Scott Sloan Show -- 10/28/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
To be the iHeartRadio AP take that wherever you want.
You also stream it, but also podcast that. We're here
for you, especially if you're driving and stuck in god
awful traffic this morning. Yes, we had rain and we've
had some significant rainfall today and tomorrow. And you know
what that means. We're going to practice driving like morons.
All of us are going to drive stupidly. So we
have accidents and backups and all that stuff as well.

(00:21):
So hang type, be patient, and it is what it is.
So we jump in this morning with news a governor
a shutdown of course, approaching the thirty day mark, and
it's starting to become a growing liability for both the
Democrats and Republicans. So Republicans passed the Continuing Resolution, which
is basically kicking the can down the road to fund government.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
We do.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
That's all we do now is continuing resolutions and then
address it later on. And the threat of shutting the
government will happen in another seven weeks. So Democrats have
blocked it. They want enhanced Obamacare subsidies and want Medicaid funding,
and now with forty two million people set to lose
flo's assistance with snap benefits, on Saturday. Is anyone feeling
the pressure at all to get this thing wrapped up?

(01:03):
And I'll know too that congressional approval rating has plummeted
from twenty six percent, which is awful, to fifteen percent
in the past month. A fifteen percent approval rating. To
put that in perspective, the Cincinnati Bengals defense has an
eighteen percent approval rating.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
That's how bad it is.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Kevin Burton is a political analyst at Crosstown Consulting in
northern Kentucky.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Kevin, welcome back. How are you?

Speaker 3 (01:28):
Thanks for having me, sloney.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
Before we get into the national politics of this, I
want to put our local head on and I know
you isn't a keen observer of both sides of the
Ohio River. We have an election coming up in seven days.
Mayor aft Ted Pureval has fired but not fired Chief
Thiji Terry Thigi, the police chief. They're going to take
until the end of the year. They've hired Frost Brown,
Todd and Company to poke and prod and find out

(01:53):
why they fired her. If that makes any sense, that
that doesn't have to make sense because it's politics. I
suspect that Aftab will not pay a political price for this,
and he'll get reelected. But you wonder about members of council.
Somebody's gonna have to pay the price, and not just
Terry Thiji. I think would you agree or disagree?

Speaker 4 (02:10):
So yeah, I mean for as mayor Aftabs going to
win reelection, you you know, you have about as good
as chances getting a date with uh Plly Berry as
astab Pas is losing, like it's not gonna happen, He's
going to win. The real question is going to be
there's a lot of legacy family names on the ballot
this time. Uh you know, you have a Mallory, you

(02:33):
have a dree House, Uh.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
You know, Lukta Cole is a well known name.

Speaker 4 (02:37):
So the question really is how many people vote, you know,
let's say six incumbents, two or three of the you know,
non incumbents, and is that enough to get someone like
a Chris Smitherman.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Or Liz Keating through the finish line.

Speaker 4 (02:54):
So you know, we can all speculate, but I would
say Chris Smitherman unless Heating are the two best to
break the stronghold of the Democratic All Council.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
And then you wonder who loses.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
I think last time it was council Member Anna Oldby
is the one who I think she was just above
that the threshold, right, the nine papose person to get it.
And you wonder who it is going to be this
time for sure, But somebody's going to pay some price.
There's just too many people running and there's too much upheaval,
and namely with this crime issue that's polarizing everybody. Aftab
will be just fine. But at the same time, politically speaking,

(03:32):
in seven days and I think he's pretty much a
lock at this point. No such thing. You never know,
But I just don't see the demand by people who
live in Hamlin County, specifically Cincinnati's saying, yeah, we got
to get rid of him. I don't know if the
alternative is better or not. I know a lot of
people are lobbing, but I'm not sure that works in
all blue Hamlin, deep blue Hamlin County. But I would

(03:54):
think he's going to be on somewhat of a short
lease with the new council coming in and go correct.
Isn't that what he's going to have to pay politically,
is he's going to have to probably be a little
bit more in tune with what's happening and doesn't have
as much wiggle room as he used to.

Speaker 4 (04:07):
Well, I mean, first off, the city of Cincinnati voted
roughly seventy five to twenty five percent for Harris versus Trump,
So you can suffer a lot of defections and still
be completely fine, you know. For Astab, I think the
bigger issue is going to be the posturing of council
candidates after this election, because he's term limited out for

(04:28):
mayor and what's what's the number one thing politicians do?

Speaker 3 (04:31):
They try to make themselves look better.

Speaker 4 (04:33):
So I think for the next you know, two four years,
you're going to see a different council because now the
stakes are you know, there's more at stake because all
of them want to be mayor. So I think you're
going to start seeing more pushback, more, you know.

Speaker 3 (04:50):
Different thought processes.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
So it'll be interesting to see does the dismissal of
Terry Thiji play with the electorate. You know, we tend
to be a little more newsy and news cycle. I
mean I can smell BS a mile away. Uh you
can too. I think most people listening have a good
sense of that as well, because you look at this
makes no sense whatever, But the typical voter doesn't pay
that close attention. Do the optics of her dismissal or
I guess her suspension while I investigate what is it

(05:14):
she did wrong? Which is completely backwards? Does that actually
play with voters?

Speaker 4 (05:20):
Well, we will see in seven days. Historically, no, I mean,
you know, everyone always talked about how they're tired of
the status quo, you know, and all this. Ninety one
percent of the time, the better finance candidates win, ninety
percent of the time, you know, the incumbents win.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
Right at the end of the day, it's up to
the voters.

Speaker 4 (05:44):
And time and time again, voters for just have apathy
and they just keep voting for whoever's in office. Yeah,
and no real change ever really happens.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
Well, and then first of all, it's deep blue, so
it favors after pure vol has incombinated favors in. But
also the the money. He's over three hundred thousand dollars,
I believe Corey Bowman, the challenger has less than sixty.
So that kind of tells you what he's up against THEREA.
Let's shift to what's going on the federal government. Kevin Burton,
political analysts with crossdown consultings, upholster with the shutdown itself,

(06:14):
and now we're as I said at the beginning, I
think I hate you on to it's all theater. For
the first few weeks of the shutdown, it's nothing but theater.
Because eight percent of government is shut down. The other
ninety two percent is doing just fine. It's like letting
the receptionists go home early, turning the lights out in
the front office. But people are still working behind the scenes.
It's just you don't see the forward facing stuff like
parks and trash pickup and stuff like that. There are

(06:37):
forty two million people, forty two million families set to
lose food assistance with SNAP shutting down on Saturday because
there's no funding. I asked, who's feeling the pressure at all?
Fifty percent blame Republicans, forty three percent blame Democrats with independence.
It's about fifty one to thirty four Republican. And obviously
the reason why is because Republicans controlled the White House,
the Senate in the House, so that makes them the

(06:58):
more vulnerable party. But the numbers starting to shift relative
to people blaming Democrats with US.

Speaker 4 (07:04):
So yes, in the last three weeks it was substantially more.
It basically went from thirteen points now down to seven.
You know, so the Republicans have closed the gaps, but
at the end of the day, I don't know how
much lower it's going to go because they do control
both chamber, and you know, frankly, both parties are gambling

(07:27):
with forty two million lives, which I mean, I think
that's the bigger issue that we should be talking about.
That Just get the job done. Like you guys are elected,
you are still getting paid. But if you're trying to
fly with TSA or anything, it's a nightmare. And I
just think the American people just want it done. Just
get the deal done. That's what you're elected, right.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
Democrats will say, well, we're getting some traction here because
you know, we're on the right side with healthcare. Americans
favor us and our plans with healthcare. Republicans really don't
have a plan. And we just had seven million people
will show up to attend a No Kings rally, whatever
the hell that was, that has no impact whatsoever for them.
To look at the No Kings rally go A million
people showed up this week in the protest. They all

(08:09):
protested Trump for different reasons.

Speaker 4 (08:13):
Yeah, you know, no, and sometimes when you're the loudest,
it doesn't mean anything. It's you know, it's an echo chamber.
The real question is how many new people did you get?
Because at the end of the day, Trump has figured
out that his model of it's fifty plus one, So

(08:34):
every single election is fifty percent of the vote plus
one more person. And he knows his basse, he knows
how to turn him out bigger than everything.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
And there is a lot of silent Trump voters.

Speaker 4 (08:46):
So you know, at the end of the day, Democrats
need to play the smart and frankly, you know, jakeem
Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have looked kind of like a
deer in a headlight. Regardless of what you thought of
Nancy Pelosi, she stood on she was a fighter, right,
Can you say the same about those two?

Speaker 2 (09:07):
No?

Speaker 1 (09:08):
No, The thing is if this shutdown extends in November,
we're closing in thirty five days is the longest period
we have with a shutdown. That's largely because of the
real cuts. We start to see the theaters at the
first few weeks. Now you're starting to see the real
results of the shutdown. People not getting food, and food
is instance. And like, if this extends into November and

(09:28):
we see the Obamacare premiums hit millions of Americans, which
party's better position to capitalize on that. You want to
say the Democrats, But with the leadership and lack of
direction they have, I don't think that's necessarily true to you.

Speaker 4 (09:43):
I would still favor the Democrats just because healthcare is
kind of their number one thing. And frankly, you just
said Obamacare. So if Obamacare goes up three you know,
three times under a president, you're going to be like, well, under.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
Obama was this.

Speaker 4 (10:01):
But I just think it speaks more of just how
in the last twelve years you can't get anything done anymore.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
No, it's so polarizing.

Speaker 4 (10:10):
That, you know, frankly, both sides need to concede a
little bit and if it's good for eighty five percent
of the country, just get the deal done.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
And if you're complaining and you're part of the no
Kings movement, which I know, we have a king because
he just does what he wants with executive order, it's
because of what we're talking about. The Congress is so ineffective,
so gridlocks and dead luck that they you know, we certainly,
Joe Biden had his share of executive orders. Now Trump
has exceeded that for sure, but that that's the new reality.
Congress isn't doing their job. They're not legislating anymore. They're

(10:41):
just leaving good to the president and their guy via
executive order.

Speaker 4 (10:47):
And this is why we should have term limits in Congress.
I mean, frankly, you have people in there who's been
in all like their careers have been thirty plus years
in Congress.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
Get out, you're too old, right, like sorry, Like I
just you know, it boggles my mind that we have.

Speaker 4 (11:07):
Term limits for governors, we have term limits for presidents,
but heaven forbid, senators and representatives have terms now.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
Pilots, truck drivers, there's all sorts of occupations in the
real world where you can't work past a certain age,
and there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't understand
how an eighty plus year old lawmaker is relevant. And
you know, you got to explain them how an iPhone
works before you can actually address the issues of legislating
what that looks like, and no idea whatsoever. They're completely clueless.

(11:39):
And those are the most senior people in leadership positions.
The Shoomer's the world. There's just so many of them
right now, and I think we can do better, and
term limits are certainly part of that. Kevin, regarding this,
at some point, do you think that there's going to
be cool or heads like, is it really going to
get to the fact that forty too many people won't
get snap benefits starting on Saturday? That's kind of like overplayed,

(12:01):
but that hits home for a lot of people, especially
with you know, go to the grocery store and seeing
like the cost of beef. You know, I'm nowhere certainly near,
thank god, receiving public assistance. I go to the store
and I see ground beef. I go, yeah, you know what,
I like ground beef. But I'm good I'm not paying
those kind of prices right now. That that's really got
to hit home for these lawmakers. Do you see this

(12:21):
thing ending before Saturday that they're going to come to
a conclusion And if so, let's get down the path
of what that looks like.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
Well, and that's that's the billion dollar question.

Speaker 4 (12:31):
I mean, gambling with forty two million lives is a
risky proposition for both sides. I don't have the data
of where those forty two million.

Speaker 3 (12:40):
You know, voters are, but it's kind of like a kid.

Speaker 4 (12:45):
You know, when you have an exam, you're going to
push it off, push it off, push it off. Well,
you know, Friday is kind of the date you have
to get it done by, and if you don't, then
there's actual serious consequences. And this keeps going longer in November.
You know, the busiest time of the year to travel
is during Thanksgiving, so you're going to create even more

(13:07):
of a headache with TSA and the air traffic. So
to your point, starting Saturday is when you know it
really hits home.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
And we're seeing a fifteen percent approval rating. Fifteen percent
that has got to be close to an all time
low for Congress.

Speaker 4 (13:27):
Yet you know ninety percent of the incumbents will still win.
It is you know, it's the complete It's just amazing that,
you know, we all agree that Congress isn't effective, but
then you know everyone turns around and just rubber stamps
them again. And I think the interesting thing is, and
you're kind of seeing this with up in New York

(13:49):
with Mindani and that in a lot of ways, the
Democrats are kind of going through what Republicans did you
know ten years ago that they felt like, you know,
party apparatus has sailed them, and there's kind.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
Of a revolt. You know, so like the neo liberals,
I want to be shocked if.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
He starts seeing maybe even Chuck Schumer and all these
older ones and get primaried because you know, because that's
exactly what Trump and you know, the Maga movement kind
of really did that, you know, simply they said that
we are tired of the status quo and you kind
of let us down the road and we've gotten nowhere.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
Thomas Massy a great example of that where you are
in Kentucky. To get out of this mess, they'd have
to strike a deal to save face. And I guess
if we're looking at the Democrats are talking about, you know,
we've got seven million Americans losing their healthcare. We're trying
to prevent that. We we forced Republicans to back down
from gutting Obamacare, and this is what we're fighting for,

(14:51):
Republicans to say, you know, we want a targeted relief,
we don't want more socialism, socialist expansion. We save hundreds
of billions of dollars, uh with you know, but by
gutting the by stopping this and restored responsible governance and
ended democratic obstruction cent So that's what both sides will say.
Which is the winning messaging?

Speaker 4 (15:11):
I mean, on paper, it should be the Democrats, but
they've played everything wrong against Trump for the last decade.

Speaker 3 (15:19):
However, So you know, if I was.

Speaker 4 (15:23):
The Democrats right now, I would say, aren't we raking
in billions of dollars in tariffs? And then that helped
pay for this? But they're incompetent. Their leadership is incompetent.
So if you ask me, I think Republicans will come
out of this probably, you know, absolutely, fine.

Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yeah, I would think so.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
It's just because the idea is and I think most
people realize, like, well, we're subsidizing something.

Speaker 2 (15:46):
Okay, great, and I need it. I need it today.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
I don't care it's going to bankrupt the country because
we're just borrowing more money. It's way too ex healthcare
is way too expensive. We're subsidizing that. That's other people's
tax money that you're subsidized with. But you know, if
you can't afford to get cold or your fear that,
you know, my chronic illness is going to come back,
And I can't get coverage, and I'm going to fall
between the quack cracks and what happens. Everything I work
for is is gone.

Speaker 5 (16:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
I get the urgency, that's a different matter entirely, and
I could see where both sides everything, but but yeah,
I think they just come to a conclusion. Go listen,
this has been too you know, if you get the
speakers together, the length and the pain of the shutdown,
it's been too long. It's probably we're gonna we're gonna
do something for thirty day, seven weeks, whatever it is.
We've proved our point. It's time to govern at some point.
Somebody's got to do that, or both sides got to

(16:30):
do that, don't they.

Speaker 3 (16:33):
He would think, So go to your job. Everyone else
has to do their job.

Speaker 4 (16:38):
I mean they're still collecting paychecks, so you know, it's.

Speaker 3 (16:41):
The rule for the but not for me. And that's
just the story of our Congress.

Speaker 4 (16:47):
Where they can do insider training, where they can basically
do whatever they want and not actually have consequences.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
And yeah, I mean they need to get to work.
I know that today.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
And Ohio, there a meaning about the constitutional convention of
all things, which is a whole political you know a
whole different matter entirely, but about getting control and our
arms back around our government that they work for us.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
You know you talk about no kings, but that would
apply to Congress as well based on what you just said.
Kevin Burton is with Crosstown Consulting. He's a political Anamson
polster in northern Kentucky. Kevin, thanks to the inside is
always good stuff. Thank you, Flney, appreciate it. By the way,
real quick, what if you're going to put odds on
this thing as a political guy, the odds of this

(17:31):
thing ending, the shutdown ending by Saturday is what what
would you put money on?

Speaker 3 (17:37):
I would say sixty five seventy percent?

Speaker 1 (17:40):
Okay, so seven out of ten chance that this thing
is done by Saturday, they fix it.

Speaker 4 (17:45):
I just think that you know, there's elections, you know,
in a week from now, so there's real consequences, and
you know you're gambling with forty two million lives.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
I think both sides will blank. You just have to.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
The optics on that are terrible. Kevin, all the best,
Thanks again, brother, Yeah, appreciate you. Right, let's get a
time out in we got a news update. Traffic is
an absolute disaster still in areas. Chuckle, have an update
for you a real time on that one as well,
And it's going to just continue to be wet here
for the next couple of days. Weekend for the little
trick or treat is looking pretty good though, uh, full
details in that in news in just about four here

(18:21):
and when we return, a case has been made with
an untimely death. As far as talk about bodily autonomy,
I'm going to make the case for being allowed to
sell your organs. And it has something to do with
the news happening over the weekend here. Local news for
that matter, just add sloanely seven hundred wlw it so

(18:41):
bearing down a Cat five storm headed right for the
mainland there and then breaking. I don't think we're gonna
it's gonna go to the US, but yeah, that's the price.
People go, Oh my god, Jamaica and the Caribbean, it's
so nice. I would love to live here, it'd be
amazing because of weather's so good. Then you get these
events and you know again there is a price to pay,
even in paradise so to speak. So to speak, our

(19:01):
paradise paying the price of paradise here in Cincinnati involved
sitting in some bumper to bumper traffic occasionally. I don't
know a little bit of Ryan shouldn't be doing this,
but it does.

Speaker 3 (19:10):
But it does.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
I just say, Kevin Burton on Political Analyst and Upholster
with Crosstown Consulting and the fifteen percent approval writing Congress
is approval writing down from twenty six to fifteen percent
in the last month, coinciding with the government shutdown. That's
completely unnecessary. And what it gets is, I don't know
what the point of this whole thing is. I'm not sure,
but you feel like, you know, people start not getting

(19:35):
their benefits and people who are in getting us a snap,
which I think that's misconstrued. I still thought some people
think that's this you know, well, yeah, today we get
those welfare queens off. Yeah, that models kind of changeable.
But most of the people that are on this are
are people who have one or more jobs at least
they're working the working port for the example, veterans, seniors.

(19:58):
So it's not who you think it is. Large, it's
still a sizeable group of people. And to think that
because of this posturing and the gesticulating on part of Congress,
the in effective Congress that people are going to go
without starting on Saturday. Now, I would think that at
some point here congressional leadership I both say said, look,
you know what, we can settle this thing. We'll kick

(20:19):
the can down the road, as we often do. But
once people stay cake at their food benefits, it's a
different story entirely. So I feel that real quick. I'm
sure you heard the story if you watch football this weekend,
and obviously you know watching that. I was watching the
Jets a little bit that Nick Mangold, and you may
know the name Nick Mangold is a retired two time

(20:39):
All Pro center from Centerville, Ohio. Stepped throwing day in Centerville.
And Nick Mangold had forty one died of kidney disease,
And you go, how is that possible? Did someone forty
one years old die of kidney disease? I don't know
the whole story, but it seems to me it highlights
the problems faced by the What over one hundred thousand

(20:59):
America is waiting for organ transplants, organ donations, And I
look at this whole model and go, okay, we've got
we know that you can live quite well, just fine
on one kidney, Okay, it's yeah, there's some risk involved there.
Most people go and I'm good with my two kidneys.
But why wouldn't you give up a kidney? We see

(21:20):
signs alongside the road hell where I live. I saw
there's a bunch of signs out someone else looking for
a kidney. Can you donate a kidney? All blood times welcome,
get your kidneys? Can you give a kidneys? I mean
stuff from kidney failure in life without kidneys is now
it's not sustainable. And even dialysis is a really really tough, long, painful,
horrible process. But if your kidneys fail, you either got

(21:43):
to get a transplant, which you can get another what
twenty years out of someone like Nick mangled can die
an old man with a new kidney, a replacement kidney,
or you're on dialysis for four to five years. You're
health of to Tier eight until eventually it die. Because
that is a descence. Even the machines can do what
the human kidney can and we lose. You know, there's

(22:05):
like we're short more than I think forty fifty thousand
kidneys a year in the United States, and that number
along I think forty thousand is that's how many people die.
More that kills more people than die in motor vehicle
crashes in the United States, I believe to put that
number to context, and the question is, oh, how do
you solve this instead of roadsides and the charity and

(22:25):
courage and kindness of others and strangers and the horrible
thing that Nick Mangold went through and died relatively young.
It gets back with the shortage is because in nineteen
eighty four we passed the law that said it's unlawful
for any person to require receive transfer any human organ
for valuable consideration, meaning money to be used in a transplant.

(22:47):
That you can't sell your organ. You can't sell a kidney.
Now you go, wait a minute, we need more kidneys,
not less. Hold on just a second, or let's apply
what is true well to a large degree, although Congress
strikes to change. Is the fact that it's a free market. Okay,
you have something that someone else wants. What is the
price for that good or service or kidney in this case?

(23:10):
And I've said this for a long time, and now
Nick Mangold is dead, and it's a reasonably current story
that the organ markets. If you sold stuff on a
free market. Think about the pain and expense of sitting
on dialysis or waiting for a kidney and not knowing.
I think you'd be flushed with kidneys quite us to
a certain point that if you legalize in this case,

(23:32):
organ markets are kidneys for that matter. You know, first
of all, it wouldn't be like you're out on eBay
or something like that Facebook marketplace looking for a used kidney.
You know your healthcare providers would buy this up, just
like they do with any durble medical equipment or medical supply.
Blood for that matter. You know, you go donate blood.
It costs the Red Cross, it costs hawks Worth money

(23:55):
in order for you to donate blood. You go in
and you should because we're always in a blood short
especially now, and it costs money to transport the blood.
It costs money for the labor supplies, utilities, rent storage alone, refrigeration.
All that stuff or something that's perishable cost a small
fortune in the billions of dollars. And what they do

(24:16):
is they would charge the hospitals who then mark the
blood up and charge you in your insurance if you
need a blood transfusion. Cost money to get blood because
it costs the people getting the blood. Now, am I
suggesting you charge people for blood? Well, we already are.
How is that any different than we're talking about this
way you're eliminating in the middle man. You do that
with plasma for example, I don't understand that.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
You know, you can't. I can't make money off of
giving you blood.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
But if I go down to the plasma center and
roll up my sleeve, I can donate my platelets and
somehow get paid for that. That doesn't make any sense
to me. And if we can do that with plasma
node bats and I what about your organs? Now you're going, well,
that's just just something wrong about that, is it really?
Because why? Well, because typically it's going to be poor

(25:04):
people that are going to do this. Okay, so you're
exploiting poor people, like maybe the ones who are talking
about people are on snap. Yeah, yeah, absolutely poor people. Well,
the risks of you know, you can live a perfectly
fine life with one kidney. Plenty of people do. You
can live normal lives and there's some minor risk. There's
always risk in well, but there's some minor health risks.

(25:25):
It's not like you can't you know, you gotta stop
drinking alcohol or and they're like, no, you can and
the life expectancy is about that with if you had
two kidneys. So if you're not paying out a pocket
and the LL risk is low, what is prevented? Well, yeah,
it's just you know, it's so exploitative though, because it's
going to be poor people. Well, I mean, we assume
minor risks all the time in exchange for pay. Here's

(25:45):
a grample for it. We're talking about Nick Mangold from Centerville,
the two time pro bowler who died because he couldn't
get a kidney because a kidney disease.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
He's an halfl player.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Most professional athletes, most players in the National Football League
come from poor backgrounds.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Okay, can you make a case and say.

Speaker 1 (26:03):
That Nick Mangold, every single time he put that helmet
on risk his life risk serious injuries. We know that
in the course of a career, players in the NFL
lose about what three years of life with expectancy every
season they play because of what it does to your body.
Look at Chris Henry right, the CTE and things like that.

(26:25):
So should we then saying well, you know this is
exploitative of the poor people. Is anyone arguing that poor
people should be banned from playing football or basketball or
baseball or whatever it is. No, that's not exploitative. They're
getting because of what it does they bring to the table.
They're getting money, and well have a lot of money

(26:45):
in exchange for That's where I think it's not exploitative
at all. So they asked to make something like eighty
thousand lives in the US could be saved by legalizing
the organ markets, particularly kidney mark kidney's a big one.
I don't find that exploitative at all. Let's say, I
don't know if you can get one hundred thousand dollars
for a kidney, Let's say one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars for that, I don't know what a kidney would
go for one hundred thousand dollars. So there's someone who

(27:09):
needs money we're talking about, you know, the snap benefit cuts,
healthcare and all that stuff. Wouldn't that go a long
way into lifting them out of poverty, all for the
minimal risk of donating your organ It seems to me
like that the kidney market would benefit poor people more
than it would harm them. I don't think that's flawed logic.

(27:29):
If I got a fifty grand for kidney, and it
probably be more than that quite honestly. Now you've got
something you need, which is money. I mean we all
need money, right, but especially if you're poor. You're looking, ah, okay, healthcare.
How am I going to pay for this? If the
snap benefits going, How'm gonna pay for this? I could
sell an organ? Now it sounds again, it sounds cruel.
It's like, oh my god, you had to sell an

(27:51):
organ basically, see the give up your organ or eat. Yeah,
but let's fase it that hundred grand. You'd probably go
to Disney, you'd probably buy a better car, probably buy
some night clothes, maybe go on vacation. I maybe go
to the casino.

Speaker 5 (28:04):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
It's your money. And if someone like that reason believes
the risk is worth it, why should the government force
that person to choose otherwise? I mean, you know, we
don't say, well, you shouldn't get a tattoo, you shouldn't
get a piercing, you shouldn't cut your hair that way.
You say, you know that's the nanny stay talking. Well,
you know it's it's ungodly. Well again, that's your business

(28:29):
and what you worship or choose not to worship is
your business? Quit good foisting that on me. What your
sense of godly morality is is wrapped up in your
own thing, not mine. And if I look at it,
going wow, that's all well and good. But I think
God wants me to give up a kidney for one
hundred thousand dollars part of the prosperity gospel, right, same thing.
So I just don't see how this argument works out

(28:50):
that somehow it's exploitative and only poor people. Did I
know a lot about probably middle or upper income people
go huh under grant for a kidney. I always wanted
that bigger boat. I was wanded that country club membership.
I was, I'm gonna go on that trip to Dubai.
I've been wanting to go on. For one hundred thousand
dollars and one less kidney. You're helping somebody out, You're

(29:11):
sustaining their life. You feel good about that, You feel
great when that one hundred k hits your bank account.
Who the hell loses in this whole situation Because the
way it is right now, you've got forty thousand people
waiting on the list. In eighty thousand people essentially dying
from this Minnick Mangold's forty one. He's leaving behind a
wife and some kids. And I don't know the full
details of Nick Mangold and from the Jets and of

(29:33):
Center of the Ohio the football player, two time Pro bowler,
but it certainly made news this weekend, like how can
someone that young die so quickly from diagnot because his
kidneys failed that quickly. There's nothing they could do for
him save a transplant. But you got to get on
the list.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
You gotta wait.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
And even then, it's a crapshure that makes no sense
to me. It seems to me that it's your body parts.
If you want to sell them off, you should be
able to do that. This is some busy body government
over each crap to protect whom I'm looking at the
nineteen eighty four National Organ Transplant Act NODA, it shall
be unlawful for any person nor only acquire, receiver, or
otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use

(30:10):
in human transportation transplantation. If the transfer affects interstate commerce,
why are we regulating that? I mean, you know you
shouldn't be doing it in a back alley or something
like that, and unlicensed doctors taking your kidney out, like
those old internet memes from back in the day where
I went to Vegas. Next thing, I woke up on
my bathtub and my kidney was gone, Like yeah, that
never really happened. That's just scaring people. But doing a

(30:33):
clinical setting and I take one hundred grad I think
about it, going I could help somebody make one hundred grand.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
I've got a problem with that.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
I don't know about other bodily organs, but the kidney
is one you could live quite a healthy life on with.
Just the one. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Why are we fighting this? And it would because it's
market forces. The more demand there is for a kidney,
the more money you could gain from donating said kidney
or selling the said kidney, as opposed to waiting for

(31:02):
someone out of the kindness of their heart to donate it.
So I mean as well, you hear the stories and
you know it makes it happens locally. I had someone
in my show not long ago, Same Things, save their
lifecause they got a kidney. It's a great story, but
how many, how many thousands of people die who never
get that kind of attention. It seems so just so
hit or miss quite honestly, I don't know anyway. It's

(31:22):
loanly here on seven hundred WLW coming up in about
ten minutes. It's a complete and full news update. Jason Philibaum,
attorney at law, is here. What to expect from the
law firm investigating Terry Thiji. So the timeline, of course,
as you know in this this stumbling, bubbling mess that

(31:42):
is our city government that Cincinnati is not paying forty
thousand dollars to Frostbond Tadde are really really well respected
law firm, but they've got forty grand and to the
end of the year to come up with reason as
to why they fired Terry Thichi. So you take someone,
you place them on paid administrative leave, meaning she's collecting

(32:04):
every bit of her two hundred thousand dollars plus salary.
So the taxpayers are foot and full bill for that,
and then they're footing the thirty thousand dollars for this
law for them to come in and investigate why they
fired her in the first place. Normally, you build your
case and you go, you know what, we're putting you
on leave until a final determination is made because we
have reason to believe, Terry Thig that you're incompetent. You're
grossly in competent. It could be malfeasans, misfeasans, all the

(32:27):
feacens is.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
Who knows what it is. But we've had enough of you.
You're done.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
Instead, out of the blue, they just go, well, we're
gonna put you on paid administrative leave and name an
interim chief, not a temporary but when you go interim
that is the chief who might become the chief or
maybe the chief between chiefs. But just calling it the
interim police chief is wrong. If this is a suspension, right,

(32:53):
wouldn't the adjective you're looking for be like the temporary
chief or acting chief. There's a difference in acting and interim.
And they even chose the wrong words. They made a
I mean, this seems like a hell of a lawsuit
on Terry Thigi's part too. If they do can her
and that wait a minute, essentially, no, no, we didn't
we suspend. Then why did you use the word interim
because interim basically means the stop gap between the old

(33:17):
and the new acting as well, this person is on
sick leave where they're out or something. Okay, they're acting
until that person gets back. You know, when the Reds
or well of the Bengals never do this, But when
the Reds fire managers, it's the interim manager. Okay, we've
fired Brown Prices out. Now the interim manager is you're

(33:38):
the bench coach until you get Terry Francona. If David
Bell would have gotten sick, and that sometimes happens, it'd
be the acting manager, not the interim manager. So even
choosing these words is stupid. It seems like you're setting
yourself a even greater lawsuit. And now you're looking at
the reasons why you let her go or suspend her.

(34:00):
I guess, and you're going to pay forty thousand dollars.
And now they have to the end of the year
to come up with the reasons why they fired in
the first place, So it's going to be months later
the reasons come out as to why she is the
wrong person for the job and some of the scope
of the investigation. Are the questions to be asked according
to the inquirer. Is she an effective leader and manager
of the department, including personnel and resources. Is she a

(34:21):
leader within the context of city government, meaning furthering the
broader goals and objectives of the city administration, Well, that's easy,
and that's a stupid question to ask to put in
their scope, because the broader goals and objectives of the
administration are simply to put up with crime, not put
people in jail, release them on low bond or no

(34:41):
owner cognizance, and essentially trust the criminal that they're going
to report back when the When they don't, you just go, well,
we'll go we'll get them eventually.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
It's no big deal.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
So those are the goals and objectives of the administration
that Terry will probably lay out. And if that's the case,
and you are dancing to the piper, being after to
have purevoll and sure along, then you absolutely are furthering
the broader goals and objections to the city administration. Unfortunately,
when the broader goals and objectives are just drunk ass stupid,

(35:14):
as they had Ben at her aftab and cheer along,
she is the one that winds up drawing the short straw.
The music ended and she's without a chair. So she
did what they wanted them to do, I wanted her
to do. And then when they realized the policies don't work,
and it may sound good in theory and a piece
a whole bunch of community activists. Well, then guess what,
It's her fault, not mine.

Speaker 3 (35:35):
And so it goes.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
That is the price you pay when you kneel at
the altar of politics, as Terry Thigi's learning. Unfortunately, because
she had a long, great career thirty five years, nothing
in her jacket, nothing in her file indicates anything negative
or anything seriously negative has been done under thirty five
years as a cop in Cincinnati. And now after the fact,
we've got to find in thirty five years something wrong

(35:57):
she's done to bring it to light to justify this
dumpster fire. Jason Philibaum, Attorney law, breaks that down and
tells us just how much more of the city's going
to be on the hook for meeting you taxpayers all
while after Ed gets reelected, probably just ahead on the
home of the Best Bengals coverage seven hundred WWD Cincinnati.

Speaker 4 (36:14):
Now your chance to win one thousand dollars entered this
nationwide keyword on our website.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
Bank that's bank, You enter it now want to be
an American?

Speaker 1 (36:24):
Thanks for joining Scott's loan here on seven hundred ww
and V the iHeartRadio app Take is Wherever You Go.
So the news breaking not long ago that the City
of Cincinnati is paying a local law firm, Frost Brown
Todd forty k to investigate police Terry Fiji's performance after
they fired her. Normally, you investigate the performance, go okay,

(36:45):
they got to go. This is completely backwards, and they
expect the law firm to be finished by the end
of the year. So it's going to cost us forty
grand and the city is still shelling out the full
salary and benefits to Terry Fiji of in excessive two
high hundred thousand dollars. Because of this nonsense, she hired
her own employment lawyer, Stephen m and he has no

(37:07):
intention of allowing her to resign because she said there's
nothing negative thirty five years on the job to the
date when she was removed. Thirty five years, nothing significant,
nothing minor in her jacket, pretty exemplary thirty five year
law career that she's had.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
So why now?

Speaker 1 (37:24):
And also there's some developing news overnight regarding the scope
of the investigation, what the law firm is going to
look for. Specifically, joining the show is attorney Jason Philibaum
who's been around the block a few times.

Speaker 3 (37:35):
Jason, welcome, how are you good morning? Thank you doing well?

Speaker 1 (37:40):
Yeah, this whole thing right away, it just just screams
like wrongful dismissal in a sense, because before we get
into the intricacies up at Jason Phillibom, I look at
this and go, Okay, I've been on the job for
thirty five years, and on my thirty fifth anniversary, I
get noticed that I'm now on paid administratively. If I'm
in Denver, Colorado, I get summoned back from this conference
to Cincinnati because I'm probably gonna get fired. And she

(38:00):
wasn't technically fired. She's unpaid leave. And it wasn't because
of something happened. I mean the Fountain Square issue. It
happened days a couple of days after she left for Denver,
so nothing new was going on here. And then furthermore,
they come in and go, okay, we're gonna put you
on leave. We're going to name an interim chief. By
the way, not a temporary position, but interim generally means

(38:23):
between the past into the future. If it was someone
let's say that God forbid she were sick, there would
be someone temporarily there, right, So that would be someone
who is not an interim chief. There'd be another adjective
for that, it'd be acting chief. And so they even
chose the words incorrectly here. If you're not firing, she's

(38:43):
not fired, then why I have an interim chief? Does
that not help the legal case against the city from
Terry Thiji?

Speaker 3 (38:49):
Yeah, I think so. I think this looks like a witchhut.

Speaker 7 (38:52):
It reminds me of this guy that had one hundred
arrows in the side of his barn and he was
asked how he did it, and he said it was easy,
an arrow into the side of the barn, and then
I go ahead and paint the bull's eye around it.
And you know what I think you have here is
you have a situation where you know they they want
are gone.

Speaker 3 (39:10):
I mean that's clear.

Speaker 7 (39:11):
And instead of just terminating her and worrying about whether
they have to pay out a contract or not, they
then hire a law firm, you know, approximately one hundred
to one hundred and twenty hours.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
Of work to essentially investigate her.

Speaker 7 (39:25):
And you know, I can tell you, you know, being
around the block, as you say, you know, if you
start investigating someone that has thirty five years of experience.
You know, you may not find something illegal, but I'm
pretty sure you're going to find some policy that's been
broken that everybody breaks, and then that's going to be
their linch pin. But it sounds to me like there's

(39:47):
some issues in Cincinnati and they're using her as a scapegoat.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
Well, it's not easy to dismissible gig.

Speaker 1 (39:51):
Well, we investigated and we found this in your jacket,
which should be you know, essentially it's already something that's
known but didn't rise the level of termination. As a
matter of fact, the argument, Steven m would be, well,
not only did you know this because it's part of
you also promoted her in rank to the chief of police,
So you're complicit in this whole thing. You're fining her
for something you had no problem that she did at

(40:12):
the time. You can't that's revisions.

Speaker 5 (40:14):
You can't do that.

Speaker 2 (40:15):
I mean that that's going to cost the money, isn't it.

Speaker 7 (40:18):
Yeah, And that's the process I think they're they're going
down here that I'm not sure is going to be
wise what they're trying to do. I mean, they want
her gone, like you said, They even use the word interim,
so she's gone, she's not going to resign, and so.

Speaker 3 (40:33):
They're going to want a terminator.

Speaker 7 (40:35):
Now, in Ohio, we'ren't at will state, so you can
terminate someone as long as it's not based on some
you know, legal reason, race, gender, national origin, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (40:45):
But she is probably under a contract.

Speaker 7 (40:47):
So if that's the case, then they can only terminate
her from that contract for just cause there's.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
Got to be a good reason why.

Speaker 7 (40:56):
And it could be policy, you know, some type of
policy being broken. Obviously, it could be something illegal, or
it could just be mismanagement of the you know, the city.
So those are things that they're going to be looking for.
And you know, the the issue with that too is,
you know, we do know that crime is up, and
we know that violent crime is up. But her Herney

(41:17):
said the other day that she's offered to sit down
with the mayor and the judges to talk about, you know,
these these bonds that are being given because that could
be one situation that why crime is up is essentially,
if someone gets arrested for a violent crime and is
back out on the street, you know, a few days later,
you know, crime is not going to go away, and
and it looks like, you know, an election year, you're

(41:39):
now having a situation where the that's let's get rid
of the police chief, and that's why there's all these
problems going on in Cincinnati instead of may be you know, leadership.

Speaker 1 (41:49):
I don't think you have to be a political analysis,
simple political mind like like a Willie Conningham, James Carvill
or something that right where they for the regular voter,
for the rank and five or the typical construction to
what they see this they see right through. And I
think every man and woman who doesn't have a jurisd
doctorate is not educated in law like like you are,
Jason Phillibaum. I mean I look at it and go,

(42:11):
they're doing a dirty.

Speaker 3 (42:13):
Yeah. And I think that's what a lot of people
are thinking. Now. You know, play Devil's Advocate for a second.

Speaker 7 (42:19):
You know, crime is up. We talked about that. Is
there something she should have been doing that she's not?
I mean, is she not you know, putting the police
in the right position. Are her subordinates telling her that,
you know, you should you should put police here, you
should maybe do some kind of burst here, And then
she just decides she's not doing that and as a result,

(42:40):
you have this issue on Fountain Square, you have these
other issues.

Speaker 3 (42:43):
Now that might be a legitimate thing. I mean, and
maybe that's something we don't know.

Speaker 7 (42:47):
Again just playing devil's advocate, But even if you look
at what her attorney said, is the FOP I think
is backing her. So I would think that if her
subordinates were telling her to do things and she was
just flat out of ignoring them, I'm not sure that
they would have that backing that she has.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
Yeah, he is attorney Jason Philibaum, the very latest involving
territory THIJI. Now we're hiring a law from a local
law from Frost Brow Todd, pretty good firm that they're
going to do some deep diving and try and find
out the reasons why they fired her before. Yeah, as
you said, you know, this is shoot first, asked questions later.

(43:26):
I guess the Inquirer came out with this this morning.
The scope of the investigation. This is what the lawyers,
the team for the city outside Council is going to investigate.
And now there are four prongs to this thing. Is
she an effective leader and manager of the department, including
personnel and resources. Is she a leader within the context
of city government, meaning does she further the broader goals
and objectives of the administration. Has she committed any infraction

(43:49):
or positive violation while serving as police chief, and did
she disregard best practices in the running a CPD to
the detriment detriment of public safety and crime prevention. Well,
let's start with the first one. Is she an effect
leader and manager of the department, including personnel and resources?
That seems like an open ended question, like if there
were problems with her management personnel of the previous chief

(44:10):
notoriously had issues with that when I guess it was
before Craig Notoriously had problems with that too, and it
was public. So but believing I heard of that at
Chief Thiji, you know, the rank and file really split
on it, really didn't care for her all that much.
But once they did what they did to her, they
realized they could come next. And now everyone, even her detractors,

(44:31):
are supporters, so they rallied them. So to look at
this and say is she an effective leader or manager?
You can say that of any boss, can't you?

Speaker 3 (44:39):
Right? Exactly? And I call that fuzzy math.

Speaker 7 (44:42):
You know, that's the law school exam where it depends
on who's paying me. That's the answer I give you.
Know you're paying me on this one side, I tell
you why she's an effective leader. If you're paying me
on the other.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
Side, I'll give you all the reasons why she's not.

Speaker 7 (44:54):
I mean that's again I don't think that's what this
is going to fall down on, because again you said
that it is so vague, it's so fuzzy that you know,
if they want to decide that she's not a good leader,
they're gonna they're gonna find reasons to justify that, just
like if you want to find that she's a good leader,
you'd find the reasons. So you know, the first two

(45:15):
that you mentioned, those prongs that those both both are
very fuzzy, math fuzzy sort of law school exams where
anyone can answer anything. I think the crux is going
to be number three, which is is there an infraction?
You know, is there something that she did that she
not follow a policy. I don't think there's any allegation
of criminal wrongdoing, So it's going to be something something

(45:37):
you know, so minor that and that's where she's gonna
then get into court and say, look, other people have done.
You know, other people forgot to call in on day
that they were taken off and they were allowed to stay.
But I'm getting fired things like that. And then of
course number four, I mean, that's that's I think the
one that's a little bit more serious. You know, there's

(45:58):
a problem in cincinnat with crime. Whose fault is it?
Is it the mayor's is it? The judges?

Speaker 3 (46:05):
Is that the police chief? You know? Is it society?
I mean, what's the problem?

Speaker 7 (46:10):
And I think it'd be interesting to see if there's
something that she should be doing or something like you said,
best practices that she didn't do. That would be the
one that would you know, sell me yes or no,
as opposed to the other three prongs that you know
they can find out of anybody.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
Now, Jason Philibel' attorney at law, relative to the four
pillars of this investigation by outside Council for the City
of Cincinnati to towards Terry Thiji, you mentioned number three,
is she's committed any infraction policy violation while serving as
a police chief. If she had and it rose to
the level of an impeachable offense, wouldn't we have heard that?
I mean, typically you know, when someone commits a crime.

(46:46):
Let's look at what happened with the NBA recently. What
happened was Cashpattel. The FBI held a press coomf if
they had the evidence, they made the charge that Okay,
here's we're coming at these individuals. We're going after Chauncey Belcher,
going after other individuals because this is the evidence we
have in this case. They're going, well, it'd be like
them going, yeah, well we're suspending Chauncey Develops and now
we're going to do an investigation to find out what

(47:07):
he did wrong. That's the problem with this is that
if you in any other case, with due process, and
I think it applies you to a degree that if
you committed an infraction, you make those charges allegations, you
suspend them all, you investigate the scope and the depth,
and then eventually you terminate that person because now you've
gathered the evidence.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
This is completely the opposite of that.

Speaker 7 (47:27):
Right, And that's why I think a lot of people
look at this and say that's not fair. You know,
you don't arrest somebody and say go find me a crime.
The crimes committed, then you arrest them, and then you
either investigate further or prove or disprove that it happened.
What's not fair is to essentially take someone out of
a position and look for something.

Speaker 3 (47:48):
That they did wrong.

Speaker 7 (47:50):
And you know, I would think, you know, if they
did something wrong, you wouldn't have the city manager talking
about what a great thirty five years, what a great.

Speaker 3 (48:00):
Person this is, and we wish you the best.

Speaker 7 (48:02):
I think I think that was the statement when they
put her on leave, is you know, what a great
sellar career. If there's truly an infraction worthy of dismissal,
that's not the statement you.

Speaker 3 (48:14):
Put out there.

Speaker 7 (48:14):
So that tells me they probably don't know if there's one,
and they're now looking for one so they can hang
their hat on it.

Speaker 5 (48:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Yeah, our tires at nineteen ninety eight, we're touching a
handicapped spot. Accidentally, she didn't close the cover before striking
when she was trying to light a candle some matches,
and she tore the mattress tag off of her seiling.
Those don't rise to levels. The reason you get fired
because everyone does that.

Speaker 7 (48:38):
Right exactly exactly, and that's what that's what they're looking
for now again so they can find it.

Speaker 3 (48:43):
For cause.

Speaker 7 (48:44):
Now I think again the legitimate, legitimate investigation would be
number four. But again that's not something that I would
do post termination or in this case just suspension.

Speaker 3 (48:57):
Is what is is she doing wrong?

Speaker 5 (48:59):
Why is the city?

Speaker 8 (49:00):
You know?

Speaker 7 (49:00):
And maybe that's a good investigation, you know, find tell
me why Cincinnati crime was going up? And see if
we but to sit there and take the police chief
out and then do that investigation. That seems again putting
a little bit of the cart before the horse.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
Well, it seems like, you know, they're turning under a stone,
the stone over, but when they kick the stone, a
lot of things are going to run. I wonder how
much of those those bugs come back to bite after
a puerval. Because two and four of this four pillar
investigation by Brown Frost Todd is she too is is
she a leader within the contextas city government, meaning furthering
the broader goals and objects of the city administration? Number

(49:37):
four is did she regard best practices in the running
of CPD? I don't know if that's just best practices
by police standards. No pot of standards or best practices
is set forth by number two the administration because that's
the sticky part is when she interviewed for this job
three years ago, Jason Philbamma was looking at some of
the interviews she did. She said her biggest priority was
to continued diversity, equity and inclusion within the Cincinnati Police Department,

(50:01):
how to lift people up. And she also had to
get the blessing and interview essentially with Iris Rawley, who
we've seen in recent time investigated and get herself involved
between a suspect a subject who was being arrested for
violating probation and was essentially interfering with the business of
a police officer. She had an interview with her to

(50:23):
get this job in the first place. So when I
hear that and then see what's happened with owner cognisance
people cutting their ankle monitor off and there's no repercussion
from the court for that, essentially doing what they say
they weren't going to do. Literally within minutes of leaving,
the people who have been jammed up and all this
high profile violence, save maybe the brawl, there's other factors
in there. And now that was handled as a nightmare

(50:44):
that wasn't on the chief, but everything else was Like
people who had violent prior criminal offenses that were precluded
from having a gun because they're under disability by law,
it's not her to set those policies.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
That's on the mayor.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
So they're doing this investigation. I wonder how much this
is going to come back and implicate have to apeer
volunteer loan.

Speaker 7 (51:05):
Yeah, I agree, And if you look at I think
the mayor put out a statement. He put out a
statement that he had nothing to do with his firing. Again,
I find that to be maybe a little disingenuous, because
why in the world would a city manager three weeks
before an election terminate your female police chief without talking
to the mayor. That would be a very dumb move.

(51:26):
So I would think that there was a discussion ahead
of time. But like you said, there's a lot of
factors to consider. You know, is she pushing dei and
that's why there's not enough police on the street. Maybe
that's a legitimate decision to, you know, talk about whether
that's the appropriate way to handle policing. You know, but
recently the city also engaged in a federal settlement where

(51:48):
they are changing the way they're policing.

Speaker 3 (51:51):
I mean, that's that could be a.

Speaker 7 (51:53):
Very real reason for why things are going up, you know,
having bonds, like you said, someone that commits a violent
crime and has let out, Hey, that's that's not on
the police issue.

Speaker 3 (52:02):
That's not on her exactly.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
I could see when she's falsifying reports and people aren't
showing up, and she's backdating payroll. I mean, those are
the things you're definitely going to get you and should
get you fired. But essentially the vision by this administration
is criminals are victims too, has led us to this point.

Speaker 2 (52:18):
That's not on Terry Thiji. That's on the people who
hire Terry Thiji.

Speaker 3 (52:23):
Exactly.

Speaker 7 (52:24):
As I said at the beginning of this talk, it
sounds to me like a skateboat. It sounds to me like,
you know, we're two weeks out from an election, and
I've got to tell the people that there's a problem,
and I fixed the problem. And now, by the way,
that's hired these really good attorneys to go in there
and find out what the problem was, and then I
can match it up and say, hey, did a good job,

(52:44):
which of course won't come out until after the election. Anyway,
it's going to take two three months to do a
thorough investigation whether it's legitimate or whether it's brought up
after the facts, so I.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
Don't think we're going to know anything. We'll probably January
after the election.

Speaker 1 (52:57):
Of course, that's what this is about, buying some time
for the election. But it really doesn't because it makes
them looking competent and stupid. Uh and not the first
time either. I would also add this finally, Jason Philibam,
attorney at law, if you're representing, if you're on Team Fiji,
are your eyes now glazing over with the millions and
millions of dollars should possibly be getting in because quite honestly,
the way this whole thing was executed, it's seemingly, in

(53:20):
addition to the two hundred k she's making, could wind
up getting a help of payout to sign a non
disclosure agreement because if she doesn't sign an ndayn'enforce an NDAH,
then then she can roll over on this administration and
really let the go south.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
And they don't want that.

Speaker 3 (53:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (53:36):
Yes, her attorney's firm is well known for suing cities
and municipalities and going after them and then you know
that's been a lot of expensive lawsuits and if they
if they end up getting, you know, something that they
can hang their hat on. Then you've got attorney fees
in play, and that's a pretty penny that the Cincinnati

(53:56):
have to pay out.

Speaker 3 (53:57):
So yeah, there's there's a I guess is there's going
to be.

Speaker 7 (54:01):
A settlement some way through the process, because otherwise it's
going to be expensive for somebody.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
Yeah, if the Finny law firm were like the Bengals defense,
we wouldn't be having conversations about not making the playoffs
and firing coaches, if you know what I mean, because
they are tenacious. If anything, he is an attorney, Jason
Phillibaum a private practice of course, attorney himself, just kind
of a different view, a different set of eyes on
this issue right now because it doesn't pass my sniff test,
and it certainly doesn't pass Jason's either. Jason, all the best, buddy,

(54:28):
thanks for jumping.

Speaker 2 (54:29):
On this morning.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Thank you over at Jonas and Phillibaum, Thanks again. Quick
time out, we'll get a news update. And the controversy
that they wish, we're kind I hate when we've got
enough controversy in the world. What is controversial about what's
happening at the White House relative to the East Wing
Because it feels like people are pushing this narrative like
we should be all worked up into a froth about this,

(54:51):
and I just maybe it's just me. I don't see it,
and I'll tell you why next seven hundred WLW. One
of the big stories this week is the demolition of
the East Wing of the White House.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
With the government.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
Shutdown, with the snap benefits then getting cut and FAA
and executive orders and effectless Congress and our deficit and
debt growing exponentially and so much more going, does anyone
actually give a flying bleep about the East Wing demolition?
I mean, you talk about a story to me that

(55:30):
is just I don't know. It feels like it's like
the no Kings people impressing this entire story. You see
what he's doing, you see I don't know. As you know,
I have some issues with Trump specifically, you know, the
executive power, the spending of money we don't have, the
tariffs and where they're going, what's going on with healthcare.

(55:52):
There's like a thousand other questions out ask Trump and
question what he's doing and the motives behind it. So
much with the East Wing, like I just legitially don't care.
I know the timing sucks. With this cutdown and the
shutdown and the cuts and all that time, you get
the timing sucks. But you know, when you signed a
construction demo contract and you get as you know, after

(56:12):
the anchors dried, you know, you move forward with the project.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
You don't really have a choice. I carry you.

Speaker 1 (56:17):
There's a lot of things with the executive branch and
executive power I care about more, much, much more than
the East Wing. This is not on the radar, but
I'm fascinated by all the gnashing of teeth and crying
about it. Is that, Well, what are they upset about? Well,
they're taking this historic part of the it's the people's house,

(56:39):
it's the people's and they're destroying it. They wiped out
the entirety of the historic East Wing. Is it really
that historic? Because it was Teddy Roosevelt that built the
Easting It's not exactly going back to Washington, it's not
going back to seventeen ninety two here now. Granted it
has a lot of history occurred in there, and they
had to cut some trees down there named after President's

(57:01):
I get that, but is it really like you're destroying it?
Didn't like take the White House and coolly level of
put a Trump Hotel up. Okay, that would be outrageous,
But the East Wing in and of itself put into context,
here's a sillinity argument. So the White House is about
fifty five thousand square feet fifty five thousand square feet,

(57:25):
which is like the size of.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
I mean, I was gonna say, like it's.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Smaller than a wal Mart for crying out loud. It's
six stories, there's one hundred and thirty two rooms. There
are thirty five bathrooms. So if you got a pee,
White House would be a good place to be. Comparatively speaking,
if you look at comparable places, I guess in democracy,
Buckingham Palace comes to mind, grants the Palace the King,

(57:52):
but that is essentially fifteen times larger than the White House.
Now there is ten Downing Street. Downings Street is where
the PM is, and that's about thirty eight hundred scrive.
It's an apartment, basically, it's townhouse. It's about less than
ten percent the size the White House. But again that's
the figure out. That's a prime minister, primeacy, important job.
But you know it's about royalty, the British throne. So

(58:13):
bucking and you know, Okay, you've got Downing Street, but
you think of that as the center of democracy for
the government of the UK, for the British government. But
Buckingham Palace, if you've ever been there, I've toured it
on the outside anyway, changing the garden all that, it's massive.
It's fifteen times beside the White House. The Rostrapati of
Bevon in India is about two hundred thousand square feet.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
So what's that?

Speaker 1 (58:35):
Four times? Four times is the large of the White House.
So comparatively speaking, the White House is kind of like
in the middle. It's very mid as far as the
size of the executive branches of government. But it's hard
to compare to you know, I don't know the Kremlin.
It's hard to compare to other forms of government and
what their I guess their palace would be the version

(58:58):
of their white House, if you want to call it that.
So it's kind of hard to compare because you have
different types of governments. So here the White House kind
of like modest size. It's like a modest sized building.
And okay, I put this in perspective right because in
America we thought we love space, you know, so they'll
remodel pay Course Stadium. Were they gonna they're gonna put
smaller seats and know they're gonna put bigger seats. If

(59:20):
you've ever gone to a place where I mean it's old, old,
and they haven't updated on anything, you realize so quickly
how uncomfortably crowded it is because it's built for smaller people.
Today we get you know, when Teddy Roosevelt puts this in,
then the population was much much less and therefore fewer
people would be gathered to the White House. And so
if you just look at some and I'm like, here's

(59:40):
what we've lost at the East Wing, I'm looking at
pictures going that place was way overdue to be blown up.
Then the East Wing had a movie theater, the Presidential
theaters there, and there's pictures. Oh my god, look at
this historic area that for the last roughly one hundred years.
It's one hundred years old. The theater itself is like

(01:00:01):
literally four seats across, and then they have like some
folding chairs in the back.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
It looks janky as hell.

Speaker 1 (01:00:07):
They have this image they keep showing Obama is running
bow his dog at the time when he was a
puppy and they have another image there, I guess from
that would be looked like the sixties or seventies where
they had all these garish looking red Christmas trees up
and then the main Christmas tree mult they call it
Christmas tree at the end.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Of the hall.

Speaker 1 (01:00:22):
But if you would have walked down the middle of that,
you'd have to kind of swivel your hips. You'd have
to kind of do the side by side wall, you know,
like swing your hips through to not hit the Christmas
tree on your left and right to get down that
hall like it's that narrow, Its like could only be
maybe twenty twenty five feet across. The real problem is
hosting an event. And I talked to someone who used

(01:00:45):
to work in the White House in news and news
media and said, yeah, you know, you don't really see
it on TV because all the airs of the White House.
You may get the tour and everything, but the day
to day, the operational the executive mansion is different than
what we're talking about. Where stuff gets done and it
isn't aoriously cramped like there's a room for nothing there.
It's so small and you've got so many people. We've

(01:01:05):
added bodies, people have gotten bigger. You've had a more job,
more titles and jobs, and that adds to the bloat
and size of government. And the White House essentially functionally
has stayed the same. And so I kind of get
that that if you add on this which dwarfs the
White House, it does look it does make it look
like a double take. But you have a ballroom that

(01:01:28):
size seems about right in a sense because you're hosting
all of these world leaders and all these events, where
in the past you could have a few of them
in there, but largely you had overflow and the tents
on the outside. It was just it's not laid out
very well. And so if you have a building that's
that old and that small, I kind of get it,
you know. And the other element here too is Truman

(01:01:49):
is the one who really brought this thing into the
twentieth century. It was a huge renovation that lasted like
four year, made major changes. But even since the true renovation,
because the White House was starting to fall apart, you know,
Jackie Kennedy put the Rose Guard, Trump leveled the Rose Garden,
But okay, well what was the Rose Garden before Jackie
Kennedy or you know, Gerald Ford added a swimming pool. Okay,

(01:02:12):
what was that before? He had to knock some trees
down to do that. Nixon converted the swimming pool into
the briefing room. So he changed that and added a
bowling alley. By the way, I don't know. I think
the bowling always there and something else now. So each
administration is coming and done something sizably markedly different. Then
now this is huge compared But if you think about

(01:02:35):
those changes in context, this looks about right. Like I
can't help but think if you know, there's another term
of Biden, let's say, or come on and they decid, Yeah,
you know what, It's just it doesn't serve our needs.
We need to We didn't make this place bigger because
we're having a lot of state dinners, we're having events
that require a lot more people there.

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
We need more space.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
And even in our daily lives as Americans, you know,
look at how the size of the house you grew
up in verse unless you live on the West side,
doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
It's the same house.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
But the house you grew up in, how much different
in your house is today, how much more space you have?
When I first uh started dating Michelle, and I think
where I actually married at the time. She and I
grew up in Buffalo, New York, and so we were
back visiting and like you know, showing around, you know,
you do that thing you show you grew up and
stuff like that, and literally the house that we grew

(01:03:22):
up and I was a kid like, man, Okay, this
is the house I grew up in. We drove past
it because I knew the addressing, k know exactly where
it was, and I drew past it because I didn't
recognize it. I'm like, wait a minute, hold on, just
a second. Like my mom, my dad, me and my
brother and my little brother three three we lived in
that house, Like how did we fit in there? In

(01:03:48):
the backyard, I remember me a massive, huge backyard.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
It was tiny. And so that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:03:55):
Right, we move on, we would get bigger things. Americans
like bigger. We like more space. I don't understan on
how this is in the play to the East Room
of the White House, and you know, it's one of
those things where and I've been critical of Trump, but
I get critical of things like he can control and
what he told us and what he's not doing, and
the government getting bigger and being more irresponsible, not more

(01:04:16):
responsible and doing stupid things and missteps and all those things.
That's all fair, but this apocalyptic coverage of the dismissed
the we're just mantling them destroying the White House, the
East wing of the White House. It's the worst thing ever.
It's a it's just a remodel. It's an architectural decision.
Like there's many of the things I won't worry about
more in this administration and in politics in general, like

(01:04:37):
the shutdown, and the East Wing doesn't even meet that.
And I get, you know, it's like, well, we're going
to make a small change. It turns out next thing,
you know, two days later, the entire East Wing has gone.

Speaker 5 (01:04:47):
And I get it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
The excuse was that while we decided, once we got
in there, it's just going to be cheaper and easier
to knock the whole thing down to build this ninety
thousand square football room is in addition, okay, and I
think they probably knew that going into it, but shows
selectively to go, oh, yeah, we got in there and
it was a mess, and they said this is the
easiest thing to do. So it's too late, because you know,

(01:05:10):
if you'd said that weeks prior, someone to come in
and try to stop. You know, somebody was Chuck Schumer
would have chained himself to the east wing to send
a message and over my dead body are going to
do this kind of you know thing. We've seen the
taper tantrums before, but it's a three hundred dollars may face.
And the other element, too, is the concern that corporations
are footing the bill for this, and how wrong that

(01:05:31):
is it really? Because you know, I recall every other administration,
Republic Democrat, they get stuff done by going to their
donors and benefactors in order to get stuff done. To me,
this is a little more refreshing and though, okay, how
much is this costing? Three hundred million dour? But we
already have two hundred million dollars from big companies that
want to do business with the government. Now if they

(01:05:53):
get a fat contract or something, they certainly there's quid
pro crow there and it doesn't look good, but countless
and this is how things work in Washington, is how
things work in our government, sadly, is that you got
to pay to play. You got to get paid it
just because you donate I don't know, ten or twenty
million dollars to this cause doesn't mean you're gonna get
that in return. And most of the experts say, yeah,
it's kind of an on'mgoing process. Like the big boys

(01:06:15):
continually throw money in, which is why they donate to
campaign You look at the campaign financing. Why do they
give equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans or a little
more a little less to the side of that Side's
because they got to keep everybody happy. They got to
streat spreading the fat cash around, so they keep everybody happy.
This is nothing different. I guess the relieving part is like, man,
we don't have to pay three hundred million. And I

(01:06:35):
would also point out too that from those progressives out
there that think this is the worst thing ever and
why this is so wrong because these companies are paying
in office, how often do we often we hear about
these big companies and the CEO of fat cats, the
fat cats, how they get those money? They don't pay
any taxes? How did they give it anything back? They're
a drain on the system. I got to pay tax
they don't have to pay taxes. Okay, well, if you're

(01:07:00):
giving back this money essentially to build a white House,
that will be there or he's doing that will be
there in the future. Isn't that kind of giving back?
So is it hypocritical for you to talk about the
breaks these companies get. These corporations get and they get
hand out of hand and they don't do anything, but
they know they're not paying tax and not paying their
fair share, and they do something like this. You're also

(01:07:23):
against that, Like, it's not like me and you and
a bunch of poor people handing money out. It's not
like all this three hundred million is going to come
from the tax revenue that we don't have to pay
for this. It's being paid for by private donations. Now
do they want some trying to ingratiate themselves with this administration?
There's no question about it. But it's not like Trump
invented this. This has been going on since day one

(01:07:45):
and in Congress and in the White House, Like, what,
how is this any different than what previous presidents have done?
You know, give to my foundation, It's well, okay, if
I'm giving to the I don't know the Clinton Foundation
or the Obama found or the Biden whether foundation is
how am I not getting special treatment there?

Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:08:04):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:08:04):
And then then when Republicans do it, Democrats yell, and
then when Democrats do it, Republicans yell. I get that,
but you know, to me, it seems like we're winning
because literally the companies are paying for this, the same
companies who say don't pay their fair share.

Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
Don't understand.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
I'll get a news update in about five here on
seven hundred wwho, Scot's Loan Show and Winter Turn eleven
oh seven. Here's a conversation that normally I would not
want to have with this person. Nick Crossley is the
Hamlin County director for the Emergency Management Association or agency.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
I guess it would be here in Hamlin County.

Speaker 3 (01:08:38):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
Normally, if I have Nick Crossley on it's because all
halls breaking losts we have a flood, we have tornadoes,
an earthquake, we have a forest fire. I don't know
if we have a forest fire, maybe the mount Airy Forest,
I don't know. But nonetheless, he is the guy who
heads up our emergency management agency. Don't want to have
Nick Crossley on the radio because that means stuff's going down,
if you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:08:58):
This time I did, though he's in d C.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
And here's how jacked up FEMA is speaking of things
we should pay attention to, not so much the East
wing in.

Speaker 2 (01:09:05):
The White House.

Speaker 5 (01:09:06):
Did you know this that.

Speaker 1 (01:09:10):
A lot of areas of the country who have to
get FEMA money. Now we've got some from flooding and
stuff like that, but they're like, I think like a
third I got the numbers here in a second or there.
I think it's almost like a third of the counties
in the United States something like that get a billion
dollars or more in FEMA relief last year or the
last couple of years. Goes to show you just how

(01:09:31):
many problems we have when it comes to natural disasters
and the like that we need the money for that.
A lot of these communities, and this would be Hamelin County,
Butler County, Warren County, and Campbell and Canon Counties for
that matter, of Switzerland County, that if you had natural disaster,
you'd actually have to go borrow money, borrow the money
to foot the bill for the for the emergency relief

(01:09:53):
from FEMA until the FEMA check comes in, and then
you'd pay the bank back with interest. So wait a minute,
double hit, I gotta pay interest to the Mario A.

Speaker 6 (01:10:01):
Barer.

Speaker 2 (01:10:01):
I thought FEMA was there for that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
They're looking to reform the whole system as the point,
and he's in d C four that's important. It's one
of those things where like I don't really care, well,
you know what, if it hit the fan, then you'd care.
And now's the time. And we talked about government being
reactive not proactive. Fortunately, people like Nick and the other
people that are on this task force going to d C.
And he's in DC right now. As he will tell you,

(01:10:23):
this is important. We got to do this now because
FEMA is really screwed up. We got to make the
process easier, not harder, if and when a natural disaster
hits our area here in southwest Ohio. He is next
on the show right after News on the home of
the best boundals coverage seven hundred WWT since then towards
the US. If you look at it, go back in
the year that we have all the numbers, and on
twenty twenty three, about a third of all US counties,

(01:10:45):
a third of US counties experience at least one federally
declared disaster exceeding a billion dollars in damage.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
That is incredible.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
Think about that a third of all counties in the
United States of America every year. We're pretty lucky here
in southwest Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky. But if and when we
need help, there's horror stories about the process of getting
relief from FEMA. Nick Crossley is the Hamlin County Director
of Emergency Management. He is in DC right now, part
of a task force meeting with federal leaders about disaster reform.

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
Nick, Welcome, how are you.

Speaker 6 (01:11:15):
Oh, I'm doing great. I'm doing great. Good morning.

Speaker 5 (01:11:17):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:18):
On this topic, this may be the one time where
I would like to talk to you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
Typically in the course of your job as the head
of the emergency management of Hamlin County, I would not
want to talk to you. So if I ever have
to talk to Nick Crossley, We've got problems, you know
what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
I do, I do.

Speaker 2 (01:11:35):
Wait, We're pretty lucky.

Speaker 1 (01:11:36):
I mean, you know, the weather's pretty temperate here is
save maybe some tornadoes, I suppose, earthquake, But as far
as the rest of America goes, we don't have to
worry about fires and hurricanes and stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (01:11:47):
We're pretty good.

Speaker 6 (01:11:49):
Well, we do, although we do have what are called
duratio events, which are highland you know, several years ago
around eight.

Speaker 8 (01:11:56):
It caused a power.

Speaker 6 (01:11:57):
Outage of over one hundred thousand people. That we have
the river flood. It flooded just this last March, caused
several hundred thousand dollars worth of damage along the river.
And then of course we're starting to have more higher
impact snow events and then of course extreme heat. So
it's pretty much it's pretty much year round for Hamilton County.

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
But comparatively with those third of counties to get a
billion dollars some damage, we're not anywhere near that amount,
thank god. What is the doomsday scenario that you prepare for?
Maybe flooding, extensive flooding. I suppose a big wind event,
but that's kind of temporary blizzard And okay, we might
get a blizzard as we did back in the eighties.
But what's the one thing You're like, Wow, if this hits,
we're in trouble.

Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
What would it be?

Speaker 6 (01:12:39):
I think the biggest thing is similar to what happened
in Montgomery County a couple of years ago on Mother's Day,
which would be that large scale, multi vortex, multi county
tornado that would come through. Because of our population density,
you're we're pretty much completely developed in Hamilton County almost
and so if anything like that happened in Hamilton County,
we would have incredible both initial the initial response would

(01:13:04):
be intense with trying to help rescue people, and then
of course the short term stabilization if we have Friday
and temporary housing, and then of course long term recovery,
which would be one of the most challenging things. And
long term, both short and long term recovery is where
working with our state and federal partners comes really into
play to ensure that we have a system nationally that

(01:13:27):
can assist the county in its recovery.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I was thinking as you're talking there, Nick,
the seventy four Xenia tornadoes. Some people like a xenio
iiO flattened to decimated, but there are several touching down
in and around cbg SO and much less populated than
seventy four than it is today. But imagine having those
kind of tornadoes in Hamblin County. The results would be
absolutely mind boggling as far as the death and devastation go. Nick,
You're in DC right now with this task force, and

(01:13:51):
it's the reform or introduced I guess reform, but it's
the FEMA Act.

Speaker 6 (01:13:55):
What is that?

Speaker 2 (01:13:55):
What's that do?

Speaker 6 (01:13:57):
So the FEMA Act is really an attempt to work
with Congress, and it is they're looking for a companion
bill in the Senate, but so it has passed the
House committee. It's an attempt to fix the system, reform
the system, not do away with the system, both including
FEMA and the system as a whole. And so what

(01:14:18):
it would do is, oftentimes counties post disaster have to
find the money, borrow the money, funt the money to
pay for a disaster recovery, and then eventually, within months
or years, you finally get reimbursed by.

Speaker 8 (01:14:33):
The federal government if you get a federal declaration.

Speaker 6 (01:14:36):
And so what this would do is it would turn
it more into a Once you create the estimate of
what it's going to cost the recovery, FEMA would provide
grants immediately, so that because every government struggles depending on
I mean you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars that
the government would have to find to pay for these
projects upfront. So would reform that process. It would also

(01:14:58):
for survivors of as is, create one application for all
There's there's dozens of programs available to people post disaster.
So this would create one application that would go to
all the agencies and the other entities that assist so
that they don't have to go to multiple websites or
multiple phone calls. Another thing that it does is it
provides a loan interest payment release, so if a government

(01:15:20):
does have to take out a loan, that you can
claim that interest as part of the reimbursement from the
federal government. And then and then finally it works with
FEMA to create a public facing dashboard. So this is
the accountability piece, the transparency piece, so that people can
see where the funding is going, what their government is receiving,
and what their government is spending and on. So that's

(01:15:42):
really really important with public assistance.

Speaker 1 (01:15:47):
Yeah, and you're advocating for universal disaster application, that makes sense.
You should be a portal. You go in, you fill
it out, and all the agencies go to there to
get the information they need. The fact that you have
to go to each individual agency for aid is at
this day and age, which is insane.

Speaker 6 (01:16:02):
Correct with with the advent of speaking candidly with AI
and other things that can analyze data and really help
you walk through which programs you're eligible for whether it's
a loan or it's a grant, that's critical.

Speaker 8 (01:16:15):
To residents, and and and our our citizens are already.

Speaker 6 (01:16:20):
Stressed out from having their property damage or maybe that
maybe they've gotten hurt or family members have died in
the disaster. So this is one way that the federal
government can assist with relieving that stress and trying to
help our residents recover.

Speaker 1 (01:16:35):
Does this suggest the fact that we've got to reform this,
Nick Crossley, that counties don't know where their applications stand
in the whole process right now, Are you just like
kind of left in the dark.

Speaker 6 (01:16:43):
It's it's a it's a tedious process to be to
be candid, and it always has been. And I don't
know that that's if anybody's fault per se, because you know,
you have to have accountability while you're asking for these funds.
But I think one of the key things to point
out is that federal declarations are the are the are
the one percent, if you will, of declarations handed out

(01:17:06):
across the country. Most disasters in the US never qualify
for state or federal assistance. And so when you're when
you're talking about this kind of event, this is the
extreme This is the Montgomery tornado on Mother's Day a
few years ago. This is the both Montgomery County a
few years ago on Mother's Day, and then of course
the city of Montgomery tornado a few years several years ago.

(01:17:27):
What a couple of I think, yeah, ninety nine, you're right.
And so these are that level of disasters. So you
have both extreme impacts to your residents and your citizens,
and you have extreme impacts to the local governments. And
a major disaster can cripple a local government. And so
this is an attempt to work with Congress on a
reform process because there is a role for the federal

(01:17:50):
government in helping our communities recover from disasters. I mean,
as you know, these are our tax dollars that we're
using to help communities recover. And and in my belief
this is this is why one of them we formed
a union, you know, two hundred and fifty years ago
for many reasons. One of them was in bad times
as well as good And this is why this declaration

(01:18:12):
process is critical and a FEMA is really critical to
the country's resilience.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
Does this and FEMA is one thing, but what about
mutual aid? Does that impact that at all.

Speaker 8 (01:18:25):
It's it's not really impacting this.

Speaker 6 (01:18:27):
So mutual aid is that initial response I was talking about,
and that's where we all come together, our forty nine communities,
in our in our local neighboring counties, and also the
states that if we need that immediate response, that mutual
aid is virtually automatic to make sure that we can
rescue people and get them out of harm's way. This
is more looking at the short and long term recovery

(01:18:49):
so that so that communities and our residents can recover
hopefully as quickly as possible.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
Nick Crosley's the Hambling County Director of Emergency Management Director
Emergency mand for on the county's in DC, part of
a task force to try and reform FEMA. Because third
of all US counties experienced this is twenty twenty three,
one third of all counties in the United States experience
at least one federally declared disaster that exceeded a billion
dollars in damage. To put that in perspective in today's dollars,

(01:19:18):
these Xenia tornadoes from seventy four would be well over
one point five billion dollars today in today's dollars. To
show you the scope of this thing, and that's happening
a third of all counties, which is mind boggling itself.
And it sounds like, based on a whole bunch of factors,
weather change included, that these things are getting more frequent
and more intense.

Speaker 6 (01:19:38):
Oh, definitely, And I think again also the density of
Hamilton County today versus the Montgomery Twitter ninety nine versus
other disasters that we've had. Everything is impounded. And then
of course in today's world, with the cost of goods
and other things going up, in the cost of flavor,
it's even more increased. And so it'sticle that we share

(01:20:01):
this recovery process with our federal and state partners.

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
Well, Nick, you're calling for this reform right now, but
disaster damages are closing in on two hundred billion dollars
right now, and that number continues to climb for the
reasons we talked about.

Speaker 2 (01:20:14):
Is FEMA even equipped to handle all this?

Speaker 8 (01:20:17):
Oh, I definitely think because when you think FEMA, you
think of the entire federal goverment.

Speaker 6 (01:20:20):
It's the same thing with the county has an Emergency
Management agency, but that's that's ten people the county. The
agency works with all of the other agencies and departments
in county government and state to respond to a disaster.
It's the same thing with FEMA. So FEMA has X
amount of staff, X amount of programs, but it works
with the entire federal infrastructure and then of course with

(01:20:41):
the Congress to allocate the funds. So I think they're
more than capable of it. I think that it is
definitely time for some when we've been calling these for
these reforms for many, many years, that we have an
opportunity here with the Fixing FEMA, Fixing Emergency Management for
Americans Act, the FEMA Act, that to make these changes

(01:21:02):
and make the process more streamlineding more helpful to at
the end of the day, the local residents and governments
of the United States in.

Speaker 1 (01:21:09):
The reality is we just said, I think it was
Michigan and Wisconsin. I believe that had their FEMA disaster
claims denied long after the event occurred. And is that
because of the reform we want here?

Speaker 6 (01:21:20):
Is that part of it? So you know they if
you're talking about the recent denials, I mean, so it's
either one of two things. It's usually because the the
you have to reach a certain level, So there's a
dollar amount you have to reach and damage and affects
the citizens residents, and if you don't hit that, then

(01:21:40):
you don't qualify for the federal decoration. Which is why
most disasters are not assisted by FEMA. They don't they
don't receive federal dollars for the recovery. For example, the
flood we had in March did not did not reach
the level of federal assistance. But I think that here
recently there has and more of a push to push

(01:22:02):
that responsibility down to the local government. And obviously that's
debatable whether or not whether or not they should do that,
but but I think again there's a role that if
we meet the statutory requirements to receive a federal decoration,
that we should states should receive that federal declaration.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Nick Crosley, head of the Hamlet County EMA here is
in d C lobbying the federal government to approve the
FEMA Act FEMA Reform Act that is going to streamline
the process here to make it easier and quicker to
get relief from damages. When indeed we have a natural disaster,
and that could be here in Hamlin County, tornado flood,
possibly an earthquake, who knows we're near a fault line
at any of that could possibly happen.

Speaker 2 (01:22:42):
But you're doing it a the same time the government shutdown.

Speaker 5 (01:22:44):
Does that?

Speaker 2 (01:22:46):
How do those two things work well?

Speaker 6 (01:22:48):
So you know, while the members are not in session,
they are on the hill, and so I have meetings
set up with Sanator Marinos often and Centator Houston's office,
and we'll be stopping by and chatting with them about
the the FEMA Formact. So they're all still here working

(01:23:10):
and so we just wanted to have that conversation while
we were here.

Speaker 1 (01:23:13):
Yeah, and we've had criticism about FEMA's response times in bureaucracy.
And that's one thing for a government to Hamlin County,
City of Cincinnati, State of Ohio. But when it's me,
it's my house, my domicile and it's damaged that that's
the taxpayer right and you again, I'll have these agencies
looking out for you. But that's that's a concern. It's
the big bottleneck. Have you experiencing things personally in the

(01:23:35):
course of doing your job.

Speaker 6 (01:23:38):
I have, I have seen it as part of my job.
I have not personally had you know, my home damage
right right by a major disaster. But I've through my career,
I've worked from Kansas to California too. I've been here
in Hamilton County for ten years. I've seen the impact
of the slow response and slow recovery and the bureaucracy,

(01:23:58):
and so I think we're trying to speed that up
with with accountabilities built in so that funds are used correctly.
And I think again, the whole folks of this entire
thing is so that residents can recover faster.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
And the other element of this is shocked me, Nick,
is that there's a provision in here for a loan
interest payment payment really from love. Our counties currently have
to take out loans to cover disaster costs wile waiting
for FEMA money and then have to taxpayers have to
foot the bill.

Speaker 5 (01:24:26):
Of the interest. Is that a thing?

Speaker 6 (01:24:28):
Yes, so yes, So Again, when you're talking these billion
dollar damages, these billion dollar disasters, then in some cases
counties have had to take out loans in order to
because you have to you have to get moving right,
so to speak. You've got to recover bridges and roads
and water treatment systems and sewer treatment systems, and so
this is the kind of it's the backbone infrastructure that

(01:24:51):
they're trying to fix, and so they've had to take
out loans, and so this has been an ongoing argument
discussion with with FEMA about helping with those interest costs
because we're simply waiting on the money that we have
been awarded, but it's takes so long that they have
to get moving because you can't leave a sewer or
water treatment system or a bridge.

Speaker 1 (01:25:12):
Out forever, right, Right, If this act passes, the FEMA
Act passes, what's the timeline for handling countency changes? Specifically,
what would be your top priority? Then they do what
they're supposed to do or what you're asking them to do.
What do you need to do at your end?

Speaker 6 (01:25:27):
I think our end would be educating. Once we both
educate ourselves on what's the new process, right, what changes
have come into play, make sure we understand them, Communicate
that to our elected leaders across the county. So I
have forty nine communities with forty nine councils, so to speak,
and so we'll be educating them on the process. So
we know that if a disaster happens and we receive

(01:25:48):
a federal declaration both for that can help residents as
well as local governments we can get them into that
process as quickly as possible, and so it's our job
to make sure we're that bridge between the victim so
to speak, and the resources that are available.

Speaker 1 (01:26:04):
Yeah, something the easiest thing to do is make this
grant based rather than reimbursement based.

Speaker 6 (01:26:10):
Right, I mean, it'll be you know, they'll once the
FEMAC passes, they'll have to put in the face their
policies and procedures. But again, the key that we'll be
watching for is to make sure that when it's done
that it's speed The intent is to get the money
out sooner and speed up the process. And so we'll
be monitoring that with the National Association Accounties and our

(01:26:31):
state partners to make sure that FEMA does that.

Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
What's the level of support like on the Hill for.

Speaker 6 (01:26:34):
This, So it's bipartisan. So the Infrastructure Transportation Infrastructure Committee
in the House passed it I think fifty sixty three,
so it's bipartisan support in there. And so again they're
working on that. You have to have the companion bill

(01:26:55):
in the Senate, so they're working on getting sponsors for that.
And so I think disasters are a political disasters affect
all states, all communities at at a given time, and
so it does not know political boundaries, and so I
think that hopefully we have a really good chance and
also working with the administration because they have definitely called

(01:27:17):
for for FEMA reform since before President Trump was elected.
So we hope to well to line right up with
with his with his efforts.

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
Who are the three clowns that voted?

Speaker 6 (01:27:29):
I have no idea. I was looking at that some
boys get.

Speaker 1 (01:27:31):
Them to buy fors and go at it. You know
what I'm saying doesn't make much sense there. What's the
timeline for getting to implemented?

Speaker 3 (01:27:40):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:27:40):
So again I think they're, you know, in the shutdown
doesn't help, but I think that they're they're working to
try to get the Senate Companion bill done and then
it just has to go through the process. And you know,
things are interesting in Congress right now, all right, as
quickly as possible.

Speaker 1 (01:27:57):
Nick Crossley, Hamley County Director Emergency Management, I hope to
never talk to you in your professional capacity when you've
got your helmet and your state of Ohio, your county
jacket on and stuff like that. God forbid, it's going
to be a bad day. But Nick, I'm glad you
do what you do and I appreciate it.

Speaker 6 (01:28:11):
Thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (01:28:12):
Great to chat with you, Nick Crosley. Yeah, kind of a.

Speaker 1 (01:28:15):
I mean, it's interesting to think that God forbid we
have a natural disaster that we now have to borrow
money and pay interest on that just to you know,
give people money in order to live, to survive. That
is a huge hole. And fortunately you have bipartisans support
for this whole thing. I mean, if we got money
for foreign countries and you know, redoing the White House, Okay, great, awesome,

(01:28:37):
Well how about fixing FEMA? You guys, no wonder Congress
has such a low approval rating. Scott's loan seven hundred ww.

Speaker 2 (01:28:45):
Willy gives me hope, and these days we can all
use some hope. Willy is here for you, no matter
how lousy my day is. I know I can count
on Willy to turn things around here, to soothe your fears.
I wish I could find a man just like Willie,
like the great.

Speaker 3 (01:28:58):
American that I am.

Speaker 2 (01:28:59):
He uses lots of big words. I use lots of
big words too. It's almost like we're twins.

Speaker 4 (01:29:03):
All you have to do is listen to me the
great amountic Bill Cunningham today at twelve noon on seven
hundred w l W.

Speaker 2 (01:29:12):
Have you taken your family to dinner recently?

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
Have been shop stack? This is all Worth Advice with
Andy Shaffer. Oh man, you smell that. It smells like money.
It smells like money. Has just come in to the
conversation here, Andy Shafer from all Worth Financial.

Speaker 2 (01:29:32):
I can smell the money through the microphone this morning.
I can smell it.

Speaker 5 (01:29:36):
I thought that was just false.

Speaker 3 (01:29:37):
Scott.

Speaker 1 (01:29:41):
Well, I'll tell you what you'd have some you're in
high cotton if you've got money skinning the game. Of course,
a couple few days of records or market highs right now,
it's been incredible.

Speaker 2 (01:29:50):
What's driving all that?

Speaker 9 (01:29:51):
Well, I mean a lot of things are going on
right now. You know, first of all, we're pretty you know,
we're getting some decent inflation numbers. We had the CPI
last week on Fry with a consumer price index, which
is a measure of inflation. And you know, we haven't
been able to get a lot of data since the
government shut down, but the CPI is one of those
where the government says, well we need this number to

(01:30:11):
be able to adjust the cost of living adjustment for
Social Security and they're certainly going to keep an eye
on that and make sure that they have that in place. So,
you know, we're kind of looking at what data we
have available to determine what the FED is going to do.
The Fed's meeting today, we're going to get a decision
tomorrow at two o'clock and the FED Chairman Powe has
a press conference immediately after that, and it does seem

(01:30:34):
likely we're going to get a quarter percent cut. Investors
enjoy that because what that means is when you start
to cut rates, that encourages spending, It encourages borrowing. You know,
it makes companies a little more flexible to be able
to hire. And so what the FED is doing is
they're starting to attack the labor market to make sure
that it stays pretty healthy. And you know, in addition

(01:30:55):
to that, you know, we're seeing you know, from a
political standpoint, we're seeing some going on tariffs, and you know,
with Donald Trump meeting with President g at the end
of the week this week, it seems like there's some
positive progress there. And so all of that, you know,
leads to investor optimism, and that's kind of where we
are right now.

Speaker 1 (01:31:14):
Yeah, all right, and it's been a hell of a
stretch right now. For sure, we'll see what happens. And
I know those the numbers you're talking about were delayed
because of government shutdown.

Speaker 5 (01:31:23):
Yeah, they were delayed a little bit.

Speaker 9 (01:31:24):
Now, we did have headline prices rose point three percent
on the core, which excludes food and energy. But that's
really what the FED looks at because they don't believe
that they can impact food and energy prices. And so
when you see these numbers that say, okay, well you
know raised point three percent year over year, Well that's
still higher. Yeah, but you have to understand how inflation works.

(01:31:45):
It doesn't mean that prices are coming down. What it
means is is that they're going up less fast. And so,
you know, the FED at this point feels pretty good
that inflation right now is you know, it really hasn't
been significantly impacted by the terraffs and things are starting
to cool. The other thing that I thought was really
interesting is we're finally seeing shelter, which is the largest

(01:32:06):
comport component of the core inflation continue to cool. You know,
we saw that that rents just rose point one to
three percent. Primary rent increase just ato point two percent,
and so you know, when we start to see housing
prices come down, and I think the fact that we're
going to see rates cut again is going to cool.

Speaker 5 (01:32:23):
It even more. You know, that's pretty optimistic from the
fence perspective.

Speaker 2 (01:32:28):
And people see this and go, how can that be
that the market's doing so well?

Speaker 1 (01:32:31):
And let look at they're going to cut SNAP benefits
pretty soon, and the cuts to SNAP and the Americans
the Affordable Care Act and people are going to have
to pay you know, twenty eight percent more for their
health insurance or the same cran we're in benefit season.
How can all those things be true at the same time.
And it illustrates I guess for everything and try and
I that this is a disparity between the haves and
the have nots, the rich and then everybody.

Speaker 5 (01:32:52):
Else to some To some extent, I think that it
is challenging.

Speaker 7 (01:32:57):
You know.

Speaker 9 (01:32:58):
You know, when we go to the grocery store, you
see prices that are, you know, pretty high. That's probably
one of my biggest bills. We cook at home all
the time. We go to the grocery. Meat prices are
particularly high right now, and so you're thinking, you know,
how is all of this possible. Well, people continue to
have jobs and there haven't been significant cuts in the
labor market at this point. So if you have the

(01:33:19):
ability to continue to earn a way just going to
translate to spending. And furthermore, you know, people that have
investments in those that have retirement plans and retirees and
their accounts are continuing to grow at fifteen percent every year.
That generates a decent amount of wealth to where you
can continue to draw an income stream and continue to spend. So, yes,

(01:33:41):
prices are continuing to be higher, but people are still
able to earn a wage and the job market is
fairly stable at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
Yeah, you look at that and go, okay, well that
that makes sense right now because it's a small percentage
of the America and three hundred million people you're talking about,
you know, one point to one point four people or
I'm sorry, forty two million on snap benefits right there,
and there's three hundred million Americans and say, okay, well,
as a percent it's not that much, but it does
have an impact on economy and you're in a personal
economy too. If you look at the price of things

(01:34:09):
you just mentioned b for example, For the first time
I can remember, I was at Costco of all places,
I looked at some beef and when I'm not paying
that right, I'm not paying that well. And I think
there's a there's a point to that, Scott.

Speaker 9 (01:34:21):
You know during COVID, when certain products were a little
bit higher in price than others. You know, I enjoy
a bot sandwich, but when bacon is eight dollars a
pound or whatever it was during that period of time, yeah,
I'm going to go without. And so, you know, people
still have the ability to make decisions on their spending,
and that's really where it comes to play. Just because
prices go up, you still have the option and choices

(01:34:42):
to make smart decisions with your spending.

Speaker 1 (01:34:44):
Yeah, I did see this that AI is now starting. Well,
we've seen it cost jobs. But Amazon's going to cut
fourteen thousand people, and online education company CHEG is going
to cut half of its eight hundred employee workforce all
because of AI. And so the looming threat that it
poses is starting to become reality.

Speaker 9 (01:35:03):
There is some cuts that are going to be coming
because of AI. I think there's a lot of industries
that are going to be affected more by AI. However,
we're continuing to see AI also developed jobs. We have
a lot of jobs that are increasing because of AI
and the tech sector. We also have a form in
Saudi Arabia right now where the Oracle co CEO Mike

(01:35:24):
Cilia basically said, hey, the next stage of private data
with AI is private data and merging them with leading
AI models. And the thing about it is is that, yes,
we've been through industrial revolutions, We've been through different work revolutions.
When the Internet was originated, we thought that that was
going to be a collapse of a lot of jobs
and we weren't going to be able to you know,

(01:35:45):
find work and things like that. The reality is is
that it also creates a lot of opportunities and additional jobs.
So where one one sector might be thinning out a
little bit, where are adding jobs to other sectors as well.

Speaker 1 (01:35:57):
All Right, Andy Schaeffer from all Worth Financial, you mentioned
the numbers come out the CPI core inflation shelter is
the largest component of that.

Speaker 2 (01:36:05):
That's cooling off a little bit. Believe it or not.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
Food We mentioned that that's moderates up but still kind
of just pulling steady. Things look fairly normalized in flat
right now, but the inflation rate is still a sticky
three percent. That's above where the FED wants it to be. Therefore,
interest rate cuts are coming.

Speaker 9 (01:36:22):
Yeah, because the Fed has the ability to either attack
inflation or pay attention more to the labor market. And
the Fed right now feels like, yes, it's a little
bit higher than where we want it, but we're comfortable
where it is, and the trends are going in the
right direction, so they can switch their focus from attacking
inflation to basically attacking the labor market and making sure

(01:36:42):
that it remains healthy by cutting interest rates, which we're
going to get a rate cut here tomorrow, We're probably
going to get another quarter percent cut in the summer,
and it's likely we get another one or two quarter
percent cuts next year. And so you know, as an investor,
you're looking at it, you're saying, okay. You know, with
interest rates starting to come down, that loosens the strings

(01:37:04):
for people to be able to spend because borrowing becomes cheaper,
and not only individuals but also businesses. And so that's
where the optimism is from a market standpoint, and that's
why we're at our all time highs right now.

Speaker 1 (01:37:14):
Andy Shafer explained to me, because I'm not an economist,
most people listening article and I'm kind of stupid too,
Why can't you cut it?

Speaker 2 (01:37:22):
Why is it either or inflation or jobs?

Speaker 5 (01:37:25):
Well, think about it this way.

Speaker 9 (01:37:26):
If prices go up and they become you know, we
were just talking about the price of bacon, if you
increase interest rates, that makes it tougher to borrow, and
so if you have less borrowing ability and it becomes
more expensive, then that reduces demand. And if demand starts
to reduce, then prices come down and follow along with it.

(01:37:48):
When you cut interest rates, that increases demand, which allows
for businesses to continue to thrive and hire more workers
and help the labor market remain strong.

Speaker 5 (01:37:58):
So that's where it is.

Speaker 9 (01:37:59):
It all comes down to interest rates and how that
affects the economy in general. If you continue to raise
interest rates, which we did when prices were significantly higher,
people aren't going to be willing to spend as much.
And that's what it's all about. It's about demand and
supply and your basic you know economics there.

Speaker 2 (01:38:16):
The balance of finances.

Speaker 1 (01:38:17):
What this is in the economy basically is that you
can't serve all masters you've got to pick the crisis
and deal with that and uh and then when the
other one we go the other way.

Speaker 3 (01:38:25):
So and that's why it's.

Speaker 9 (01:38:27):
It's it's a certainly a delicate balance. And that's why
you know, we talk about soft landings all the time,
and you know, the FED can't be too quick with
it and they can't be too slow with it. And
the challenge for the FED is is that when they
implement either you know, interest rate increases or interest rate decreases,
it takes about eight months for that to weave through
the economy, so it's not instantaneous, and so they have

(01:38:49):
to be a little bit patient, look at the data,
see how those decisions affect the economy, and then adjust
from there.

Speaker 5 (01:38:55):
And that's what makes it such a tricky and Denver.

Speaker 1 (01:38:58):
All right, let's get into the weirdness and the imbalance
and also the whiplash nature of trade, Andy Schaeffer from
all Worth Financial US in China, looks like they made
progress towards a deal deal that would pause more terrifikes,
start to store normalized trade and I guess more more
trades stability. I guess I want to say that is
similarly really good news. I think the markets reacted as such.

Speaker 9 (01:39:19):
Yeah, I mean, who knows, you know, I mean right right, well,
you know this is what we get. You know, Donald
Trump likes President G and then he doesn't like President G.
And you know, there's you know, you know a lot
of bluster, and you know it sometimes it feels almost personal.
But basically where we are with this is that it
seems like cooler heads are starting to prevail. Things are

(01:39:40):
loosing up, and most importantly, I think that both sides
are focused on reaching an agreement before the end of
the year. You know, this week's progress. It's not a breakthrough,
but we have a meeting on October thirtieth between President
Trump and President G for the first time in months.
And so the fact that we're you know, at sitting
together and talking is positive. And again, you know, China

(01:40:04):
needs our markets. There are supply side type of economy,
so they need people to buy their goods, and you know,
and and there's a lot of things that China supplies
us that is important, you know, to to our path
forward from an economic standpoint. So we we do need
each other and it seems like things are starting to cool,
and that's why the markets have responded.

Speaker 2 (01:40:22):
Then there's Canada that's at the other end.

Speaker 9 (01:40:23):
Of oh yeah, well, you know with Canada, there's there's
also a lot of name calling and a lot of
bless are there and and the mood is a little
bit different there. You know, we we had some trade talks,
you know, with Canada. Recently, Ontario ran an ad here
in the United States criticizing American tariffs and basically urging
a return to the Reagan style uh economic trade balance.

(01:40:45):
And you know, and and that, you know, kind of
upset the White House and an upset Washington. Ottawa called
the ad unfortunate but stood by its message. But basically,
you know, that irritated the United States, and so it
halted progress on steel negotiations, aluminum, agriculture and those are
the big things that we trade with Canada. And and

(01:41:06):
and that relationship remains important and hopefully we'll be able
to have some cooler rhetoric moving forward there too.

Speaker 1 (01:41:12):
All right, there seems no end to the government shutdown.
It's obviously not affecting markets. And how much are that
weighs on our lawmakers to get something done? I mean,
the markets start to suffer as all the shutdowns that's
a different story, but clearly the opposite is happening. How
much is it do you think that weighs in their decision?

Speaker 5 (01:41:28):
I think there's a timeline on that. Right now, it
doesn't very much.

Speaker 9 (01:41:32):
You know, there hasn't been a lot of official economic releases,
so it kind of keeps us in the dark to
where the economy is now. If you start to see
the limited amount of data that we have, start to
move sideways on that and we need a lot more clarity,
you know, politicians will start to get together and make
a deal. However, you know where we stand right now,

(01:41:52):
there is not a lot of urgency for the government
to get back open.

Speaker 3 (01:41:56):
You know.

Speaker 9 (01:41:57):
Right now, you know, Wall Street's going to focus on
corporate profits. We're starting to move into earning season. We
have one hundred and sixty two large cap companies that
are going to report earnings this week. We have a
lot of heavyweights out there. They're going to report Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft,
and so we'll see where that is. So right now,
investors are focusing focusing on, you know, what are the

(01:42:18):
earnings of companies, how are they performing, and looking at
the limited data that we get to make decisions as
far as you know, where am I going to invest?
And how is the how is the economy continuing to progress?

Speaker 6 (01:42:29):
All right?

Speaker 2 (01:42:30):
What do we got week ahead here?

Speaker 8 (01:42:32):
Uh?

Speaker 9 (01:42:32):
Well, you know again we're a limited, a little bit limited.
The big one obviously is the FED meeting today and
in the conference tomorrow. We're going to get you know,
some trade information as well. We're going to get pending
home sales on Wednesday. Thursday, we're going to get our
GDP numbers hopefully right because a lot of this is
still you know, on the sidelines. Friday is normally a

(01:42:54):
big day where we get personal income, consumer spending, producer
price index, a lot of those bits of data. But
as long as the government we're hearing shut down, we're
not going to get those numbers.

Speaker 5 (01:43:06):
So we'll see what we get. We just don't know
at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:43:09):
He's Andy Schaeffer with all Worth Financial simply Money. That
show airs at six o'clock weeknights, that would be tonight
on fifty five KARC. Every Tuesday morning, he pops in
and kind of check what's going on with the markets
and money. So Wall Street looks really really good right now.
Government looks to be inapt and all is right with
the world. I guess if it comes to your investments now,
the day to day's different story. So keep your eye

(01:43:29):
on the long term prize, which is getting the hell
out of your workplace with a little bit enough hopefully saved,
to be able to retire at some point in your future.
I hope that's true for all of us, sooner rather
than later. All the best, Drew, thanks again, have a
great one.

Speaker 5 (01:43:41):
Thanks Scott, look forward to talking to you next week.

Speaker 1 (01:43:43):
Willie is standing by. He has returned, he's ready to go.
He's champing at the bits. More Cherisa Thiji stuff on
the way. We've found out the law firm that's going
to look for her reasons that she's been fired after
she's fired, and we're going to pay them like forty
grand to do that and get a result by the
end of the year.

Speaker 2 (01:44:01):
So that's awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:44:02):
You have a police chief who essentially has been fired
and now we've hired a law firm to look for
the reasons as to why she's fired. It makes sense
to you, No it does not. Does it make sense
to those high a top city hall, Yes it does,
Yes it does. And we have an election coming up,
makes it more interesting Scott's loan, home of the best
Bengals coverage seven hundred WWDE Cincinnati

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Scott Sloan Show -- 10/28/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

Scott Sloan Show -- 10/28/25

Stuff You Should Know