09 08 25 Good news in the Jobs Report for SC! We talk with Dr Joey Von Nessen

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Jonathan Rush to say that, let's sake news, let's say quiet, listen.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
You don't listen. You never listen. That's why you're second grade,
Kelly Nash.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
We're not going to war.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
We're going to clean up our city. That's not war.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
That's common sense, Kelly Show. Now she was off camera.
I did not realize he was speaking to NBC News reporter.
I can't remember her way you pronounce her first name,
but her last name is al Cinder, isn't it Yamichi
Yamichi al Sinder. He was speaking to an African American
female and that lit the Internet on fire.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Who may also be part of the lgbt Q I
A community.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
She could be. I don't know, but you know, this
is the kind of thing that I'm constantly aware of.
I'm aware of this because I'll look at Sally and
go look sugar, and she'll go. You gotta be real
careful who you ever say that to other than me?

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Donald Trump's not sweating it.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
No, he's not sweating.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
Are you going a man's plain?

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Darling? Listen, let me explain it to you. Don't listen?
So good, that's great, but the meme was a little demonstrative,
even in the photo form that a.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Little light war.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
She's not part of the LGBTQIA community. I just looked
it up. She's married to a guy named Nathaniel Klein,
so congratulations to well. I noticed that they're not the Cleines.
It's the Kleine a'l Sinder family.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
He took her last name possibly, uh huh okay. A
lot of news over the weekend, we can get to
in a minute. A lot of people over the weekend
talking about the jobs numbers that came out on Friday.
And we recorded the Jonathan Y. Kelly show that aired
on Saturday and disclaimed that about fifty times. Because some
people don't realize we don't do the show live on Saturday.
We record that on Friday. That's right, So we weren't

(01:49):
able to get all the goodness and included in some
of the goodness we were bringing to you today because
doctor Joey, like a lot of the economists, spent the
weekend delving it to the numbers.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
It's always doing crunch crunch, crunch, crunch crunch.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yes, I mean they're divining information out of that that
Kelly and I wouldn't even know where to start, that's right.
So that's why we like to go to him as
quickly as possible, and we did so today. Up it's
the Jonathan and Kelly Douvile's secret hotline. Kelly nash Row,
come on the phone. The man we go to for
the numbers about South Carolina. Always talk to Joey von
Nesson Research the Economist, University of South Carolina, Darlamore School

(02:26):
of Business. Good morning, Good morning guys. Now I'm surprised
you can fit all that on a business card. That's
a big title.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Now, it's hard. It's hard.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
I know. Over the weekend a lot of the national
pundits have been looking at the national picture for the
jobs report that came on on Friday and the employment
numbers and the like. But here in South Carolina, we
always turned to you for not only the headline, but
to delve a little bit as much as Kelly and
I can understand because we're not research economists. What did
you see in the report for the state of South Carolina.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, overall, the labor market in South Carolina are similar
to what we're seeing at the national level, and that
we're seeing a slow down in the jobs market overall.
In other words, we're not creating as many jobs as
we had been earlier this year and in twenty twenty four.
So it does point to a broader slow down in
the market. But having said that, South Carolina actually stands out.

(03:20):
We've been ranked number one this year, including this most
recent month, in terms of job growth compared to all
other states, and so that's very strong for us, and
it puts us in a fairly unique position. Again, South
Carolina overall is slowing just as the US is, but
we are growing faster than every other state if we
just do a straight comparison there. And the main reason

(03:43):
for the difference is construction, the construction sector. That's not
the only reason, but it's the primary factor because we
have significant population growth in South Carolina, and of course
more heads means more beds are necessary, so as we
see more people moving in, that supports a strong and
thriving housing and real estate sector. And that's really the

(04:06):
big difference where we're seeing growth that's far more pronounced
than the nation is as a whole.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
Doctor van Nessen on the phone with us this morning,
I'm not sure what to make of the job's reports,
because I think we've all been a little bit rattled
the last couple of years seeing the revisions. And I
was listening to Kevin Hassett yesterday and he's one of
Trump's top economic advisors, and he was saying that there's

(04:35):
basically two methods that we have used traditionally to get
these jobs reports. And one is where you kind of
take a survey of the jobs and say, hey, how
many people are you employing, and that's where we got
the twenty two thousand from this time. But then there's
another one where they do a survey of people at home,

(04:56):
basically saying are you working? And he says that when
you look at these massive revisions that we had, which
was I think over two million lost in the Biden administration,
they went from four million down to two million, or
four point five down to two point five. He said
that if you look at it this way right now,
you got the twenty two thousand, But if you did

(05:16):
the other survey, we added two hundred and eighty thousand
last month, and so there could be a massive difference
in what we're going to see in the revision.

Speaker 2 (05:27):
Yes, and that's exactly right. There are those two sources,
the employer survey and the household survey. Generally, we look
at the employer survey as the most accurate number because
when you're talking to employers, you're actually getting information on
the jobs that are being created, the employers that are

(05:48):
actually they're the ones that are actually creating these positions,
Whereas when you talk to households, you're asking them a
question are you working or have you looked for work
in the last six weeks, and so that doesn't give
you a sense of the number of jobs. That more
gives you a sense of whether people are working. Because
if I call you and ask you if you were

(06:10):
working and you say or and you say yes, that
doesn't tell me if you have one job, or if
you have two jobs, or if you have two part
time jobs or a full time job. So it doesn't
give you that detail that the employer survey provides. So
that's where that twenty two thousand number comes from that
we hear about, and the headline number that comes from

(06:32):
the employer survey. It still is revised because we get
more data coming in later, so it gets more broad.
But that's really the best number to use because you're
asking the employers and they're telling you about actual, actual
jobs that are being created on a regular basis.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
You know, as Kelly mentioned, we're hearing about the different
methodologies are the US to come up with these reports.
And I'm wondering as we go forward, if it doesn't
feel like we're stuck in like nineteen eighty five, where
you using phone calls and pen and paper with surveys
to come up with these numbers, when in fact, we
all know that one of the things that employers always
do immedia is report it if no other reason for
taxes and withholding. So what it seems that the federal government,

(07:13):
through its other agencies that currently existing, will be an
easier way for us to be able to derive a
number that is more accurate just based on the reporting
that we already know is coming in. What am I
missing here?

Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, it really has to do with where do we
where do we need to look to make improvements, and
how do we actually do that? And there's no question
that the survey response rate has gone down over time,
and that's becoming more of the case as we see
the transition to the digital era. People are less likely
to answer phones and answer phone surveys and online surveys

(07:47):
and so forth. So there's certainly room for improvement there.
And the other factor is we have to look at
multiple data sources. That's that's the other way to help
address this challenge is that there's you know, you don't
want to look when you're looking for the if you're
if you're trying to get a pulse on the economy,
you have to look at multiple sources of data and
look at it from multiple perspectives. So it's not just

(08:08):
about the jobs data. You have to look at also
what's going on with GDP, what's going on with consumer spending,
what's going on in in the in the business sector
itself in terms of of production levels, and you have
to look and see in general, what does the momentum
of the economy look like. Who's the outlier if there
are any in the data. So it's it's not about

(08:30):
looking at one particular data source. You've got to take
a broad view from multiple sources. And so that's one
element and the other is yes to look at the
look at any single data source and say where are
the weaknesses there and how do we how do we
shore it up. But again, the the biggest challenge here
with the revisions comes in terms of meeting these data quickly.

(08:54):
So the faster you need to get the results, the
faster you want to know the information. Then you have
to trade off the volume of data that you can use.
So that's why we have these revisions because they're trying
to get information in quickly. The revisions come later because
as they collect more and more data, sometimes it changes
the picture.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Yeah, and it's interesting because you know, back to Kevin Hasset,
he was being asked about manufacturing jobs, and it appears
in this new jobs report, and I think has been
pretty consistent so far this year that manufacturing jobs are
not only not increasing, but they're decreasing in the United States.
And his point was, the GDP is booming. We've got

(09:36):
productivity for the nation up three point eight percent in
the last quarter, and yet it still looks like manufacturing
jobs are down. And yet when we look at the
actual industrial production for the United States, it is some
of the highest that we've ever seen. And why is
manufacturing employment down. It doesn't the data doesn't seem to
match the other data. Something's wrong. Either we're not producing,

(09:59):
or or we are producing and we're hiring people or
somehow we're magically producing without any human beings.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
Well, in the case of manufacturing, we actually have seen
a slowdown this year, and that's why it's important to
look at multiple sources. So when we look at the
manufacturing data, they do show a pullback in job so
we've seen a loss in jobs in the manufacturing sector.
We look at industrial production, it's been fairly stable, but
if you zoom in and look at manufacturing itself, it

(10:27):
has been basically at a fairly flat level, in other words,
very muted growth, so slightly positive slightly negative this year.
So while productivity is up, part of that is because
we're actually seeing a in other words, if production is
stable but you're keeping the same level of output with

(10:50):
fewer people, that by definition means you are more productive.
So part of this is looking at the relationship between
those two figures. So production levels have been fairly stable,
it's not growing, not contracting significantly, but the employment numbers
are down. And again you put that together and you
look at output per worker and that goes that goes up,

(11:14):
and so that's why you see some of these higher
productivity measures in manufacturing itself. That's not true across the board.
But again, looking at both, it does point to a
manufacturing sector that has been fairly flat this year overall.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
Scott bessen over the weekend spoke specifically to some of
the things that Kelly mintioned the Hassard talked about having
to do with reports issues in the fact and that
maybe the FEDS slowing instead. That Trump actually reiterated that
over the weekend. And I know you mentioned putting heads
in beds. I like that phrase. But when you look
at construction, as you mentioned, is there a way for

(11:49):
you at your level, because I know you look at
numbers from a thirty thousand foot perspective in broad range terms,
in these genres, is there a way to discern the
differentation between residential commercial building and industrial commercial because that's
one of the things Bessett was speaking of yesterday and
talking about the job numbers that will be coming, but

(12:10):
it's been delayed because the facilities are not yet been
constructed to hire these people.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
Yes, so we can look at so on the construction side,
we can look at residential and non residential, and in
South Carolina both are doing fairly well. On the residential
side again because people are moving into the state and
we are seeing construction respond and that's happening all over
South Carolina, particularly on the coastal regions of South Carolina

(12:35):
from Myrtle Beach and Charleston really being the big two.
But Columbia is doing well also, so construction has been
Residential construction has been doing well statewide. If we look
at industrial or non residential construction there, it really depends
on the sector. You can look at multifamily that has

(12:56):
been fairly stable, if we look at commercial office space
where the real weakness has been and retail has been
fairly stable. Overall, office spaces had a bit of a pullback,
but that's not new to twenty twenty five. That's more
broadly because of what we've seen in the post pandemic
era where the hybrid work environment has made commercial office

(13:20):
space not quite as attractive as it has been. But
in terms of construction, related to what Scott Besson is
talking about, a lot of that is manufacturing space that
is being built for new facilities that are coming into
the United States. And he's right that if we're seeing
a lot of announcements that haven't necessarily started construction or

(13:41):
started building yet, then that could be something we don't
see till twenty twenty six. But in the meantime, South
Carolina is already doing fairly well in construction, and we'll
see if some of these announcements translate into action, which
would begin to manifest itself sometime next year.

Speaker 3 (13:59):
On the phone with doctor on this and from the
University of South Carolina, you're one of the premier economists
in this state, and you get the opportunity, I'm sure
to give your opinion to some of the state leaders
as to how the state should be moving forward. Just
as a broad picture, I mean construction for homes and

(14:19):
things that's fantastic. Is that where you think we should
be focusing our energy? Or if you were to advise
or just tell us with a magic wand what would
doctor van Nesson want to see the state doing that
will set us up for twenty thirty fifty year success.
What would you see? Is it going to continue to

(14:40):
be tourism, Is it going to be agriculture? Where are
we going to grow?

Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yeah, that's a great question. I would say there are
three primary sectors that are going to be driving our
growth going forward. One is going to be healthcare, and
we've talked a lot about healthcare in previous months SOW
that's been a major driver of growth for the US,
but that's true South Carolina as well, and that's because
we have an aging population and we have a rapidly

(15:05):
growing population, and that's going to generate more demand for
health care. So that's going to be front and center
for growth in terms of high level, high levels of demand.
Second is going to be logistics, which and all things
related to logistics, particularly transportation and distribution, because again, population growth,

(15:28):
not just in South Carolina but in the Southeast means
that more companies are going to be wanting to locate
in South Carolina so that they can distribute consumer goods.
So think about Walmart or Amazon distribution centers and all
the logistics and transportation companies that have to support those
types of businesses. So that logistics sector going to be

(15:50):
very in very high demand going forward, So thinking about
what do we need to be doing as a state
to make sure that we can land those companies that
are looking to locate it in the Southeast already. And
then the third is going to be advanced manufacturing, which
has been a major driver of our growth in the
previous decade and the principal contributor to why South Carolina

(16:12):
has been doing so well compared to the national average.
And so we have to look at ways for all
three sectors to remain competitive and to make sure that
we're meeting the needs of these businesses. And we can
talk about what we can be doing for those sectors,
but the big two are making sure that we maintain
and enhance our infrastructure and make sure that we are
continuing to engage in workforce development, in other words, training

(16:36):
workers in South Carolina to be able to meet the
needs of these employers. Those are the two things that
as a state we need to be doing and that
we have been doing already that have been very successful
that companies date as reasons why they're coming to South Carolina.
So we need to build on those and basically do
more of what we're already doing.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
Doctor Joy von Nesson, Research Economist, Universe of South Carolina,
Darla Moore School of Business, thank you so much for
your insights so on what's happening in our state. We
appreciate your time, sir. And so there's good news for
the state of South Carolina, although the nationwide news is slowing,
and we reflected that as well. We're still number one.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
We're number one.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
Hey, So I don't know what else other news that
happened over the weekend. Obviously, Russia is stepping up their
their their game against the Ukraine. I believe now that
the left and the left media, if it's ever explained
and Putin never has a historian who comes out and
tells the truth behind this. But I believe that they

(17:39):
have done a real good job of helping Putin understand
you just need to string this out until the midterms,
when Trump will be less of a power because he
will be hamstrung by the Democrats winning in the midterm elections.
I believe that that's that's a that's a reality that
europe is having to come to terms with.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
Uh, you know, will Trump be hamstrung? Traditional you know
politics would say yes, that the president, whoever the reigning
party is, usually loses seats in the midterms. I don't
know though this time. I mean, look, is Trump overwhelmingly popular, No,

(18:22):
but the Democrats are so unpopular.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
Yeah. I think that the misgivings in that information is
and I firmly believe that Republicans are going to not
just have a historically unusual victory, They're going to have
an unbelievable, monumental historic notation that could change how history
looks at midterms. This will be forever noted as well, discounting,

(18:51):
of course, the midterms of twenty twenty six. But Trump
went overwhelmingly with the Republicans because you're right, it's not
only that they're damaging themselves. You're seeing the media try
to sell this idea that Mandami actually is the reincarnation
of a moderate Republican named LaGuardia.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Well, he was saying that. I forget who was interviewing
him over the weekend, but I heard it yesterday.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
And you know, I am from that area, the New
York tri state area, so maybe I'm a little more
plugged into New York politics than others would be. But
they gave him the softball question because they said, well,
Tesla has now offered Elon Musk a compensation package which

(19:42):
would make him the world's first trillionaire. You've said you
don't like billionaires, do you also not like trillionaires? And
you know, he didn't go as hard as I thought
he would go at that, but he did make the
point he compared himself to LaGuardia. Now you all know

(20:02):
the airport. LaGuardia, though, was the actual mayor of New
York City in the late thirties, LaGuardia, And I said
to myself, wasn't LaGuardia a Republican? I thought he was.
I looked him out, Yes, he was a Republican. Now,
some at the time tried to call him a socialist
because of how he looked at certain issues, but it's
pointed out in his Wikipedia page he never read Carl Marx.

(20:24):
He doesn't like socialists in general and didn't like the
overriding theme of socialism. And then at the same time
it talked about how there was a big protest in
Harlem one day because of they I guess things have
not changed much. So it's in the thirties. Harlem is

(20:45):
setting itself on fire because they're upset over what's happening
with Mussolini and the atrocities that the fascists are doing
in Italy. And LaGuardia wouldn't tolerated. He said, I don't
give a I don't it doesn't matter why they're protesting.
Go in there and shut them down. And he just

(21:08):
flooded the zone with cops and they arrested people and
they shut it down, and they said to this day,
so we're talking ninety years later, people in that district,
some of them still consider LaGuardia to be a fascist
because of how he treated the blacks in New York

(21:31):
and how he and the way they perceived it. He
was defending the fascist of Mussolini. And so if you
want to compare yourself to somebody, I don't think if
you're trying to say I want to be like Laguadia,
that's not resonating well with the folks of Harlem.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
I still love the question about the trillionaire. You don't
like billionaires? Do you also not like trillionaires? So literally,
it's not a softball question. I think Kelly mentioned this morning.
First thing we were talking about this. You put the
ball on the tee. Now, not a saltball, not a
plast ball, not a whiffle ball. You put a beach

(22:16):
ball on the tee, and then you move the outfield
fits in further than in the infield. Literally, if you
can hit this beach ball with this gigantic bat, we
just handed you over ten feet over the wall. Now
that we brought in to between the home plate and

(22:38):
the pitcher's mount there's the home run question of the day.
I can't imagine, how do you even go to work
if you're a reporter. How do you the next day?
If you ask that question, how do you even go up?
I guess in New York you're celebrating. Well. You know.

Speaker 3 (22:53):
The interesting thing about that compensation package, it's similar in
the sense that the original Tesla compensation package, which I
want to say came out like fifteen years ago, gave
him an opportunity to become a multi billionaire. And at
the time it was kind of, you know, ridiculed, and
this is insane and blah blah blah. We've never had

(23:16):
a CEO who makes billions a year and all that
sort of stuff. But in order to hit it, he
had to like multiply his productivity by like eight times.
He had to hit some incredible numbers and solve some
really intricate problems in order to get Tesla to where
it needed to be in order for him to hit

(23:37):
those sales packages, those compensation packages. In order to do this,
there was some sort of like mathematical equation where it's
now like sixty four times harder than that original package.
If he's going to become a trillionaire, and if he
does it, he will have produced something like a hundred

(23:59):
trillion dollars in value for the company, right, and all
of the employees will be millionaires. If you're working at
Tesla and you're not just putting rivets on a car,
you will be a millionaire, most likely a multimillionaire. Everybody
gets rich. It's the old John F. Kennedy quote about
the rising tide raises all ships. If you're associated with

(24:22):
Elon Musk and you're working in one of his companies,
you are going to be so generously compensated. And that
this is why they hate capitalism, because it actually works.
But at the same time, it doesn't work for everybody.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
It's funny you brought up the jfk all ships rise
rise with a rising tide. I need to go back
and actually look that quote up again so we quote
it correctly.

Speaker 3 (24:48):
I believe it's a rising tide raises all ships.

Speaker 1 (24:50):
That's it. Rising tide raises all ships. Everybody understands that analogy.
It's a great demonstrative statement. There's no question is what
it means. But I was thinking out over the weekend
with some of the Democrat policies now and I realized
some Republicans to kiss you with RFK Junior. But the
Democrats were the ones that were laugh at loud funny

(25:11):
with their objections to RFK Junior and some of his
responses to them, which they are still reveling in this
morning first thing on MSNBC and CNN. There actually now
is another word picture work I'm working on and how
to put the phrasing together. The Democrat anchor that a

(25:33):
lot of these people are tied to. Your ship is
tied to a Democrat anchor. Okay, now, it only has
enough chain to hold you in place right where you are.
So as the rising tide of all the Republican policies
come in, you're going to be tied to that Democrat anchor.
Your boat is not going to be able to rise
because you're tied to the Democrat anchor. As a matter
of fact, the tie is going to come in so

(25:55):
high you're going to miss the opportunity that the Republicans
are bringing this country because your ship is it's going
to be sunk by the weight of the Democrat anchor
and you yourself was submerged and probably drowning it. You're
never going to see because you not allow yourself to see,
because you're so tied to the Democrats. You're so argumentative
against anything that Trump or his administration does, even when

(26:18):
it's the right move. And you see all these companies
now bringing in all these investments, no matter what the
Supreme Court issue is that you think you're going to
have to see Donald Trump embarrassingly sit behind the Resolute
desk and write refund checks to other countries for the
terrorists he put in place, which is not going to happen.
But you go ahead and stay tied to that damn

(26:39):
Democrat anchor and watch yourself be submerged.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
Well, and it's you know, look, there's a divide in
the Republican Party. Sure, you know Rand Paul came out
pretty strongly against Trump over the weekend. He's got questions
about certain moves that the President has made. But I
and there's a bunch of Republicans that are with him
on that. You know, whether it's like the Susan Collins,

(27:04):
the Mitt Romney types of our party. But if you
look at the Democrats, you know you've got New Yorkers
not elected New Yorkers not coming out and supporting the
guy who is most likely to be the Democrat mayor
for New York City. How is it possible that a

(27:24):
Democrat is not endorsing the Democrat from their own town.
It's because they don't like this socialist move, but they
don't have the balls to speak out against it. And
so what we're seeing is a move so far to
the left that while Democrats may not stand up and

(27:45):
protest it, they're not able to stop it. They're not
going to speak out against it. They're not coming out
and saying, you know, like Chuck Schumer, Chuck Schumer is
going to lose his seat because he's damed if he does,
and he damned if he doesn't. He knows that Mam
Donnie is horrible for New York City. He knows that,

(28:08):
and yet so he's not endorsing him. But Chuck, that
is the district you represent. He is the Democrat nominee
for mayor. You are a House leader, and you're not
going to endorse him. Well, AOC is making a lot
of hay with that, and you're gonna get primaried and
AOC's gonna whoop your tail. And that's just the way

(28:31):
the party's going right now. And if you look outside
of the major cities, you know, and I don't even
can is Portland a major city? I guess it is,
I don't know, but you know, look at crime rates.
You know, you've got Gavin Newsom pointing out that you've
got crime rates are higher in Republican LED cities than
they are in Democrats. That's an absolute fallacy. He then

(28:52):
wants to try to make the comparison like JB. Pritzkert
to Republican LED states. If you want to go on
the per hundred thousand, okay, perhaps you can find some
states like Arkansas and Mississippi that have higher crime rates
than Illinois. But if you want to just look at counties,
and that's really what you should be looking at, the
highest murder rates in the country happen to be Cook County,

(29:17):
which is Chicago, and number two is La County. Those
are the two and when you look at like the
third county, which is also a Democrat, Lake County, it's
a drop off of like eighty percent. Those two counties
are on a murderous rampage. That Fallujah stands in awe
of my God, you people are bloodthirsty in those towns,

(29:38):
and so Americans aren't ignorant. They see murder rates of Washington,
DC's murder rates through the roof, and so they see,
wait a second, we've gone two weeks without a murder.
We were averaging like three a night a night, and
now we're at two weeks without any. That's a good thing.
Carjackings are way down, petty crimes are way down. Why

(30:00):
are the Democrats against that? Why would you not like
it because you don't like the procedure. And again it's
not the National Guard. I think Tom Holman did a
great job of explaining they're not actually out arresting anybody.
That's not their jobs. They're not allowed to do that.
They're guarding certain things. But they're also what he uses
the phrase, a force multiplier, meaning if I'm part of

(30:21):
ICE or I'm a local police authority, I typically would
have to do the paperwork, I typically would have to
do a lot of other things that gets in the
way of me arresting people. Well, now you don't have
to do that. The National Guard will handle all that.
You go out and arrest people, show that force, and
they're doing it, and everything's stopping it was like last

(30:41):
I heard, it was like over nineteen hundred arrests something
like that since they got to DC once, the National
Guard nineteen hundred and then the first night I think
they got something like eight child rapists off the streets.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
Eight child. I mean, this is insane. You're talking about
extory of that girl in Charlotte and the arrest record
of the guy who killed her. Sure, it's unbelievable. It's
just as we are seeing more and more news the
tragedies of the person still paying the price for the
open border, we're seeing people now even in Chicago. I

(31:21):
mean they're showing up thankfully at town hall meetings and
telling the mayor Johnson. I mean, they're given this guy
a boatload of crap because he deserves it. These people
are begging for more security in the street.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
Well not everybody. I mean, they do have the protesters
that are started the chant over the weekend. Fund the schools,
not the what do they say, not the military or
something like that. Okay, that's a that's a thought. Well
here's another thought. Your city spent two billion dollars on
illegal aliens. That's that's a two prong problem. One that

(31:58):
two billion dollars would have bought you a lot of security,
paid for a lot of school stuff, but that two
billion dollars also went to fund illegal activities. You invited
criminals into your.

Speaker 1 (32:10):
Community, and you're inviting them now.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
So you have less security, more criminals.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
That's right. You're inviting them to come from wherever they
are that they don't feel like they give the support
of it their sanctuary city to the extent that Chicago
and Boston and other cities are going to give them.
They're coming now as fast as they can to live
in your city.

Speaker 3 (32:29):
And the Asdine response that the reason we have gun
violence in Chicago is because Indiana has lacks gun laws.
Why isn't there gun violence in Champlagine, Why isn't there
gun violence in the suburbs of Chicago? Why is it
just the South Side? How could that possibly make any sense?

Speaker 1 (32:44):
They're so tied to this Democrat what I perceive to
be an anchor, just so tight I should make it
a millstone, because then it makes it biblical, particularly for
persons who would abuse children and child molesters, as Kelly
pointed out, But the predators walking the streets who are
being arrested now formerly allowed to just continue their rampage.

(33:06):
You'd be better off throwing a tying a millstone around
your neck and throwing yourself in the ocean. And to
bring harm to one of these.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
Well, just to go back to our earlier equation about
losing seats in the midterms, and just looked it up.
And so it's happened three times in one hundred years
where the president's party didn't lose seats, twice relatively quickly.
Once was two thousand and two. This is again, obviously

(33:36):
fresh off nine to eleven. Everybody's feeling patriotic, blah blah blah.
So Bush was able to actually pick up eight seats
in the House and two in the Senate nineteen ninety eight.
Some Americans were upset that the Republicans had tried to
impeach Bill Clinton at that time, and the Democrat Party

(33:57):
ended up picking up five House seats. So you got
one in ninety eight, one in two thousand and two,
so relatively recent history. The other time was nineteen thirty four,
in the midst of the Great Depression, when Americans were
buying the what do they call it the Big New
Deal or whatever, the New Deal of Franklin Eleanor Roosevelt,
and he was making the pitch that listen, I'm the

(34:19):
only one who can get you back in work. I'm
the one who can save the country, and I need
help in the House, I need help in the Senate.
And they bought that, and so he picked up both
the House and Senate seats in that But other than that,
every time the president has lost in the midterms.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Well, they keep leaving their polling and for the life
of me, I hope that they continue with their separation
of their party, and the ones that are still in
what we would refer to as the Democrat Party not
the Democrat Socialist Party, are so afraid they will not
stand up and take a stand, which means that you're
already pointing out you should have been in an office

(34:57):
to begin with.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
If you want to see a funny video, I it's
like an hour and a half. I watched maybe twenty
minutes of it yesterday, Patrick Bette David versus twenty Socialists, Okay,
I think that's the name of the video, right, And
so you know, they've got like ten minutes to make
their case to him or whatever, and they have their
argument for like them so he's surrounded by twenty socialists

(35:19):
sitting in chairs, and they come up and they press
the button and they start talking. And one of the
arguments that this I think it was a girl, might
have been a guy. When you're talking about socialist, it's
hard to tell the difference. Anyway, the socialist was making
the point that the reason socialism hasn't worked is because
the United States keeps like messing it up, bordering it down. No, no,

(35:43):
we go into other countries like Venezuela. So we ruined
it in Venezuela. Yeah, we ruined it in Cuba. We
are the country that keeps ruining it.

Speaker 1 (35:53):
And so he was.

Speaker 3 (35:55):
He just said, but you know that there was socialist
countries before the United States was even invented, Like they
had socialist countries in the sixteen hundreds. They haven't had
enough time either, well not really. They were actually very successful,
and then the United States came along and in the
eighteen hundreds we tried to run He's like, so they

(36:16):
had two hundred years before we somehow got involved in
it wasn't quite right yet, traction because the people that
at that time felt like we were liberating them. And
so I just always find that ironic. He's like, how
about this?

Speaker 1 (36:30):
There was another one.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
He said, how about this. You pick out the socialist
country of your dreams. I don't care which one it is.
And he says it costs. I didn't know this, Jonathan.
You can renounce your citizenship in the United States, but
you got to pay for that. It's like twenty four
hundred and like fifty two dollars.

Speaker 1 (36:45):
Okay, He's like, I looked it up.

Speaker 3 (36:47):
It's two thousand, four and fifty two dollars to renounce
your American citizenship. I will pay that for you, and
I will buy you not economic I'll buy you first
class airfare, one way ticket to the socialist country of
your dreams. Please take me up on your offer. I'll
send you anywhere in the world. Find the country you

(37:08):
want to go live in. Oh, they didn't want to go.
They didn't want to go. They didn't want to go because.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
You keep ruining it for them.

Speaker 3 (37:14):
America keeps. Our tentacles are all throughout the world, ruining socialists.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
That's part of my imperialistic Yes. I wonder what was
left in that