingto start letting the public know
and you can call in with yourfresh tips, I mean it's like,
yeah, it's, it's, it's wild.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
And so I pulled an example of what you know, this
art.
So Darren hits back, which Ithink if Darren Darren's well
positioned to make this point,because obviously he's been in
law enforcement his whole adultlife Tim Keller has presided
over the largest explosion ofcrime in the city's history.
So you know you've got two verydifferent candidates here, okay
, and what Darren is saying inhis criticism here is that if
(14:03):
you start to create thisenvironment where people are
calling and saying, hey, is ICEin this neighborhood?
No, yeah, ice is in thatneighborhood.
All of a sudden, what happensthen?
What happens?
You are providing a structureto be able to say go get them.
Okay, guess what?
They have guns too.
And so when these things startto happen, it's a nightmare.
You're putting people in danger, innocent people that want
(14:26):
nothing to do with this.
You're putting people that areon the mental edge of their
faculties.
You're pushing them intosomething that could lead to
death.
It's not smart.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Well, I guess I don't understand why they would say
that they need that, thatthey're even allowing this, like
what's the benefit to thepublic?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
His broad language is like in our city Okay, that's
broad language.
We're talking neighborhoodshere.
We're talking to say, hey,there are four black SUVs in
this neighborhood.
What's going on?
Is APD going to give them thedetails?
Oh yeah, we got an ICE,enforcement and 346.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Yeah, that's what it said, Conroe Lane.
Actually that's what Medinasaid further in the story that I
didn't clip to put in here, butMedina did.
They said yes, absolutely, I'mgoing to, I'll call into people,
we'll call in, we'll find outwhat's going on and we'll let
dispatch know so they can tellpeople that call in what's
actually happening.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, all of it seems crazy.
It's completely and totallyirresponsible and weird that
Medina's in the middle ofsomething totally irresponsible,
a guy who's completelyincompetent, right, and so in
Keller at the same way.
This is the sort of thing thatthat you know you keep doing
this stuff and again these guyscan keep walking down this road
because they think it helps them.
It doesn't.
They're eroding support slowlyover time, as a party over this,
(15:34):
because again you can say oh,where, where, where are the
numbers on immigration andeverything else?
That's not the point.
The point is, when you'recreating an environment of chaos
, you, with nothing in returnremember, keller has no vision
of where to go.
Keller has no plan to say we'regoing to reduce crime, we're
going to make this city safer,cleaner, we're going to reduce
(15:56):
the homeless population, we'regoing to get people to help.
He hasn't done any of that.
So, again, this is a nightmare,and so what it's going to lead
to is what you're about to see.
This is the Los Angeles CityCouncil meeting, and I want you
to listen to Imelda Padilla sheis one of the LA City Council
women and listen to what sheasked LAPD for.
(16:17):
I mean, this is ludicrous.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
I'm asking a creativity question here.
What can your department do todo more to warn us, to warn the
business community that outsideof our LA borders, coming in
from Inglewood, coming in from Idon't know Valley, I don't know
, you can warn us so that we canwarn our folks, in the spirit
of your loyalty to the city ofLos Angeles?
Speaker 8 (16:45):
in the spirit of your loyalty to the city of Los
Angeles.
So you're asking me to warn youabout an enforcement action
being taken by another agencybefore it happens.
Yeah, yeah, we can't do that.
Why not?
That would be obstruction ofjustice.
You may want to talk to thecity attorney about that.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Where is the city attorney?
Aren't they here?
I see her officers.
Where is she?
Speaker 5 (17:05):
We'll hear from the city attorney.
After we hear from LAPD, we canrevisit it then.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Okay, yeah, because I mean they're en route, we know
they're coming.
We know they're coming to bringdisruption.
There's no way that we can know.
Speaker 8 (17:22):
I can't.
I don't know how to evenrespond to that.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Wasn't she just here?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Who her?
Who took the city hits?
Where'd she?
Speaker 5 (17:29):
go, we'll come back.
She had to attend to some otherbusiness, but we can come back.
We'll give you the opportunityto ask her I need to know.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Yeah, we don't do that.
We, we we're not gonna, we'renot gonna broadcast.
For, like the fbi is lookingfor a terrorist suspect, say
right, are we gonna tell youknow, hey, the fbi is coming
looking for a terrorist suspect?
Say, right, are we going totell, hey, the FBI is coming
looking for you?
Speaker 1 (17:49):
There's a difference between someone's coming because
they're going to go get.
Speaker 8 (17:53):
I'm using that as an example, but no, we're not
allowed to do that.
That would be completelyinappropriate and illegal.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Very similar.
I'm sorry but that's verysimilar to what's happening in
albuquerque in the, in thelanguage that they're using.
I mean, honestly, there aregoing to be at some point
somebody's going to get arrestedover this.
I just hope no one gets hurt.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
I was gonna say because it's completely
irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Yeah, because you have a very look I we have a
great deal of respect for apd.
They do incredible work, okay.
But harold medina, in sayingwhat he's saying on this, it's
foolish and it's dangerous andit's not wise.
And obviously the mayor and thestuff he does, this stuff is
stupid.
I mean, stop doing this stuff.
You don't get in the way ofwhat federal law enforcement is
(18:35):
doing.
But just make no mistake.
You know, the only differencebetween what's happening in LA
and what the story is that wasin the journal is the language
is a little softer here.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
It's a little softer.
I mean it's really not.
I mean she's.
You basically have a citycouncilman saying, hey, let let
us know, you know you got towarn us so we can warn our
people about ice agents comingin.
Okay, and he's saying, no,that's a destruction of justice.
How is this any different?
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Like she pretend it depends on what he does.
It depends on what he does andwhat.
What APD says.
Well, it depends on how APDhandles it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Maybe we're going to make a secret call then and
we're going to be like, hey, canyou tell us?
Yeah Well, I don't know what'sgoing on in this neighborhood
right now and see what they say.
I mean it's ridiculous, rightit is.
They actually say that.
I mean I, holy cow.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I know I just this is , and again I say this, I don't
know if I say it every week onthe show, but this has nothing
to do with your political party.
I mean you, this one.
This is inviting chaos andviolence.
It is, it is, and these are,these are people that have no
business running either a cityor a police department.
Stepping in and putting othernew Mexicans in danger.
(19:43):
It just makes zero sense.
You don't get to obstruct lawenforcement.
You don't get to do that, andso I hope this does not happen.
I hope the Medina is wiser thanthis, I hope that the mayor is
wiser than this, but I thinkDarren White is right to go
after him.
I think it's time we have anadult step in and try to protect
the people of this city and ofthis state, and for too long
(20:03):
you've had people that haveeither been soft on these issues
or work against public safety,and the result is exploding
violence.
We are the most violent statein the country, and it's not by
accident.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Right.
It's just we got to wake up andwe got to.
We got to vote differently.
So I hope people are evenpaying attention to that and
knowing what's going on.
I mean, you know, like that'sour hope is.
I mean you know, like that'sour hope.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Well, we'll find out.
This is a big mayor's election.
We'll see.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You got seven choices for mayor or something like
that oh yeah, I think there'seight.
I think there's eight right now, I think I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Whatever it is, the lot is right, yeah.
Okay, I want to take a deepdive.
Okay, and this is a deep diveissue to most of us, right, and
(20:51):
I want to go through somethinghere.
So the details on this kind ofinteresting.
So today, wednesday, presidentTrump came out and told GOP
lawmakers that he is likely totry to fire federal Fed chair
Jerome Powell.
Okay, now that's a littletricky, because he can't just
fire Jerome Powell because he'snot cutting interest rates.
He has to fire him for cause.
He cannot just be like you'renot cutting rates, you, he has
to fire him for cause.
He cannot just be like you'renot cutting rates, you're fired.
You can't do that.
Jerome Powell has a term, afour-year term that he serves
(21:11):
and that turns up, I think, inanother year or so, okay, so a
couple of details here.
It says President Trump told GOPlawmakers that he will likely
fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
Two sources briefed on thematter told the New York Post.
Sources confirmed an earlierreport by Bloomberg News, citing
sources familiar with thematter, which said Trump
discussed the plan with GOPlawmakers in Congress on Tuesday
.
An administration insider closeto the commander in chief,
(21:35):
speaking on the condition ofanonymity, confirmed the nature
of those talks to the Post.
They expressed approval forfiring him.
The president indicated helikely will soon.
So here's one other thing itsays.
It also comes after what onesenior administration official
branded a deceptive testimony tothe Senate Banking Committee on
June 24th about June 25thrather about the central bank's
(21:59):
$2.5 billion Palace ofVersailles revamp of its DC
headquarters.
Ok, that matters for a reason.
Okay, that quote, right therematters.
And the reason it matters isbecause what they're going to do
is go after Jerome Powell onthe issue of the revamp of the
fed building.
Right, so they're going to sayhe's basically incompetent in
this and is a basically $900million over budget.
(22:21):
Okay, so that's why they'regoing after him on this, not
because that's what they'regoing to try to use to bounce
him right.
So here's what trump is reallymad about, and I think it is
that you've had interest ratesthat have been seven, eight,
nine percent right, depending onwhat you're getting the money
for over the past couple ofyears, ever since remember,
biden spent all the money.
The economy overheated right itwas.
(22:43):
He was told don't do it.
He did it anyway.
Inflation soared, so the fedhad to raise interest rates.
It's a common thing that you doto bring back down inflation.
Okay, it worked.
Inflation comes back down again.
Okay, and then now trump comesin and says we're going to have
tariffs and things of thatnature, try to bring in some
additional money.
And then the fed says well,that could raise inflation fears
(23:05):
again, so we're going to leaverates high.
Trump's like it's not going toincrease inflation, stop it,
bring rates down.
So they go back and forth.
So over this time now we'regetting to the point where it's
tough as a business to getrelatively affordable money.
It's tough when you're tryingto get a house and you're paying
far more than you would haveeven a couple of years ago.
So I pulled some numbers on themarket here in the US housing
(23:28):
supply.
Let's start with the supplynumbers here.
Abe, let's go in just a littlebit here, tighter on those
numbers if you can.
And sorry, to the other side,to the left side, and you can
see there we go.
Perfect, okay, number of homesfor sale is up 12%.
Okay, we've got 2 million homesfor sale in the country.
That's up.
Okay, newly listed homes isslightly down.
(23:48):
But keep on going Ave, keepgoing down here.
There you go.
Median days on market going up.
That is a telltale sign thatthe it's softening.
So total number of houses is up, their duration on the market
is up and the month supply isabout a three month supply.
So let's go back to the demand.
What's going on with demand inhousing versus the supply?
So we move on to the demandchart here, and that demand
(24:10):
chart's interesting as well.
It's got some interesting dataon it.
Number one, if you look hereokay, homes sold above their
list price.
So let's go to that number onthe left and that's down 4%.
Okay, so those numbers arestarting to come down, ok.
And then homes with price drops, in other words, homes where
they had to drop the price tosell it, ok, that is up four and
(24:34):
a half points.
Ok, and then, and then sale tolist price and that's down
slightly.
So again, these numbers showyou, ok, things are starting to
soften a little bit.
What about in Albuquerque?
So in Albuquerque is kind of akey zone that we look at for
home sales here.
Ok, a couple of differentthings are happening.
Sale price is still going up,okay, which is interesting here
(24:56):
in the Albuquerque area.
Okay, median sale price isslightly going up, and things of
that nature.
However, what I want you tolook down at is new listings and
days on the market.
Okay, that first section, thebottom two numbers 2024,.
We had about 1400 new400 newlistings.
2025, 1,637.
So we're starting to see morehouses come on the market and
(25:18):
the days on market are startingto increase right.
So you're seeing those numbersstart to increase here, and so I
think what you start to noticein all of this is with a
softening real estate market andthe ability to get a hold of
money.
So I want to go to businessesnow, okay.
So here's a little chart onbusinesses here.
What's something we're in themiddle of is, you know, getting
(25:41):
lines of credit here for workthat we're doing, right, and
it's tough to do.
It's, it's not an easy thing todo.
Here's a look at the rates.
Okay, and look how long now.
Remember we go back to 2020,2021, we were 3%, three and a
half percent, right, and then,of course, those rates had to
skyrocket to deal with anincompetent handling of the U S
(26:01):
economy, right.
And so now what you see isthose, those numbers that have
remained really pretty high overtime.
So borrowing costs forbusinesses are still really high
.
Why does that matter?
Because if you're going to relyon growth to build the economy,
which is what Trump is doing,it's going to rely on people
putting money into the economy.
You can't have interest ratesat eight, eight and a half
(26:22):
percent for businesses.
So he's saying so he's lookingat Powell, going come on, let's
go cut rates and Powell's likewell, wait a minute, I don't
want this to skyrocket inflation, you know.
And so that's the tug of warback and forth in all of this
and why it's happening.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Couldn't he like cut it just a little bit to see how
it goes?
Speaker 2 (26:39):
well, no, and that's one of his arguments, that you
cut it a half point or whatever.
Coming up here, I they, I thinkhe probably will in September.
Okay, that's, I think the nextFed meeting, I think, is in
September.
But yeah, and Trump is sayingthis thing should be cut two or
three points.
Right, that's what Trump wantsto see, because then you would
see money flood into the economy.
Right, you would then see, youwould see very, very robust, you
know, investment in the USeconomy.
(27:00):
However, could that lead to, youknow, an explosion in inflation
?
Inflation, again, I don't know,we're not economists, I don't
know.
I'm just trying to give yousome basis on why I think Trump
is pushing so hard for, hey, cutsome rates here.
Because you don't cut rates,you're just keeping things
artificially high, you'rekeeping people on the sidelines,
you're making borrowing moneytoo expensive, you can't move.
I mean, we've talked aboutmoving and stuff like that.
(27:20):
We've talked about, you know,you know getting a different
house, moving to a differentspot, and we don't do it because
right now, rates are seven anda half percent.
Speaker 3 (27:28):
Yeah, it's crazy.
It's crazy high.
You can't get as much house foryour money.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Right, and then we get back.
So one more thing on this, andthat is the tariffs and you talk
about my gosh, you know tariffs.
Are they going to lead toinflation?
They're not.
But something interesting ishappening with tariffs and that
is money that's coming into thefederal government.
For the first time in years, wehad a month where we were in
(27:53):
the black, and it is because oftariffs.
Look right here June 2025, theUS government made $26 billion
more than they sent out WhoaOkay, by the way.
June 2024, $71 billion in thered.
June 2023, 2024, 71 billion inthe red.
June 2023, 227 billion in thered, 88 billion in the red in 22
(28:15):
.
21, 174 billion in the red.
2020 was COVID, obviously.
Okay, that's a little different.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
You get a pass on that one 864 billion in the red.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay, the last time that we were in the black in a
month was 2019.
And it was because it was themonth of September.
It was a big tax collectionmonth, so that for one month we
did better, right, but then wentback into the red.
Okay, but this whole thoughtthat, oh my gosh, you know,
tariffs are going to destroy theeconomy.
Everything else not founded, atleast not right now.
(28:47):
So what's interesting is Istart looking up clips on this
and CNBC is talking about it allthe time.
It's really interesting.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
So here's what they said about the tariffs how much
we've been collecting inrevenues, and I did this in part
because Wilfred's here and hecan talk about the UK trade deal
.
But just this is the monthlynumbers, and they have gone up a
lot.
June is actually set foranother big increase of $27
billion.
That is money coming into UScoffers from tariffs.
(29:14):
We are collecting a lot ofrevenue.
So far, guys, $121 billion hasflowed into the US government
since the start of the fiscalyear.
It's still a tiny portion ofthe overall revenues that the US
government gets, but it'sincreasingly a lot.
Especially, we haven't seen itin terms of the consumer paying
off.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Meaning the consumer paying higher prices.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
We have not seen it, right?
Yeah, yeah, it hasn't trickleddown yet.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah, so so one of those.
So I just I think some of thisstuff's really interesting.
So when you hear about the fedthing, you know Trump trying to
be a dictator.
I don't think that's what'sgoing on.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Right.
Well, you even have the KenLangone.
He's the founder of Home Depot.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Langone yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Oh, Langone, Okay Again my mispronunciation.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Italian Langone.
I think it was fantastic.
He should go with Langone.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Well, I would go with Langone.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah, if I look at the same.
Yeah, I know.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
You Tracy out there?
Yeah, easy on the Tracy, she'sa regular listener.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I don't know if Tracy's a guy or girl actually
I'm not sure.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Oh no, it's a girl.
Okay Well, I don't actuallyknow, but anyway, okay.
Founder of Home Depot wasactually a Trump critic for a
while.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Yeah, he definitely had his doubts.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
And now he's thinking hey, hey, hey, this might
actually be working.
Let's give Trump you know alittle bit of credit here.
So let's take a listen to whathe had to say on CNBC.
Speaker 7 (30:30):
America.
80 years ago, when the war wasover, we made our mind up.
We're not going to be theconquering hero.
(30:54):
We're going to go in and helpthese countries rebuild
themselves.
And we did.
To our credit, we did Japanese,japan.
Look at what happened.
They're on their feet now.
There aren't many American carssold in Germany, but whatever's
sold in Germany, this is a 10%tar tariff.
Every other car in america is amercedes.
(31:15):
I got a mercedes, I got an audi, I I can name the all the cars
we drive.
Most of them are foreign.
Now they sell a hell of a lotmore cars here than we do there.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Two and a half percent tariff, that's wrong
interesting, right, yeah, and sothat's what I don't hear myself
, ava, am I okay, sorry, okay,thanks, av, I appreciate it.
Um, so, interesting point,which is what we've said before.
You know, we get a lot of snidecomments when we do this, we do
this angle, say, well, americancars aren't any good.
But yeah, they are, americancars are great and, and I'll
(31:48):
tell you, we make great cars,you know, you don't, don't show
me the value of a Chevy Tahoewith 50,000 miles on it versus
the value of an Audi Q7 with50,000 miles on it.
Go ahead, go, go, do thatnumber for me, cause the Audi Q7
is like BMW, right, I mean the,the, the value craters for a
(32:09):
reason.
So we make, we make good carsin this country, okay, and none
of them sell there.
So Langone's point is obviouslyTrump trying to even the
playing field here and I think,in general, just kind of an
understanding of what he'strying to do with the economy,
right, and again.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
I mean we all love free trade, right?
Like when he comes out and says, oh, I, everybody love free
trade, but that's just not theway the world works and that's
not how they've been trading theU S government for years.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So I just think people of America forget the
government, I just sit here andgo.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Well, why would this not need to be evened out?
I guess I've just neverunderstood that.
I, you know, I I didn'tunderstand, until I just
listened to this clip, that itwas really based largely after
world war two and that we'retrying to help rebuild countries
.
I didn't know that part of itactually, so that's kind of
fascinating to me.
That ended a long time ago.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
They're doing okay, they're hanging in.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
They seem to be doing okay now, so I think we need to
even things back up a littlebit.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
No, it's very fair, and so we'll see what happens
here.
I don't know if all thisstuff's going to work, I don't
know.
We never pretend to beeconomists on this show.
We do have people that aresmart in the economy
occasionally on to kind of setus straight.
But but I think I just we justwanted you to know, kind of
what's going?
On underneath all that.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Well now.
So we have midterms coming uphere pretty soon.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I mean not right away , but within a year.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
And really I just think that this message that you
know, we've been talking abouteverything from the, the mayoral
election in New York, whichthat's even going to have a
trickle down effect into thesemidterms, believe it or not and
even in all this, like if it's,if we oppose Trump strong enough
, that's all we got to do as ademocratic party, and I think
what we're seeing is that it'snot going to actually cut it
(33:42):
when it comes to midterms.
They're going to have to havesome more information or a
bigger platform or a biggerstrategy to to really come up in
those midterms, right, I think?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
that's kind of the latest that we're seeing.
Yeah, and some of these numbersare interesting.
So we may stop this cliphalfway through and comment on
it, but Harry Anton talked alittle bit about exactly what
you're saying.
So what happens in the midterms?
And where is the DemocraticParty, where is the Republican
Party on where things are?
Because when you have apresident, all the focus tends
to go on them.
What, what are their numbers?
What are they?
You know what's going on, butrealistically, if you look at
what lies underneath, that'swhat's more important.
(34:13):
Do people say to themselves, ok, I may not love everything
Trump is doing, however, do Ithink the Democrats will do a
better job, and so that's what'skind of interesting in all this
.
So let's listen to his numbers.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
Bottom line is this Democrats are behind their 2006
and 2018 paces when it comes tothe generic congressional ballot
.
What are we talking about here?
All right, the Democrats versusthe Republicans on the generic
congressional ballot, themargins.
Look at where we are now.
Democrats are ahead, but byjust two points.
Look at where Democrats werealready ahead by in 2017.
They were behind by sevenpoints.
(34:46):
How about 2005 on the genericcongressional ballot, behind
excuse, points, ahead by sevenpoints, and now they're only
ahead by two points.
Their lead is less than half.
Less than half of where it wasin either 2017 or 2005 in July
of those years, the year beforethe midterm election.
Yes, donald Trump may beunpopular, but Democrats have
(35:07):
not come anywhere close tosealing the deal at this
particular point.
Wave looks, wave, wave looksvery different.
Yes, all right, this is thegeneric ballot test.
This is when you test people inthe generic question.
Of course, the House racesaren't generic.
There are 435 of them.
What happens when you go raceby race?
What happens when you go raceby race?
Well, it's the same idea Houseseat ratings with the GOP
(35:28):
president, like back in 2005,and, of course, 2017.
More net pick up seat chances?
Well, last time around.
Look at that.
Democrats were ahead by 33seats.
How about in 2005?
Democrats were ahead by 7 seats.
What's going on right now?
It's actually RepublicansActually Republicans with more
net pick up chances at plus 12,according to the Cook Political
Report, when you add in thelikelies, the leans and the
(35:49):
toss-up races.
So it's not just on the genericballot where Democrats are
behind their 2017 and 2005 pace.
It's actually when it comesseat by seat, you see that, at
least at this particular point,republicans actually have more
net pickup opportunities.
This doesn't look anything likeit.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Yeah, okay.
What's interesting about thatis and it's a well-known thing
in politics that Democrats needto have a five plus point
advantage on the generic ballotto win the house.
That's kind of roughly where ithas to be At least.
If it's below that, they'regoing to lose exactly what those
numbers show Republicanspicking up 12 seats here.
What's interesting is nowyou've got to remember, and
everybody kind of looks at theelection of 2024 and you realize
(36:29):
, for the first time in ourlifetimes there are more
Republicans in the country thanDemocrats.
Like that number has beenshifting for 15 years.
Democrats used to have an eight,10 point advantage in the
country.
Reagan, when Reagan ran, he was15 points below, republicans
were and Reagan ended up winning.
And then that number went, youknow, shrunk down because Reagan
(36:49):
kind of moved the country rightand Reagan ended up winning.
And then that number shrunkdown because Reagan kind of
moved the country right and thenDemocrats stretched out the
advantage again.
Ok.
And then now, for the firsttime in our lifetimes, and again
it makes sense because you havea party right now.
That doesn't have a message.
There is no message.
Opposing Trump is not a message, that's not a plan, and so they
have to come up with a plan andto be able to say, okay, we're
(37:09):
going to do X, y and Z.
So this whole thing of orangeman bad doesn't work anymore.
It just doesn't work.
Trump's been in political lifefor 15 years, you know.
And so now you look at it andyou can't do that.
So and then when you end up andyou just take some of these
other issues the immigrationissue, all these different
issues and you see that you havea party that doesn't have a
(37:30):
plan, that they're not.
These things aren't going tochange.
You're not going to see amassive.
Now I don't necessarily thinkrepublicans are going to pick up
12 seats, don't get me wrong.
But I don't think you're goingto see a wave election for
democrats right now.
Now if they can grab an issueor the economy tanks or
something like that, well, andthat changes everything, right,
right.
But if things kind of just movealong and economy solid and you
(37:51):
continue to kind of fight theseskirmishes about various little
issues, there's going to be aproblem here and I think you're
going to see kind of fight to adraw.
And when you're in apresidential midterm meaning the
midterm of your president fromyour party and you fight to a
draw.
That's a massive win.
Massive win, massive win.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
Well, it will be interesting because I think that
the thing that we've seen sofar from people that are going
to be running in our midtermshere on a state level right is
the argument that is, you know,all the cuts are so bad and
we're going to be.
You know, we're in dangerous,we're in precarious times and
you need to keep us in office tomake sure that things are going
to stay solid and we're goingto fix things, and you know,
that's kind of the message, thepoints that we hear from our
(38:29):
reps here in the state.
I just think, hmm, that's kindof what's going to be
interesting is what really, ofall those fear mongering
statements are actually going tocome to fruition.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Yeah, but the other thing that worries me though,
honestly, just as a gut levelthing.
Yeah, I'm worried that we don'thave a lot of there's not a lot
of candidates up for running onthe Republican side.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Yeah Right, I agree.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I'm not hearing.
I'll be honest with you.
I'm not hearing a lot of namesand I don't think it's great.
It concerns me a little bit.
I see some of the trepidation,I see some of the concern and I
think there's some really smartpeople on the Republican side
that realize we've got to.
There's some things that needto be done as far as registering
voters and doing things on theground that can help, because I
think there are people that sawhow close we got and people that
(39:16):
are uninformed, look and go ohokay, well, that's where I start
and I'll just keep gettingbetter.
Well, that's not how it works.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
Right.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
Right, and so we saw that in the last election.
Like you're not guaranteed tobe within five or six points,
you're not.
You've got to run a goodcampaign to get even that close
and then, if you can do someother things and they can work
out your way, you can win.
You can win in this state, youcan still win.
But there are people, I think,that are kind of going.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
I don't know Well, because the thing is is like,
just because things have shiftedon a national level, I think
what people still are a littlehesitant on that actually pay a
lot of attention to things inthis state is does that mean New
Mexico?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
But it has.
I mean we've gone over thosenumbers right?
The numbers are getting closerand closer, but is it?
Speaker 3 (39:53):
is it this election cycle, or is it?
Is it coming?
Speaker 2 (39:55):
later Could it be another one.
Speaker 3 (39:56):
Yeah, I know, I know it's very tricky, because it
just be you know, trump's stilllost here.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Yes, he lost by less than he did last time, but he's
still lost, and so uh, it's amatter of seeing like no, that's
a really good point, you know,I just believe me nobody knows
like we do.
Like there are no second placesin elections, I mean there's
just no question about that.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Knowing how tight these races could potentially be
, it's a lot for people.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Well, they've also gerrymandered the three seats in
the state, the congressionalseats in this state have been
the democratic legislature inthe state of New Mexico
sufficiently gerrymandered themto the point where it's really
tough.
So it's tough to go tocandidates now and say we want
you to run an Albuquerque,because Albuquerque has been
carved out to be a 10, 12 pointdeficit.
You know you go to CD three, umledger Fernandez, a seat.
(40:41):
It's a 15 point deficit.
Down South Gabe Vasquez, a seat.
He's uniquely, you know,incompetent.
However, you know his, hisseat's been gerrymandered eight,
nine points.
So now he'll, he'll always becloser than that, cause he's
always going to shed a bunch ofvotes, cause he doesn't know
what he's doing, but at the sametime he's still holding onto
the seat.
So we'll see.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Yeah, it's going to be really interesting Okay.
I put this little um, our laststory in, just cause I thought
it was super interesting and Ithought it was something that
mind and like we said earlier inthe show, you know I have a
family member.
I know a lot of people outthere have family members that
deal with Alzheimer's anddementia and now that I am
facing that in my own familywith my mother, it is just a
hard watch and so and it's just,it's really hard, as anybody
(41:20):
knows.
So I've always taken steps tosee what can I do to make sure I
lessen my chances of gettingthose things.
Well, this Harvard study theytracked 724 people for the last
85 years to answer one simplequestion, and that is what makes
a good life.
And I thought this was prettyinteresting because basically
when I read this, it started in1938 with 724 men.
(41:42):
They only have started thissurvey with men.
John F Kennedy was actually oneof the men they started the
survey with, which I thought waskind of interesting.
And now it's lasted 85 yearsand they have about 60 of those
original 724 men still alivethat are in their nineties, that
are still participating in this, and basically what they show
is individuals with strong andsupportive relationships exhibit
significantly lower rates ofchronic diseases, including
(42:05):
cardiovascular issues, diabetes,arthritis and just physical and
mental health.
Okay, they're in better shape.
And it said this.
This is what I thought wasinteresting that even if you're
in a marriage that is highconflict or a loveless marriage,
they suffer worse than if youwent and got divorced.
Ultimately, the belief is thatyou stay married.
(42:26):
If you can stay married andhave good commitment with each
other, you'll be better off.
But if you're in a lovelessmarriage or a high conflict
marriage, they say no, you'llactually live longer if you go
ahead and get a divorce.
Speaker 2 (42:37):
Yeah, you pull the plug on that If you pull the
plug.
Okay, that's noted, noted, okay, thank you, noted, okay, noted.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
However, listen to this Okay yeah, sorry,
no-transcript, their argumentsdidn't take a toll on cognition.
So basically, if you like,argue with each other, whatever
(43:03):
it is, banter whatever, but youstill trust each other at the
core of everything, then you,cognitively, will still do
pretty well, okay, then he wenton to say it's basically all of
this comes down to.
It all boils down torelationship is the most key
thing in your life to say, toevaluate, to have good health
and a good life.
(43:24):
Right, that's basically howthis all boils down to and I
added this because I thoughtthis was pretty interesting that
money, you know, people say, oh, if I had enough money, if I
was rich, if I was super wealthy, I would be super happy.
Well, actually they say that upto a point of having enough
money to meet your basic needsdid raise your wellbeing, right,
so you don't want to bestressing about rent and
utilities.
And can I take care of myfamily?
(43:44):
That's different.
But once you reach thatthreshold and you have enough to
get by, right, and you're notscraping by every single day
beyond a comfortable threshold,additional wealth actually
produce little extra happiness.
Now, I might argue that becausewe've never been in that boat.
But I'm like, hey, I don't knowIf I could just cruise around
and go on trips my whole life, Idon't know.
(44:05):
I might be a lot happier, butaccording to the study, that is
not actually adding to yourhappiness.
And then it said you knowpeople might argue well, if
you're super smart, you makemore money, then you're happier.
Well, they actually said that'snot true, that even the higher
IQ ranges it really didn't haveanything to do with if you again
made more money with a higherIQ, okay.
(44:25):
So I thought that was kind ofan interesting thing.
Finally, your childhood and yourrelationships with your parents
growing up actually impacts youin your later life.
Which I pulled these two.
So if you had a really goodrelationship with your mother,
they were associated with peak,having higher salaries, actually
$87,000 more a year.
If you had a good relationshipwith your mother, okay in your
(44:47):
professional life.
And it affected your personallife.
And it actually said that,conversely, men with poor
childhood relationships withtheir mothers were more likely
to develop dementia in old age.
I don't know why that is, butthat's what they pulled.
And then, in reverse, okay, ifyou keep going talking about
fathers, right, relationshipsmen with their fathers
correlated.
(45:08):
If you had a good one you hadlower anxiety, greater enjoyment
of vacations and increased lifesatisfaction by the age of 75.
I just thought that was superinteresting and basically it
said, if you had great memoriesof your childhood and good
parental relationships, itreally does lead to a lifelong
(45:28):
source of strength and happinessand kind of something to aim
for.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
So I thought it was just I don't know, I thought it
was super interesting, and Ithink that that's what we talk
about all the time that one ofGod's greatest blessings to us
is the family.
And when you take the familyand you try to devalue it and
say it's not that important, youdon't.
You know, don't worry aboutthese relationships, or don't
have kids, or it's about me, orit's about I'm telling you, god
(45:53):
designed us to live in families.
I firmly believe that, and it'snot that it's right for
everybody, but it does lead tobetter outcomes, it just does,
and so the family should beprotected at all costs.
And far too often now, I worrythat, in a government sense,
we've devalued the family.
We've actually incentivized thebreakup of the American family.
(46:13):
It's been devastating in a lotof different communities, and so
it's important to realize andthis data just shows it which is
that the family is something weneed to invest in, we need to
pour into and we need toencourage people to take part in
, because if they do, it leadsmore statistically to their
happiness.
And this isn't this isn't aboutanything other than trying to
(46:34):
inflict your type of life on meand dah, dah, dah.
No, this is about more likelyto be happy, because when you're
alone or you're.
You're living your life foryourself.
I don't think that's what Godintended for us.
Speaker 3 (46:44):
I really don't and obviously, like even people that
are widowed and things of thatnature that their spouses have
gone on, it is about beingconnected in community, so
finding a small group or goingto a church or a volunteer group
or something that you're stillstaying really active with
people.
They say that that really helpsand obviously, like me,
studying dementia andAlzheimer's now for the last
five years or so, been settingup on all this.
(47:06):
It is interesting because mymother was single for 40 years,
right, and she spent a lot oftime alone and, compared to you,
know other people that we knowthat are older, that have each
other and have a lot ofcommunity.
It's just interesting.
I'm not saying that was thewhole reason that she developed
it, because I think there'sother things that happened along
the way for her, but I will sayher lack of community and her
(47:26):
lack of a spouse or a partner Ido think it had impact on her.
And loneliness basically on thistoo.
I didn't clip this one, butthey said loneliness was as
dangerous as smoking andalcoholism for your health and I
don't think that's coming outas any shock to anybody, but
anyway.
So I guess it means love eachother and if you don't have a
spouse, that's okay.
Get involved with the community, get in there with other people
that you can and make sure thatyou connect with other people.
(47:48):
I think that's really whattheir their takeaway was from
the survey, so no doubt, okay.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, thanks very much for joining us.
We do appreciate it and we willbe back with you on Sunday.
Again, don't forget to go on tono doubt about a podcastcom and
sign up for email and, ofcourse, if you have not become a
subscriber to our YouTubechannel, please do that.
We're closing in on 15,000.
We're trying to get to thatnumber, so we would love your
(48:16):
help in doing that and, ofcourse, we'll have a fresh show
right out of the oven for you.
Nice and warm.
Speaker 6 (48:18):
on Sunday.
You've been listening to the noDoubt About it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it Podcast.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
No doubt about it.
Speaker 6 (48:38):
The no Doubt About it Podcast is a Choose Adventure
Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!