5/22/25 - Moral Hazards

The Anchormen peek inside the Dark Arts of Steve Bannon; debate the Big Beautiful Ramifications of the budget bill, Medicaid work requirements, taking out a small loan for a carne asada burrito, the hunt for the liberal Joe Rogan and whether P-Diddy will actually be convicted.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Now it's time for the Anchorman podcast with Matt Yeats
and Dan Ball. Welcome back to Anchorman.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
It was last week we had an epic show with
my good friend Steve Bannon, so you're gonna want to
check that out. It was our most successful Anchorman. Today
we went over politics and jail and how oddly the
two go together. But tonight I am joined by my
on again, off again employee, my one and only Indian.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
Guru, Vish Burah.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Vish was the founding producer of Steve Bannon's War Room.
He was a member of my congressional staff and the
congressional staff of George Santos, and now is a producer
on the Matt Cats Show.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
So Vish Uh I went.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
We went Mano and Mono with Bannon last week, and
as folks consult that episode, I thought maybe we could
start out our conversation tonight kind of with your work
for a guy who's one of the most influential yet
mercurial figures on the political right. You were his producer,
his driver. Give us some Steve Bannon stories.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
I loved my experience with Steve because I learned so
much of the alternative tactics or sort of these dark
art tactics of how you deal with the media and
how you influence and how you get not just stories
out there, but how do you get certain frames around
stories out there. And one of the the crystallized moments

(01:35):
in my memories of working for Steve Bannon was when
I was driving him once to New York during the
COVID pandemic. I think it was around April, So this
is one of the first times we're even getting out
of the house to get go somewhere that wasn't you know,
the Washington d C.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
Barracks or the war room. And I remember he was
on the phone.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
He was taking phones the whole taking phone calls the
whole right up to New York. And it was a
lot of phone calls with the medium. Now, some of
the people he was talking to were conservative reporters and
some of them that he was talking to.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Were liberal reporters.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
But what was fascinating and what I learned that day
was how to make sure that on both sides of
the story, you're the center player in it and it
actually doesn't. And the way he pitched it to them
was he would get on the phone with the conservative reporters,
and he would, you know, kind of describe what's going
on and explain himself or frame himself as the hero

(02:36):
in the story to.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
The conservative reporters.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Then when he would go and get the liberal reporters
on the phone, he would serve up the same story again,
but he would portray himself as the villain, right as
the guy who's stopping something or the guy who's you know,
thwarting the Liberals' plans on this by helping the conservatives
with X, Y and Z. And what I I understood

(03:01):
then is that what he was he was giving both
sides what they wanted at the end of the day
to run the story. They the Conservatives needed Steve Bannon
as the hero in their story and the Liberals needed
Steve Bannon as the villain in their story to run it.
And therefore he would play these these narratives off each other,
and at the end in both stories he comes out

(03:23):
as the center player. And I thought, wow, that is
just a fascinating technique on how to make sure that
on both sides your being covered. And for him the
frame didn't matter. He knows the Liberals need a villain
for their story, so he's happy to play it for them.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Well, and you know, when we think about the great
stories of humanity, don't we remember the villains as much
as we remember the heroes? Like it in Peter Pan,
who's the better character, Peter Pan or Captain Hook? Oh,
it's got to be kind r like you remember the
Lex Luthor energy as much all the great Batman is.
The Joker is definitely more famous than Batman, right, And

(04:01):
so is there a part of that that is that
is part of Bannonism, that it's okay to be the
villain or the anti hero so long as you're in
the story.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
Oh. Absolutely, It's not just that.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
But I think that that kind of mentality has evolved
even really after the Batman of the Dark Knight movie,
where Joker, you know, Heath Ledger had this historical performance,
and then the Avengers movie where Thanos you know, Infinity War,
Theanos becomes this revered villain. And I think that the
American public has had more of an appetite for these

(04:32):
anti hero types. The sopranos, yeah, and the soprano even, yes,
and we we've had that.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
I think more of an app type of the anti heroes. Well,
I think it's Donald Trump. Well, I think it's actually
the inverse of that. It's because so many of our
heroes are perceived for heroes have disappointed us. And so
now I think that there is an appetite for Americans
to want to identify with an anti hero who gets

(04:58):
things done. Even if he's perceived as.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
The bad guy.

Speaker 3 (05:02):
It for them, it doesn't matter because he does what
he or he believes in something and he gets it
done anyway possible. And that's kind of the role that
I see Steve Bannon playing, but not only that, playing
that up and serving it to an audience who may
never ever give him the benefit of the doubt of
being the hero, right, And so he says, you know what,

(05:23):
in your story, no matter what I say, I will
be a villain. So I'm just gonna play that up
to make sure that that's the story that gets through.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
I have seen members of Congress attempt to this strategy,
and they believe that they can kind of romance the
stone with the media, that they can charm the Daily
Beast or the Washington Post or the New York Times,
and most of them can't. They don't have the ability
that abandon does or frankly a Trump does. I mean,
remember Trump was this charismatic, charming figure to the media

(05:54):
all the way up until he became president of the
United States. And you know, I didn't like talking to
the leftist reporters. My staff would I say, oh, man,
you know, if you talk to him, they see, they
hear your perspective, even if it's a bad story, you'll
least at least get your voice in it. And I
took a like in my heart, my approach was all

(06:15):
these people are going to do is try to make
the work we're doing look bad, and so why lend
credibility to the reporting by lending your voice to it.
That's not a bandoned perspective.

Speaker 3 (06:26):
No, hell no, In fact, that again the mentality is,
I know, I know that I will never be a
hero in your story, and you're going to write the story.
So you know what, let me go in there. It
lend voice to it by standing up for what I
believe in. And if I have to even sound because
what they really want is that sound bite, right, that
SoundBite or that voice, that quote that they can go

(06:49):
and run and say look at this bad guy.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Right.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
My theory on that, learning from Bannon is give it
to them. Give it to them, because there's nothing you
can say to make them the hero, to make them
see you as the hero. So definitely make sure they
remember you as the villain, the bad guy, the one
to fear, right, because that actually has way more of
a psychological effect in their future.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
Actions against you. Right that.

Speaker 3 (07:14):
I think that that is the theory of the case,
and I actually think it works. And I kind of
have relationships with liberal reporters in the same way.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Well, yeah, you love a little bit of liberal interaction.
Actually go to a little vishpurah, Jordan Klepper.

Speaker 1 (07:31):
What are you gonna miss out on if this mandate
prevents you from doing?

Speaker 3 (07:34):
I just tried to get some type I love tay food.
I just tried to get some ty food around the corner.
They told me I couldn't sit down and eat unless
you know, I had a vaccine mandate. Now, I believe
things like that were said to Martin Luther King when
he tried to walk into.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
Places to eat.

Speaker 3 (07:49):
But they say they had a different reason to make
them a second class citizen.

Speaker 4 (07:52):
Compare yourself to MLK are big words for a guy
wearing eighties b boy jeans.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
Actually These are not eighties b boys jeans. They are
new true religions. I know you can't tell because you're
a Democrat and you can't afford these things.

Speaker 1 (08:05):
Well enjoy. I hope you don't get sick. Thank you.
I still haven't yet. Have you gotten COVID? I did?
That sucks too, good for you. That's the empathety that
the young Republicans bring. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
So that was an interesting opportunity you had to face
down Comedy Central's best.

Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, and and and that is a great example actually
of that mentality, because Jordan Klepper is there trying to
villainize me about not taking the COVID vaccine, right because
I'll get sick and.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
I'll get all these other people's ridiculous today.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
Well it's not just anins well it's not just that,
but that, but that. The reason why that that clip
went viral is because at the at the end of
the very clip, he says, I hope you don't get sick,
and I say, well, you know, I still haven't gotten
COVID yet to this day, even though I haven't taken
the COVID vaccine. Have you a person who has taken
the COVID vaccine and he says, yeah, I have actually
gotten COVID. I'm like, well, sucks, too bad for you.

(08:59):
And then he this is me of not being empathetic.
The guy was making fun of my jeans, right, and
my aptitude and understanding the founding fathers. And then he says, oh,
you didn't. You don't have sympathy for me because I
got sick with COVID. Meanwhile, I'm telling this guy, hey,
I didn't take the vaccine and I still haven't gotten sick.
Maybe there's something wrong with your case. But he's not

(09:19):
going to want to hear that. He just wants his
sound bite. And you know what, I just want mount
my SoundBite, and so I gave it to him. And
I think that that exchange is one of the ones
that put me on the map in terms of the
map a little bit.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
Yeah, I have a little spot, a little flag for
Vishborough car right.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
So we were cutting it up earlier today on one
of the big issues shaping the debate on Capitol Hill
over this recon Affiliation bill, and it's the medicaid program.
And there are three major drivers of the federal budget.
You've got Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and Republicans and
Democrats are in pretty universal agreement that Social Security and

(09:56):
Medicare are benefits that people have earned, that they've paid into,
and that they ought to receive because it helps a
lot of elderly folks and folks that can't go out
and generate disposable income. Medicaid is where I would do
the cutting. And really you have to understand in Washington, DC,
a cut doesn't actually mean less money. Okay, when we

(10:19):
say cut and only in Washington speak, a cut is
a reduction in expected future outlays. So if you're spending
x dollars today and the expectation is you're going to
spend one hundred times x ten years from now, if
you only spend fifty times X ten years from now,

(10:40):
they view that as a cut, which is absurd. So
no one's actually talking about cutting Medicaid. They're talking about
reducing the expenditures in the future growth of the program.
And I'll lay out some of my critiques of Medicaid.
I believe that states aren't given the opportunity to design
their own Medicaid systems because the federal government requires you

(11:00):
to meet certain requirements in order to get the draw
down the way Obamacare dumped a lot of able bodied
people into Medicaid. That was Obamacare did not you had
to be you know, single mom below the poverty line or.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
Indexed there too. In some way.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
The disabled people who are physically disabled and disabled otherwise
get Medicaid benefits. But now under Obamacare, we've put able
bodied adults into this program, and those able bodied adults
are now crowding out a system that was intended for
the vulnerable. And so the big fight is whether or

(11:39):
not to have a work requirement on Medicaid and whether
or not really to send a lot of the Medicaid
program to the states. You have posited the theory that
the Republican messaging that we're about to hear from from
Eric Burlison is bad. First we'll go to Burlison and
then get vicious reaction.

Speaker 4 (11:57):
The people that truly need Medicaid. We're focused on making
sure that that program, if anything, is you know, lifted
up and made sound for the people that are the
vulnerable population, the age, the blind, that disabled. To make
sure that it's available for them, we've got to get
you know, I frankly I call them the dead beats.
The people that are the young, able bodied, working age

(12:20):
adults that should be out there working and contributing, but
for whatever reason, are not all right.

Speaker 1 (12:26):
He says, they're dead beats.

Speaker 3 (12:27):
Let's say you, this is the most politically tone deaf
messaging that I have heard, especially coming off the heels
of Donald Trump's historic twenty twenty four victory mainly fueled
by young men. Right, we worked all of twenty twenty

(12:48):
three and twenty twenty four to get young men to
come vote for us, and the first people we decide
to attack when we need to go and cut medicaid
is we're going to go and attack young men for
being on medicaid.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Right?

Speaker 2 (13:01):
Do you think that the reason young men voted for
Donald Trump so that they could get medicaid without having
to do it to work?

Speaker 1 (13:06):
No, not at all.

Speaker 3 (13:07):
But I don't think that they signed up to be
on the receiving end of being villainized as the people
that need to be gotten off of Medicaid.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
Now, I'm not saying that.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Can you say that people need to be gotten off
of medicaid without villainizing them, because I'm not villainizing them.
I'm just saying I don't want to pay for your healthcare.
A lot of people who aren't villains, who I don't
want to pay for their healthcare.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
Well I think that then if that's the case, then
why why is it that young men are singled out?
I would say, why are by.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
The way, why are you genderizing this young women are
treated the same way? Well?

Speaker 3 (13:34):
No, actually no, because if you go and watch those
clips of all these but all these members talking about it,
they say, oh, no, Medicaid is meant for single mothers,
and and they play the compassion card on single mothers
should because it.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
Doesn't treat single mothers differently. This bill doesn't treat single
mothers differently than than it treats single men. Now you
may critique the messaging, but in the actual bill, I
my sense is it it was all able bodied. Someone
will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's uh. You know,
is there a reason why able bodied people shouldn't have
to meet a work requirement? And the work requirements are
so soft fished? The work requirements are twenty hours a week.

(14:08):
When you work for Steve Bannon, you could have met
the work requirement in a day. Okay, yeah, I dont none.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
But by the way, I get I get that, but
I also I believe the number is something like sixty
five percent of people on Medicaid are working either part.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Time or full time.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
Sure, I will concede the numbers I pulled, about twelve
percent of the Medicaid population is in this basket. We're
talking right right, It could be sixty There's kind of
some floating numbers depending on where you index the year.
But why in the world shouldn't you view that as
an enormous pot repository for savings.

Speaker 3 (14:45):
Because there are other pots I think that we can
go after to make savings, namely how many illegal aliens
are on Medicaid? Right that they beat the worker? Well,
but that's but that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
You're telling you're.

Speaker 3 (14:58):
Telling me they should be throwing off. I agree, But
why is it the message in starting there?

Speaker 2 (15:03):
Well, I think in a lot of ways it has
I don't think so they have an attacked for that.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
You see.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
Maybe that's a smart tactical play on the Democrats part,
but Republicans have put downward pressure on the ability of
states to sign up. You know, every illegal alien that
just jump the border. Uh, where they're being attacked is
on the Medicaid expansion population under Obamacare. But you're saying
that those people ought to uh, you know, to receive that.

(15:32):
I know, and it's not that I think that they
ought to receive it.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
I just think that it's this is politically tone deaf
to attack them for it. We don't want I don't
want single able bodied men on Medicaid. I don't want
able bodied women on medicaid, Okay, But the question we
should be asking is why are those people on Medicaid
in the first place?

Speaker 1 (15:52):
And if I don't see, probably look give it to them.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
Well, there's there's that, but also underemployment, but like underemployment
right and now, and issues like that. If we're not
cutting H one B visas in this same bill, and
if we're not like cutting cut like cutting all the
things or codifying President Trump's reindustrialization executive orders and stuff
like this, if you're not codifying that, but your main

(16:17):
concern is booting the you know, the able bodied men
on the bill to go because they're being lazy playing
Xbox in their mom's basement like that are by the way,
and you know what I'd look at, by the way,
I'd love to see a demographic outlay on that.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
You know what I mean. But but I think that
this is demographic. I don't. I don't.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
I think that there is a lot of non white
Americans who are who are actually fitting that criteria, and
instead they're just lumping every young man in America into
this uh democrat into this this bucket.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
Now, I think that's also wrong.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
Well, you're making an argument about politics. Let me let
me posit this this psychology. I was once a young man,
and so I have experience with this. I'm somewhat of
an expert. When you're a young man, you don't you
don't think about your healthcare coverage.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
There's not like that.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
There's not a wide swath of men under the age
of thirty five that when they walked into the voting
booth made a choice based on what they thought would
be better for their their health insurance coverage. Maybe they
voted based on what they thought was better for their
physical health, but not like the insurance coverage payment for it.
So I don't think your argument lands because I don't.
I don't think that the political impact of it is felt.

(17:32):
Even if you don't, even if you feel attacked.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
No, it's not.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
It's not that I feel I'm not a Medicaid but
i'm I'm I'm a working guy on Medicaid.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
Thirty eight percent of Californians. There's wild, wild, thirty eight
percent of Californians are on Medicaid.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Does that discriminate against legal and illegal? That's all. That's
the whole kitten kaboodle, and.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
It what it does is it crowds out the Medicaid
program for people who need it. And I am not
against medicaid. I don't believe we should eliminate Medicaid. I
actually think we should make it stronger. But you don't
make Medicaid stronger by taking people who have paid taxes
in America, lived in America their whole lives and put
them behind the newest arrivals to our country.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
I agree.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, we're in agreement on that. There is some tension
in what we're saying and what I was saying earlier
about sending it all to the states, because because let's
break this down, I actually would just block grant the program,
send it to the states, and pretty much let them
do what they want. I am that much of a

(18:38):
federalist now in places like California, they're still going to
sign up the illegals, right, They're still going to pay
for the transsexual surgeries on Medicaid. They're still going to
do all that weird stuff. In other states they won't
make those mistakes. And I actually think that's okay. In federalism.
I think that you've you do need to show success

(18:58):
and failure so that the accept the success can be appreciated, modeled, nurtured,
and developed. So if you, if you were like Emperor
for a day on this medicaid program, would you block
grant it without strings or would you make it the
conservative fever dream of you know, no transsexual surgeries, no
funding for the illegal aliens, none of this, you know,

(19:20):
abortion terrorism that is flourishing.

Speaker 3 (19:23):
Oh yeah, no, I would put a ton of strings
on it in that In that way with the block grants, right,
I'm federalists.

Speaker 2 (19:29):
Yeah, I went a categorical grant. It's not a block
re People like block grants and then do this. The
definition of a block grant is you give them the
block of money and then leave them alone. What you're
describing as a categorical grant.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
Oh yeah, well okay, then that's what it is, right.

Speaker 3 (19:41):
I would I would put a ton of strings on
it because look at what how what we're you know,
tangentially related as the salt deductions on that too, like
when you have states going uh buck wilde in terms
of spending collections, and then the federal government is subsidizing this,
and you have you know, red state with responsible policies

(20:01):
subsidizing some of this stuff too. If those salted deductions
are in place where the caps are raised or whatever, like,
eventually these blue states are going to run back to
the Fed and ask guys like you from Florida to
subsidize it again, or pay for it again, or bail
them out right. And so I don't believe that these
states are ever going to be responsible with it. That's

(20:23):
why I would rather do categorical grants.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
If you've just tuned in and I've heard vish Bura
talk about salt deductions, he's not giving you the latest
advice he got from his cardiologist. This is actually a
policy issue that is being resolved in the Reconciliation legislation.
It stands for state and local taxes, and in blue
states like Illinois and California and New York, people are
able to deduct those taxes from their federal income taxes. Now,

(20:48):
the reason Floridians like myself find that unfair is that
we didn't choose to elect people to charge those taxes.
We view an income tax at the state level commensurate
with a violation of the Geneva Convention in the state
of Florida, and so we don't think that's fair. Now
New Yorker's in Californians would say, we are not like

(21:10):
on par recipient states. We're donor states to other places
that have other larger populate you know, they have other
infrastructure needs and other federal government workforce needs. So I
don't know, man, I think that the way they've resolved
this with a least staphonic getting in there and creating
this forty thousand dollars cap for people earning under half

(21:32):
a million, I don't love it.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
I think that it is.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
Probably, you know, less fair to Floridians than the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act that President Trump previously passed. But
if it leaves everybody a little uncomfortable and cobbles together
the votes, is that are you good with that as
a landing?

Speaker 1 (21:51):
You know what?

Speaker 3 (21:51):
Forty thousand I'm not against that, right, but you go
and talk to those New Yorkers that forty thousand isn't enough, right.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Well, it's too much, right, Maybe that's why that's the
future of a good deal.

Speaker 3 (22:01):
Well and I hope so, right, But but they're still
upset about that number. And it's not really about income taxes.
It's really about property taxes.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
Right.

Speaker 3 (22:13):
What they're trying to do is they're trying to alleviate
the or provide relief to the rich members in their districts,
right that have over one hundred thousand dollars in property
tax bills.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
Is for people, right, No, in these.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Middle class, my middle class constituents, right, like you know Rep.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
Lawlor So, it's they're not middle class. Right.

Speaker 3 (22:35):
Forty thousand will do just fine for a middle class
person who owns a home in New York, but it
will not do well for his Westchester district or for
George Santos's New York three right the Gold Coast where
those people are banging down the doors on Salt or
anybody on Long Island for that matter.

Speaker 1 (22:55):
It's about the property taxes.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
And that is really where they're That's where these people
get the goll to say, we need you know, an
eight times, ten times raised on the salt cap from
ten k to one hundred k, because those multimillion dollar
homes are the ones with the over one hundred k
tax bills.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
Then go The third big issue that everyone's fighting over
is the repeal of the Green New Deal tax credits.
And there are voices on the Republican side looking at
some of the features of the Green New Deal and saying, well,
we don't totally hate this part or that part, and
you know, I think that that is really at odds

(23:36):
with how pretty much every Republican campaigned. I don't remember
a single Republican campaigning on this stuff, and yet it's
causing a little hiccup, like percentage wise, how much of
the Green New Deal has to be repealed before you
consider that a front line positive effect of the big beautiful.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
Bill one right, I'm the Green New Deal is not
only is it a total scam, but the whole campaign
leading up to us getting the White House and the
majority in the House and the Senate was drill, Baby, drill,
energy independence, And it was all about energy, right, and
now you're talking about recodifying or keeping in the provisions

(24:16):
of every way forever of repealed now, right, So this
is just another farce from the House.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
And I'm really upset.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
That this is that we have another example coming up
of Republicans campaigning on one thing and doing a totally
different thing, especially on the Green new scam. You know,
for the last four years we've heard every single line
and derogatory term thrown into this Green New Deal thing
and associating to it with AOC and Bernie Sanders and

(24:48):
all these people. And now once you have the power,
they're like, you know what, Actually, some parts of this
is not terrible. This is a reducts of twenty sixteen
the healthcare Yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
Got very like Obamacare energy to it.

Speaker 3 (25:02):
Then, yeah, that's what and again and by and if
this if this passes, i mean, look come twenty twenty
six those midterms, if we lose the majority, I mean,
we could just look right back at this and we'll
know exactly what happened.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
This is what we're running on one or the other.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
If we lose the majority, it's because this bill had
too many losses and not enough wins. And you know, likewise,
if we retain the majority, it'll probably be based on
some of the things that are in this bill that
we like, like the tax cuts, the opportunities for small
businesses on depreciating their assets, and certainly on the lower rates.

(25:42):
That's Americans.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
That's all we've got.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
Well, there's border stuff in there, but people aren't. People
aren't as enthusiastic about that because they've seen how effective
Trump was. It's sealing the border just through the sheer
will executive power.

Speaker 3 (25:54):
Well, I also think that that, yes, the border stuff
is in there, and I think that we, as were
publicans conservatives, the base out there expects that at the least, right,
and so like, yeah, of course, I hope there's border
stuff in there. We've only everyone made this the number
one issue, right. But the tax cuts I think are
going to be really really important to deliver if we

(26:16):
want a chance at the majority at all, because I
think that, you know, yeah, fiscal conservatives, we want to
see tax cuts paired with spending cuts. But I actually
think we're in a period right now where conservatives don't
care about the spending cuts part. We just need relief immediately,
even if that means the deficits going up and all that. Listen,
we're at thirty forty trillion dollars of debt with all

(26:38):
sorts of people getting freebies at least a little patronage
to the people who've worked and voted for President Trump
can get.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Some relief with tax cuts. I get that, that's the argument.
I hate it because we also made the argument throughout
this entire campaign that the debt and the deficits that
were that were piling up each and every.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Year contributed to inflation.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
Like, of course, inflation was just as much a part
of this campaign as the border for taxes. And when
you make the argument that deficits and debt drive inflation
and then you don't really attack deficits and debt, well.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
Matt, where's the appetite? Look, well, how many of the
dog cuts are we called codifying? Right? How much?

Speaker 3 (27:20):
So if we're and we are, our voters are not dumb.
They're paying attention to all this stuff. If they're like,
you know, what if if the dose cuts aren't happening
or being codified, just please give me the tax cut relief.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
You know, you have a lot of the fiscal hawks
on our network, on our show, and like we heard,
I don't think they were gaslighting us because they were
actually fighting for the cuttings. But they would come on
night after night and say we want a trillion in cuts,
we want two trillion cuts, and now we're gonna end
up with like, yeah, what a hundred billion?

Speaker 3 (27:52):
Maybe dropping the bucket. Not I mean, it's like, that's
that's what I'm saying. It's just one hundred billion. You're
not You're not gonna get the spending cuts.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
We know.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
And but I think I've said this few years ago
when I said listen to paradigm on on the American
public there it used to be socially liberal, fiscal fiscally conservative,
and now it's flipping over to socially conservative in the
sense that like, don't shot my kids' genitals off. But
it's basically that's what is is retreated to right and

(28:23):
then fiscally liberal, meaning that.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
Okay, keep giving me my medicaid.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
Yeah, keep looking, keep giving me some medicaid. You know what,
the deficits the spending is not terrible as long as
I get relief, as long as there's patronage provided to
me voting for you.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Do you think that the way Biden drove up these
deficits so quickly with these massive spending bills, that people
connected that to the higher prices that they were seeing
at the grocery.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
Of course they did.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
And don't you think they'll punish us if we spend
this much and the inflation doesn't.

Speaker 3 (28:54):
Matt Biden flooded the zone with ten million illegals.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
We can't.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
We can barely get two hundred of them without a
massive fight. You don't think the American public also sees this.
We are why we get it right that the system
has is against us, and we've always it's always been
against us. There's no due process to dump ten million
illegals in your country, but it's all the due process
to get even two hundred of them out.

Speaker 1 (29:17):
Yeah, we're gonna.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
Wave them in by the planeload, bus load, raftload, and
then demand like a trial for each one of them.
You know, Attaqua Finn shows up and defends every illegal
alien all the way. It's completely unsustainable and if we
accept that, we won't get the benefit out of it.
Final note here on the Medicaid program twenty twenty four.
The medicaid program costs the country half a trillion dollars

(29:40):
in twenty thirty four, it'll cost a trillion.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
You know, you go twenty more.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
Years out probably a two trillion go out. This is
we are not going to be able to spend this
amount of money.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Now.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
I don't think that means I really, sincerely don't think
that means we have to reshape ridge for people who
actually need medicaid. I think we can actually make that
a lot stronger, but we won't do that out of Washington.
I've got to rid you of this notion that you know,
we put all the strings on, because that becomes infinitely regressive.
We put strings on the program, they put the next thing.

(30:14):
You know, if you want medicaid, you got to have
your pronouns in your email block box. And so it's
better to just let the states do it. And you
know what, my state will continue to crush it and
your state will continue to fail.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
Which New York.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
Why, folks, there's some real momento in the fight for
affordable healthcare. President just signed a powerful executive order to
drive down prescription drug prices across the board. But here's
the thing. While the bureaucracy drags its feet, one pharmacy
isn't waiting around all. Family Pharmacy is stepping up right
now with real action to support the President's vision and
give Americans more control over their healthcare. From now through

(30:48):
the end of June, they're running a sale get twenty
percent off site wide. And here's what I love. You
don't need insurance. They connect you right with licensed doctors
in all fifty states, and they ship medicine right to
your door fast. Whether you're looking for ivermectin, hydroxychloroquin antibiotics,
emergency kits, vitamins, or just your daily meds. It's time
to stock up and save. If you believe in being prepared,

(31:09):
you believe in medical freedom. This is your pharmacy. Head
over to All Family Pharmacy dot com forward slash Matt
use promo code not twenty for twenty percent off your order.
That's All Family Pharmacy dot Com. Forward slash Matt Matt
twenty is the code. Let's push back on big pharma
and make America healthy again. So Vish, you have noticed
this new trend in micro ending and it is leading

(31:30):
to quite the economic catastrophe. Let everybody in on it.

Speaker 3 (31:34):
Yeah, So Klarna this company that provides this by now
pay later service. It's very similar to affirm and all
these micro loan services where you're able to get a
loan on like a PS five that you get from Amazon,
or even your McDonald's order off of uber eads.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
Right, you can get my burger on Layowa, you could
get any of the any of these things. You're Chipotle,
uh by now pay later on your Chipotle, you're right.

Speaker 3 (32:06):
And so now this this platform, Klara has grown to
one hundred million users.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
But now there were one hundred hundred million globally or
in the United States. It's globally okay, it's globally one
hundred million users. But nonetheless, how many of those people
you think live in America? Probably a ton?

Speaker 3 (32:23):
Right, And so now this company is reporting system wide
losses on this stuff, that peid, that default defaults and
delinquencies on these micro loans are going through the roof.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
Well yeah, right, now, did.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Anyone expect did anyone expect, like you know, Eddie to
pay for the burrito they got on a loan five weeks?

Speaker 3 (32:46):
Again, First of all, your whole business model is built
on the idea of providing a load to a guy
who could not pay for his big mac right now, right,
and you're supposed to collect from this guy in the future.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Now we can house the economic Darwinism demands this business fail, right, Well,
I mean yes, the economic Darwinism does. Right.

Speaker 3 (33:08):
It's just like, oh, obviously this is such a dumb idea,
like why would you do it? But you know what,
I've gotten to thinking about it. And you know, if
the big banks during the two thousand and eight global
financial crisis, if they were all able to get bailed out, right,
and we say, well the banks are too big to fail,
then you don't want my belly is too big to
fail on this one.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
I want my micro load for the burrito.

Speaker 3 (33:33):
I want my subprimee you know, sushi loan immediately right, like.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
The floating loan on back streets go up, you had
to pay more for the exactly I'll come back when
I'm here on my next date.

Speaker 1 (33:47):
You know, and maybe I'll pay it.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
How would that does at the point of sale? Like,
is there anything where a date would know if you
had to borrow the money for like the ruby Tuesdays?

Speaker 3 (33:57):
Well, there isn't obviously at like you know, if you
go to a restaurant or something like that, No, I
don't think that option is available. Yeah, but you know
every time anytime you go to check out, there's the
you know, Apple pay option, credit card option, or the
Klarna or a firm option, right, And so that's that's
how these things operate.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Ladies.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
If your man's picking the Klara option check out, you
need to be watching.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
Okay, yeah, no seriously, and that that's it. Okay.

Speaker 3 (34:26):
But also the but you know this is like the
big short too, but like the straight to DVD version
right where. But but it's a signal that, you know,
when those delinquencies and defaults go go at that rate,
especially at that level, the subprime level, like that, it's
a sign that we're hitting recession, right And so I yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:46):
It was just a dumb business idea to make these loans.

Speaker 3 (34:49):
Yeah, I mean there's there's both, but I certainly wouldn't
dismiss it. I think that if for first of all,
for a country to have that many people in a
position where they're taking out loans for like, you know,
a bowl of ramen, that's that. I think that that
is again, catch the signal, not the noise.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
You know, what is it?

Speaker 2 (35:09):
Let's dissect what this is a bigger symptom of. When
I was younger, I got into debt, but it was
because people kept mailing me credit cards and so I
would use them, and that became such a tortured story
for an entire generation that ended up like barely being
able to pay the minimum monthly payment as debt balances

(35:30):
continued to rise. And it is this type of a
decentralized finance system a response to the failure of the
big credit card companies and the big banks. And there's
even a middle layer of that, Like if you go
to a lot of clothing stores, right, they've got their
branded credit card that they want to give you an
incentive to get that you can you know, use at

(35:51):
Abercrombie or wherever, and it's kind of like their own
vertically integrated clarn No. And so this is just the
region in my mind, from the institutionalized banks and credit
card systems to the kind of retail point of sale
vertically integrated finance model to a totally decentralized finance model.

(36:12):
But someone has to pay at some point, and that's
what's not happening now. And is there like less of
a recalcitrance to just acquiring debt now? And what does
that say about us?

Speaker 3 (36:22):
Well, here here's the thing I think from a from
the company perspective, offering this credit, whether it's the store
branded credit card.

Speaker 1 (36:29):
Right.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
I think why you're seeing that so much and the
expansion of this is because the profit margins on selling
product is so low that instead the financial services division
that's such a good of the same company through the
through the the interests, actually makes them more money for

(36:50):
the bottom line of the company than the actual profit
from the sale on the product.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
This is exactly what happened in the auto industry. Like
the auto industry used to be driven by did you
have some swashbuckling fraternity president car salesman who could you know,
get a little extra dollar out of somebody who was
going to get the family you know Volkswagen, Right. But
then when internet pricing created so much transparency that it
really became commoditized. It was the finance instrument that ended

(37:18):
up being lashed to the automobile that ended up generating
a lot of value for the dealerships and the manufacturers.

Speaker 3 (37:25):
Yeah, that is ultimately what the profit center for all
these companies are. So it's not Ford Motor Company that
makes a ton of money, it's Ford Financial Services that
provides the loan to buy the car that makes these
companies the profits and the beefing up of the bottom
line that they need for their investors and will and shareholders.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Seemed to be in an era of moral hazard financially
right now, and you talked about the bailouts for the
Wall Street banks.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
I think that contributed to it.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
I think that recently when we saw Silicon Valley Bank
get bailout, oh, that contributed to some moral hazard. And
if on the decentralized finance loans there is some alleviation
of responsibility like we saw on student loans, like we
are in an era where more and more and more
there is moral hazard injected because people aren't having to

(38:14):
deal with the consequences of their economic choices, and it's
not compassionate to build that moral hazard into a society.
Joe Biden thought he was being really, I guess kind
to all of the Etsy owners who had their businesses
running through Silicon Valley Bank. But at the end of
the day, banking is an enterprise that requires risk, and

(38:35):
if you drain the risk out of that by saying
the federal government is just backing the worst decisions people make,
then you change it in a.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Way that.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
Allows poor choices without having to feel the consequences of
their choices.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
It would be like taking pain away from the human body.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
We'd all be pretty banged up and bruised up if
when we ran into something sharp, our body didn't say, ouch,
don't do that anymore.

Speaker 3 (39:00):
Well, the thing is is that I think this is
also a consequence of the fact that we've socialized the risk,
especially for so many of these big companies, the big banks. Right,
every it seems everybody is allowed to get free money
except for the little guy, right, Like that's the way
the feeling is. And it's like, well, you know what,
if I can beat somebody on a college loan, I'll

(39:22):
do it, right, I'll and then I'll just go at,
I'll fault my burrito payment, right, I'll perform the sin
and then ask for forgiveness later, right, And so because
God forgives everybody. Right, it's that same sort of similar
mentality where a lot of people are saying, you know what,
I'll just I'll take the burrita loane, right, I'll never
pay it back, and who knows who's going to be
on the hook for it at the end of the day.

(39:43):
But somebody will forgive it, hopefully, because look, there's everyone's
getting free money.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
The rich people are getting free money. All the risk
is socialized.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
Why can't I be part of the pool that has
their risk socialized too?

Speaker 2 (39:56):
Well, I guess we'll find out, you know, because I
don't don't think people are going to be repaying these
loans to Clarkin. Hell, it either gets socialized or it's
the economic Darwinism.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
Democrats are freaking out at.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
The way we won this last election, and I think
we won it through these alternate media channels, the podcasting,
the dominance on socials. We mean, better than the left,
way better than the left, of course, but we had
to do that because we didn't control mainstream media. That's
such a control over mainstream media, like we had to

(40:30):
become like the jungle fighting force that found these other
ways to build organizations. Now we've got this big story
coming out about Democrat mega donors investing gajillions of dollars
into an influencer army, as like some sort of squid
game that they hope a left wing Joe Rogan arises

(40:52):
out of what say you vishpera well, right now.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
That these Democrat mega donors are fielding a ton of pitches,
right everyone's saying I got the next idea for the
liberal Rogan, I got the next idea to create the infrastructure.

Speaker 2 (41:04):
I would love to be a fly on the wall
in those pitches, Like can you imagine the left wing
activists walking in and being like, so, I've got the
next new idea a podcast with no gender.

Speaker 3 (41:14):
Well that and you know what, the first thing that
should be said in those meetings is, you guys had
a liberal Joe Rogan.

Speaker 1 (41:21):
His name was Joe Rogan.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
Right, Joe Rogan endorsed Bernie sam crime state president exactly,
so so ridiculous. What the question is, how did we
square scare Joe Rogan away? And it's because, right, that's
actually the problem that they're trying to that they actually should.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Be solved rather than finding the next Joe Rogan, realized
why they lost the last one, right, And.

Speaker 3 (41:42):
You know what, and a lot of Democrats are smart,
are smart to this, but obviously the mega donors and
the donors. It's so crazy how the donors are like
the last to find out about like what's really going
on to that's how they get scammed out of so
much money right in the first in the first place.
But they're going to these donors saying yeah, we can

(42:03):
find the next Rogan or whatever. Now, two things point one,
this is gonna fail. And the reason this is gonna
fail is because democrats, I don't care if it's a politician,
non politician type whatever, they are so scared and walk
on eggshells to say anything.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
Right.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
And the whole point of why these guys, especially You're
Aiden Ross's, Tim Dillons of the world, Joe Rogan's, is
because they're willing to explore the edgy right, and they're
willing to have conversations about things that not everyday people
talk about and and you know, perhaps entertain a uncouth
idea or you know, talk about it honestly in a

(42:42):
way with authenticity. The lack of authenticity on the left end,
the lack of wanting to foster authenticity, right, allowing someone
to have a bad opinion or a wrong opinion in
the first place without being canceled, right, that is what
stops them from being Oh so you think it's structural.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
I think this is just a the talent hasn't hasn't
gone that way, or they've run off the town. You
think that the nature of the social contract on the
political left right, now, yes, does not provide the oxygen
for the type of creativity and boundary pushing that that
brings in people.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
No way, no way. And remember the audience didn't even
keep their chenka. Was that what that guy, the young
Turk guy named oh Chenk Chenk?

Speaker 3 (43:31):
You couldn't because he said in their next Rogan or
Ana Kasparian like you know blood saying, I don't want
to hear about Kamala Harris running for president or running
for governor of California in twenty twenty six, Right, I
don't want to hear that they go and try, you know,
cancel her for that, right, And so it's it is
a structural like you said, it is a structural problem

(43:53):
that their ideology and there the way that they signal
to each other's social status is the very thing that
keeps them from finding that, Joe Rogan, because remember why
did we go on all those podcasts in twenty twenty
four to reach young men? We didn't just go on them.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
We built them.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:10):
Well, well that's that's the other thing too, right, We
built them when we built them out of the out
of the basements.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
Yeah, when they started.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
I mean, you and I have been involved in the
building of a number of podcasts projects that have been
very successful. But when this all began, I never really
believed that it was going to be like a needle
to the veins of young men, right. I didn't think,
you know what men under the age of thirty five
are really looking to do, sit around and listen to
the two of us yack it up right now?

Speaker 1 (44:37):
Right?

Speaker 2 (44:38):
But actually, like, why is that that that's so attractive?
Is it because of the boundary pushing? It is because
of the boundary. It's the willing to explore the unexplored.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
Right, the manliest thing you could do is go into
a dark hole and come out the other size.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
Is not that kind of show.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
I meet it in the Jordan Peterson way of like
walking into the darkystador the whole notion of conquest, right that, right,
So that going into the unknown and then making sense
or bringing order to the unknown, right that is the
most manly sentiment or instinct that a man can have.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
But but if that's true, you have to keep going. Yes,
of course it just becomes too known. Well, yeah, and
we like we've been told that that in the coming
years it's going to be the great time of acquisition
of these podcast properties that that companies like you know, uh,
Discovery and News Corp. You pick your favorite media conglomerate

(45:35):
that rather than paying like the you know, massive salary
to Rachel Maddow, that it's going to be the acquisition
of podcast networks that's going to drive us.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
And by the way, that's totally right.

Speaker 3 (45:48):
And you've already seen this paradigm has existed in the
culture space or the the art space for a long time.
You know, there was a difference, but I like to
use the un you have the rap game or the
hip hop industry. Right, it was all like everyone who
was cool listened to the underground rapper, right, the guy
who's not famous yet, that's the one everyone's like, Oh,

(46:11):
you're not up on this guy. That's what's really cool
is happening in podcast then and now they go mainstream, right,
And so because that guy got popular, that underground guy
got popular, and the big companies realize that everyone's listening
to that guy, they go and sign the deal with
that guy, and then that guy goes mainstream. And then
you know, now you get all the bells and whistles

(46:32):
of being in the mainstream in the big check and
maybe you drop one great hit or one great album
with that new deal, but then everything else kind of
falls off after, right, And why is that is because
you don't have the drive right for just these podcasts
that we built out of the ground. We didn't start
that by making pitch decks to multi million dollar mega donors.

(46:53):
We just did it with like, you're fifteen grand budget
for a microphone and a len You're right, that's how.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
That's the underground aspect of it.

Speaker 3 (47:02):
And then we start rapping on that, and then people
are listening, Well, man, this is the good stuff.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
This is where the real information is.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
These are the guys who are talking about all the
things that the mainstream people won't talk about. But once
everyone starts listening to that and the big guys understand that,
then that's when they come with the offer that you
can't refuse.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
We've only got a couple of minutes left.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
But since you mentioned rap culture, does did he get convicted?

Speaker 1 (47:27):
You know what? I don't think so?

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Oh hot? Take yeah, make the case for Ditty's innocence,
vishpura or at least his uh, your belief that he
would not be found guilty.

Speaker 3 (47:38):
You know what from the coverage that I've seen of this.
Ditty's lawyers are doing a fantastic job. By the way,
this is a redux of like late nineties early two
thousand's Ditty where he's got the like a top notch
legal team and pr team on this and.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
The other side's got a Komy.

Speaker 3 (47:57):
I mean, sure they got a komy, but right now,
you know, a gas but he doesn't know what eighty
six forty seven means. Right, That's where we are with
the Komi side. Right now, we got people playing dumb, right,
and so now that's not Ditty's team. Diddy's team is
going up slicing and dicing and the main Cassie being
the main witness there, they got her admitting that she
was going you know, she had claimed that he raped

(48:18):
her or sexually assaulted her, but then was hanging out
with him and having sex with them after after that
this incident took place.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
Is you're going to respond very unfavorably to that characterization
by the prosecution, for you know, because of some of
those facts that have come out, and when I heard
and saw this coverage of the Diddy think, I thought
that there would be this mountain of victims who had
been forcibly coerced and the things they didn't want to do.

(48:45):
And now what it looks like is that he's definitely
guilty of domestic violence, which is terrible. He hasn't been
charged with domestic violence, right, which is interesting. If you
were charged with that, I think he would be convicted.
But that's a state matter, and this is a federal prosecution.
So what they're having to prove. They have precisely one victim, right,
one Cassie Ventura No, and that victim is on is

(49:08):
in text messages saying she hopes the next freak off
isn't the last freak off, but the first freak off
for the rest of their lives. Yeah, and you know,
if Cassie regretted those, that's awful, but it's at least
a mixed message. While she's regretting it, she's making those statements.
And there, I guess could be two reasons that she

(49:30):
had participation in these events. One that she was forcibly,
violently coerced or extorted, and the other she didn't want
to lose her man and she did things she didn't
want to do because she didn't want to lose her man. Now,
one of those is probably sex trafficking and a crime,
and the other one definitely isn't right, and this fact

(49:51):
pattern seems to meld the two pretty substantially. I'll give
you the last word on it.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
I look, I think in the days after the Johnny
Depp amber her trial, and you know, especially in the
days after me too and all this stuff, and there's
a lot of uh, let's say, believe all women isn't
the standard anymore. I think that's that's that's being applied
here too. All we have to do is believe her
own text messages. Well, then that where she's consenting to
the conduct, well then, and then but if she goes

(50:17):
on the stand and says something different, now, what do
you believe?

Speaker 1 (50:20):
Right? And so I think that this makes what did
he supposed to believe?

Speaker 3 (50:24):
Well that well, and by the way, is he allowed
to believe something that is not criminal? Like, oh, I
think she is totally into it if that's what she's saying.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
I right, you know, I'm saying he's a good guy.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
I think he should definitely be convicted of the crimes
that he obviously committed. But those seem to be state
crime right around assault, battery, domestic violence, it does not
seem to be a federal sex trafficking.

Speaker 1 (50:47):
Whatever this is, it's not, it's not it.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
So I think he I think he gets off on
this and then maybe goes to State and gets gets
dead there for DV or something.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
Fish Burgh. It is always a pleasure to chop it
up with you man. Thanks for hanging out with me Anchorman,
and make sure to leave us a five star rating
a review, and always make sure you're subscribed with notifications
turned on so you get every episode of Anchorman.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
Make sure to tune into The Matt Gage Show.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
We're on every weeknight, nine o'clock Eastern six Pacific only
on one. American News