December 10, 2025 • 21 mins
(December 10, 2025)
Is $140,000 really a poverty income? Clearly not, but the viral debate underscores the ‘affordability’ issue. Australia’s social media ban for people under 16 takes effect. Elon Musk calls DOGE ‘somewhat successful’ but would not do it again. At State Dept., a typeface falls victim in the war against Woke.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listenings k I AM six forty the bill handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio f KFI AM six
forty bill handle Here it is Aday, Wednesday, December tenth,
and a segment I want to do and this is
(00:24):
something that I'm really interested in. That is the economy,
our financial situation, both micro us macro, the country, the markets.
And actually I use Amy as almost a poster child
for this segment because one of the big big issues,
(00:46):
and we're talking about defining poverty. That's what this is about,
defining poverty and defining how people live. The general consensus
is you spend about a third of your income on housing.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Amy, I wish.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Yeah, Amy spends fifty percent of her income on housing,
which is not unusual. And considering that Amy needs to
quadruple her salary in order to comfortably afford that, it's tough.
And Amy's not alone, by the way, and by the way,
obviously she has enough to you know, comfortably live.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Maybe not.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But this is all to do with a poverty line. Now,
the government's original poverty line, you know, start in nineteen
sixty three when they came up with this poverty line
basis at that time in nineteen sixty three, it was
thirty one hundred dollars a year, and that sounds very low,
but if you look at today's dollars, it's about thirty
two thousand dollars a year, which strangely enough, is almost
(01:52):
to the dollar. What the government today says is the
poverty line. It has never changed. The problem is that
look at what people are paying with the cost of housing,
and now we're starting this is where Amy comes in.
Rent is insane, Buying a home is insane, and unless
(02:14):
you're actually into a home and you're moving up, it's difficult,
very very difficult. And then there are things that you
pay for that you never did before. First of all,
medical insurance is crazy, as you know, but there's cell phones,
there's computers, there's internet bills.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I mean, it goes on and on.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So there was an article that came out as a
post by a wealth manager, Michael Green, and he argued
that one hundred and forty dollars thousand dollars is the
new poverty level for a family of four, where the
official poverty line is thirty two thousand dollars, And of
course that went viral and people argued both sides of
(02:56):
that coin. Now, how is it that one hundred and
forty thousand dollars you can be defined as poor? Well,
here we go that we have all had our definitions
here over the years of what is poor and what
is rich, and we all basically came this same conclusion.
Rich is being able to stop working today or at
(03:19):
the end of your career and living in the same
lifestyle that you had.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That's rich.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Can you do that just walking out the door? Social
security and pensions? You've got to save your whole life
in order to do that. That's when you're rich. And
there are too many people that are rich, because let's
look at one hundred and forty thousand dollars, I mean,
how can you be poor or only middle class at
one hundred and forty thousand dollars. Well, if you know
(03:44):
anybody that makes one hundred and forty thousand dollars, which
of course is no one here at iHeart, then what
lifestyle do you have at one hundred and forty thousand dollars?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Big time vacations, two.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Cars usually the luxury cars, private school for kids. It
goes on and on, because you're living that kind of
a lifestyle. Well, the argument is, is you're still living
paycheck to paycheck, And of course the answer is, it
doesn't matter what you make unless you're at the poverty line,
(04:19):
unless you literally are at risk, at food, at risk,
having a hard time making the rent. And I always
joke about amy and if you're living, if other than
a hard time making it happen day to day, if
you have any money leftover, you don't do the vacations,
(04:39):
you don't buy the next car, the fancier car. You
live a life under your means. And that's how you
become rich. In America, the vast number of millionaires have
saved their way into being millionaires.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
So where is poverty?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I think poverty is when you draw a line family
of four, poverty is it moves all over the place.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Now we have to have a poverty line. And why
is that?
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Because below a certain level you are eligible for governmental
programs I mean other than Medicare, which goes to everybody
at sixty five. All of the other programs, for the
most part, food stamps, etc. All deal with how much
income you make if you're above or below the poverty line.
And by the way, the poverty line at thirty three
(05:32):
thousand dollars. Programs aren't predicated on thirty three thousand dollars.
It's one hundred and thirty percent of the poverty line
or one.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Hundred and eighty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
So numbers aren't as ridiculous as they are in terms
of poverty.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
But this was a fascinating article.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Where this economist wealth manager actually argued and some are saying, legitimately,
one hundred and forty thousand dollars a year is the
new poverty level for a family of four?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
No, it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Well, let me ask, I don't know where Neil is,
but Amy, where do you think the poverty line is
where you're having.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
A very hard time making it? Give me real run number?
In La? Yeah, in La, I would say it's probably
like sixty thousand.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Well, the average income, by the way, the average income
in La County is eighty six thousand dollars a year,
and people still can't afford it to live here. We
talk about that, and so ann what is the poverty
line for you?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Where do you think that line is for a family
of four? Yeah, for a family of four dual income,
I would say probably around I'd say it like seventy Okay, Well,
I mean, that's close to the average.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Can you imagine now, this is close to the average
income the power line is that close? What does that
tell you? And I want to visit DOGE again. DOZE
remember the Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk's organization. And
two facts that I want to put in front of
you as I go through this story. Number one, Elon
(07:19):
Musk was insanely close to President Trump for a while.
You know, he put two hundred and fifty million dollars
of his own money. So this two hundred and fifty
million dollars that he put into Trump's campaign, Okay, fair enough? Well,
I don't know it's fair. And do you remember he
was only co director of DOGE. Does anybody remember Vivik
(07:44):
Ramaswami who was also named as a co director of
DOZE And that lasted twenty three seconds. So he was
on a pad podcast, the Katie Miller podcast, and he
said the Department of Government Offficiency, which he ran, had
only been a little bit successful in its goal to
(08:07):
save taxpayers money and reduce regulations and spending. Now, this
organization was a brainchild of Musk, and it laid off
thousands of government workers, were obviously not very happy, but
failed to deliver on the promises to cut the federal budget.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
It did not cut the federal budget.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
He did say, we stopped a lot of funding that
made no sense, was entirely wasteful. For example, there was
one hundred maybe two hundred billion dollars worth of zombie
payments every year, and simply by enforcing the payment code
and making the recipients have them explain what the payment
(08:48):
was for, the payment would not go out.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
So asked, would you do it again?
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So I don't think so, I should be, should be
and I am now focused on other inures, his other
two major ventures, which is SpaceX and Tesla. And he
said if he had gone to Tesla earl earlier, they
wouldn't have been burning the cars. Remember the backlash against
Musk still there, but not as much. Tesla dealerships, individual
(09:16):
vehicles were vandalized, Protests erupted across the country. There were
bumper sixers said I bought this before Musk started going crazy,
don't blame me. And then everybody was trying to sell
their Tesla's and you could buy one for a nickel
because no one wanted a Tesla, and for the most
part it was.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Because of Musk.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Now, the name Musk or the name Dodge, must said
was a made up name. We aren't they always all
of them, And it was based on internet suggestion. So
here was the claim, and this was with the president's support.
Those would reduce government spending. The first announcement was by
two trillion dollars, which is a huge percent of the
(10:02):
entire budget of the United States. That was the first year,
and then it was revised to one trillion dollars. And
in April he lowered that again at a cabinet meeting
and he said, okay, it's one hundred and fifty billion dollars.
We don't actually know because the numbers aren't that given
to us, and there is no real accounting. Outside financial
(10:24):
experts can't even verify that figure because the agency, which
is disappearing, if it is still around, has not provided
access to its accounting. And do you remember the trauma
elon must rise and fall? He counted, He touted constantly,
(10:45):
repeatedly about his agency's work on X and it went
one point he had this change saw remember that video,
this chain saw and I think it was at a
cabinet meeting or was in the Oval Office, and no,
it was at the Conservative Political Action Conference SEAPAC in
(11:06):
Maryland in February. The initiative DOGE very short lived. After
four months as a special government employee, Musk announced, Okay,
I'm leaving. I'm leaving the Trump administration. And in November,
the director of the Office of Personal Management the director
of DOGE. It's an organization, I guess is still in existence,
(11:30):
and no one knows what it does at this point.
A guy named Scott Cooper is the director of DOGE.
He said in a social media post. DOGE does not
have any centralized leadership. Okay, And by the way, just
to let you know, Tesla's are a basic piece of crap.
I bought a Tesla and I lasted two weeks. And
(11:53):
this has had nothing to do with politics or Musk
or anything. I just thought it was a terrible car,
and so I bought it. And a week later Trump
produced I mean, the must reduce the price of the
car twenty percent. I lost twenty percent in a week
just because of the arbitrary lowering of the price, and
(12:17):
no one knew it was coming either. It was on
a Thursday, had no idea on a Friday, the cars
reduced twenty percent. Okay, Australia has done something that many
countries in the world are looking at. Many states are
looking at banning social media for people under sixteen.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
And it's a new law. We talked about it with
Rich Murley yesterday.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Anyone younger sixteen will not have social media accounts and
that goes into effect two day. And it's about sheltering children,
of course, from the efforts of social media. And you know,
the problem is the Internet has done some extraordinary things
positively and at the same time has done some extraordinary
things negatively in terms of the negative aspects of social media.
(13:04):
On the political side, it has turned around what's reality.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
I mean, that's just done.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
But on the social side, kids are particularly susceptible because
the shaming that goes on the stories of there been
some teens who have committed suicide because of the influence
of social media from people they knew, and then the shaming,
(13:32):
the fat shaming. Neil, I can use the radio to
do that, so I don't need the Internet to do that.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
I'll take it. Okay, yes you will.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
And I think that a lot of people say it's
a legitimate threat. Now even those that advocate social media
and adicate First Amendment rights, and you can't have the
government stopping this will tell you that there is an
issue with kids being particularly sceptable and social media and
just the time they spend on social media. I mean,
(14:06):
you look at this, forget about everything else, just the
time which doesn't leave time for anything else. Social intercourse
basically disappears, Homework disappears. I mean family dinners. You ever
gone on to a restaurant and everybody is on the phone.
Whatever happened to people having conversations? I remember, and I've
(14:27):
told this story as many times. This was years ago.
My daughters were on either end of a couch and
they and I said, so, what's going on?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
And they're texting?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
And what are you doing? We're texting to each other.
You're six feet away from each other. You ever thought
of just turning your head left and talking social media?
So the Australians did this, and they couldn't actually make
it work because they're asking the your social media companies Facebook, Instagram, kick, Reddit, snapchat, TikTok,
(15:06):
twitch x YouTube to create algorithms, and without AI it's
almost impossible to do. And with algorithms, even if a
fourteen year old says I am seventeen, there's enough information.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Out there where they were.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
The AI can establish what your age is, if not specifically,
a pretty good idea of who you are and what
age you are, based on your text, based on your
posts of photos, that sort of thing. If you look
at we post here on the show, and I post
photos of what's going on, and if I lived in Australia,
(15:46):
I'd be kicked off because I certainly come off like
a fifteen year old, and that's one of the problems.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Neil is nodding his head.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
But in reality, we have to look at how kids
are affected. We've just started to understand this, and of
course science is diving into this. You know, whenever I
make these broad sweeping statements like kids are being affected,
a lot of that is anecdotal, and I tell you
it's anecdotal, but a lot of studies are being done.
(16:16):
Sociologists are jumping into this, Scientists are jumping into this,
and so we're going to find out is Australia right
I think they are. I think Australia is right on this. Now.
Can you imagine fifteen year olds not being able to
use social media. They're going to kill themselves. Oh, there's
an argument for social media. If you don't allow social media,
(16:41):
you're going to see suicides go up dramatically because kids
are going to be so upset they can't use social media. Okay,
that's a premise that probably is not going to be
used very much. Okay, Now a story and crazy. I
love this one. I really do love this story. Start
with the Biden administration, and this has to do with
(17:04):
the State Department. In twenty twenty three, Anthony Blinco and
the Secretary of State shifted the typeface on documents from
the State Department. And he basically did it on the
recommendation of the State Department's Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
which is now gone. And it had to do from
(17:25):
folks with disability that the typeface was going to be
easier to read people who had impaired vision, and it's
just okay, we're going to make it easier for those people. Well,
we've got the Secretary of State. Now we've got mister Rubio,
Marco Rubio, who is turning that around. Why is that
we do not want anything having to do with diversity
(17:49):
and helping people with disabilities. We're changing it around again,
and the State Department will not use the Anthony Blinken
Biden administration font. And he is there switching back to
the use of now times new Roman font. And that's
(18:10):
to restore the decorum and professionalism to the Department's written work,
much like what the President Trump is doing, where Baroque
architecture and the gold and the Guild is now the
new normal for the US government. Now we're going to
go on and go to the formal font for the
(18:35):
State Department. Now do you think this has to do
with the changing of the font under Biden?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
And I, by the way, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
If it worked or not, but at least the reason
seemed to me to be legitimate. Helping people with disabilities
read the font easier. No idea if it actually worked. Okay,
that one. You know, I may say NAE in favor
of it, but there is a legitimacy to that. This
one is we do not have diversity or wokeness anymore.
(19:08):
And anything that reminds us of that, read the Biden
change of the font, we're gonna undo. There is no question.
If it is Biden, it is bad. It's not simple
it's not at all complicated. If the car, let's say,
a car that's assigned to Marco Rubio now or to to.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Blink and was afford.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
You can't have a Ford because you've got Biden Ford
bad and so we need another car. By the way,
I don't know if that's true or not. I have
no idea if they've changed the kind of car. I'm
just hypothesizing here, but it has gotten so crazy that
(19:54):
I mean, come on, guys, really the font is it
so offensive that at least that are saying we did
this because of the Department of Disability and whatever the
hell they call it, you know, I mean, what kind
of damage is that? Well, if it's Biden, it's bad.
(20:19):
It's it's nuts. And the reason is, and maybe that's
a legitimate reason. Now his directive, Rubio's directive is to
diplomatic posts around the world, and he blamed radical diversity, equity, inclusion,
and accessibility programs for this misguided and ineffective switch from
(20:41):
one type face to the one we're now using. I
don't even know what's saying. So I'm going to be
doing this on a regular basis, and I know that
I attack Trump more than I don't, but keep in mind,
when Biden was president, I did my share of attacking Biden.
It's just the Trump is an office, and whoever is
(21:02):
in office, it's easier to attack. So don't don't judge
me that much, or go ahead and judge me because
you do anyway, bastards.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Kf I am sixty you've been listening to The Bill
Handle Show.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listenings k I AM six forty the bill handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio f KFI AM six
forty bill handle Here it is Aday, Wednesday, December tenth,
and a segment I want to do and this is
(00:24):
something that I'm really interested in. That is the economy,
our financial situation, both micro us macro, the country, the markets.
And actually I use Amy as almost a poster child
for this segment because one of the big big issues,
(00:46):
and we're talking about defining poverty. That's what this is about,
defining poverty and defining how people live. The general consensus
is you spend about a third of your income on housing.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Amy, I wish.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Yeah, Amy spends fifty percent of her income on housing,
which is not unusual. And considering that Amy needs to
quadruple her salary in order to comfortably afford that, it's tough.
And Amy's not alone, by the way, and by the way,
obviously she has enough to you know, comfortably live.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Maybe not.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
But this is all to do with a poverty line. Now,
the government's original poverty line, you know, start in nineteen
sixty three when they came up with this poverty line
basis at that time in nineteen sixty three, it was
thirty one hundred dollars a year, and that sounds very low,
but if you look at today's dollars, it's about thirty
two thousand dollars a year, which strangely enough, is almost
(01:52):
to the dollar. What the government today says is the
poverty line. It has never changed. The problem is that
look at what people are paying with the cost of housing,
and now we're starting this is where Amy comes in.
Rent is insane, Buying a home is insane, and unless
(02:14):
you're actually into a home and you're moving up, it's difficult,
very very difficult. And then there are things that you
pay for that you never did before. First of all,
medical insurance is crazy, as you know, but there's cell phones,
there's computers, there's internet bills.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I mean, it goes on and on.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
So there was an article that came out as a
post by a wealth manager, Michael Green, and he argued
that one hundred and forty dollars thousand dollars is the
new poverty level for a family of four, where the
official poverty line is thirty two thousand dollars, And of
course that went viral and people argued both sides of
(02:56):
that coin. Now, how is it that one hundred and
forty thousand dollars you can be defined as poor? Well,
here we go that we have all had our definitions
here over the years of what is poor and what
is rich, and we all basically came this same conclusion.
Rich is being able to stop working today or at
(03:19):
the end of your career and living in the same
lifestyle that you had.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That's rich.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Can you do that just walking out the door? Social
security and pensions? You've got to save your whole life
in order to do that. That's when you're rich. And
there are too many people that are rich, because let's
look at one hundred and forty thousand dollars, I mean,
how can you be poor or only middle class at
one hundred and forty thousand dollars. Well, if you know
(03:44):
anybody that makes one hundred and forty thousand dollars, which
of course is no one here at iHeart, then what
lifestyle do you have at one hundred and forty thousand dollars?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Big time vacations, two.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Cars usually the luxury cars, private school for kids. It
goes on and on, because you're living that kind of
a lifestyle. Well, the argument is, is you're still living
paycheck to paycheck, And of course the answer is, it
doesn't matter what you make unless you're at the poverty line,
(04:19):
unless you literally are at risk, at food, at risk,
having a hard time making the rent. And I always
joke about amy and if you're living, if other than
a hard time making it happen day to day, if
you have any money leftover, you don't do the vacations,
(04:39):
you don't buy the next car, the fancier car. You
live a life under your means. And that's how you
become rich. In America, the vast number of millionaires have
saved their way into being millionaires.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
So where is poverty?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I think poverty is when you draw a line family
of four, poverty is it moves all over the place.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Now we have to have a poverty line. And why
is that?
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Because below a certain level you are eligible for governmental
programs I mean other than Medicare, which goes to everybody
at sixty five. All of the other programs, for the
most part, food stamps, etc. All deal with how much
income you make if you're above or below the poverty line.
And by the way, the poverty line at thirty three
(05:32):
thousand dollars. Programs aren't predicated on thirty three thousand dollars.
It's one hundred and thirty percent of the poverty line
or one.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Hundred and eighty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
So numbers aren't as ridiculous as they are in terms
of poverty.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
But this was a fascinating article.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Where this economist wealth manager actually argued and some are saying, legitimately,
one hundred and forty thousand dollars a year is the
new poverty level for a family of four?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
No, it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Well, let me ask, I don't know where Neil is,
but Amy, where do you think the poverty line is
where you're having.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
A very hard time making it? Give me real run number?
In La? Yeah, in La, I would say it's probably
like sixty thousand.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Well, the average income, by the way, the average income
in La County is eighty six thousand dollars a year,
and people still can't afford it to live here. We
talk about that, and so ann what is the poverty
line for you?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Where do you think that line is for a family
of four? Yeah, for a family of four dual income,
I would say probably around I'd say it like seventy Okay, Well,
I mean, that's close to the average.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Can you imagine now, this is close to the average
income the power line is that close? What does that
tell you? And I want to visit DOGE again. DOZE
remember the Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk's organization. And
two facts that I want to put in front of
you as I go through this story. Number one, Elon
(07:19):
Musk was insanely close to President Trump for a while.
You know, he put two hundred and fifty million dollars
of his own money. So this two hundred and fifty
million dollars that he put into Trump's campaign, Okay, fair enough? Well,
I don't know it's fair. And do you remember he
was only co director of DOGE. Does anybody remember Vivik
(07:44):
Ramaswami who was also named as a co director of
DOZE And that lasted twenty three seconds. So he was
on a pad podcast, the Katie Miller podcast, and he
said the Department of Government Offficiency, which he ran, had
only been a little bit successful in its goal to
(08:07):
save taxpayers money and reduce regulations and spending. Now, this
organization was a brainchild of Musk, and it laid off
thousands of government workers, were obviously not very happy, but
failed to deliver on the promises to cut the federal budget.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
It did not cut the federal budget.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
He did say, we stopped a lot of funding that
made no sense, was entirely wasteful. For example, there was
one hundred maybe two hundred billion dollars worth of zombie
payments every year, and simply by enforcing the payment code
and making the recipients have them explain what the payment
(08:48):
was for, the payment would not go out.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
So asked, would you do it again?
Speaker 1 (08:54):
So I don't think so, I should be, should be
and I am now focused on other inures, his other
two major ventures, which is SpaceX and Tesla. And he
said if he had gone to Tesla earl earlier, they
wouldn't have been burning the cars. Remember the backlash against
Musk still there, but not as much. Tesla dealerships, individual
(09:16):
vehicles were vandalized, Protests erupted across the country. There were
bumper sixers said I bought this before Musk started going crazy,
don't blame me. And then everybody was trying to sell
their Tesla's and you could buy one for a nickel
because no one wanted a Tesla, and for the most
part it was.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Because of Musk.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Now, the name Musk or the name Dodge, must said
was a made up name. We aren't they always all
of them, And it was based on internet suggestion. So
here was the claim, and this was with the president's support.
Those would reduce government spending. The first announcement was by
two trillion dollars, which is a huge percent of the
(10:02):
entire budget of the United States. That was the first year,
and then it was revised to one trillion dollars. And
in April he lowered that again at a cabinet meeting
and he said, okay, it's one hundred and fifty billion dollars.
We don't actually know because the numbers aren't that given
to us, and there is no real accounting. Outside financial
(10:24):
experts can't even verify that figure because the agency, which
is disappearing, if it is still around, has not provided
access to its accounting. And do you remember the trauma
elon must rise and fall? He counted, He touted constantly,
(10:45):
repeatedly about his agency's work on X and it went
one point he had this change saw remember that video,
this chain saw and I think it was at a
cabinet meeting or was in the Oval Office, and no,
it was at the Conservative Political Action Conference SEAPAC in
(11:06):
Maryland in February. The initiative DOGE very short lived. After
four months as a special government employee, Musk announced, Okay,
I'm leaving. I'm leaving the Trump administration. And in November,
the director of the Office of Personal Management the director
of DOGE. It's an organization, I guess is still in existence,
(11:30):
and no one knows what it does at this point.
A guy named Scott Cooper is the director of DOGE.
He said in a social media post. DOGE does not
have any centralized leadership. Okay, And by the way, just
to let you know, Tesla's are a basic piece of crap.
I bought a Tesla and I lasted two weeks. And
(11:53):
this has had nothing to do with politics or Musk
or anything. I just thought it was a terrible car,
and so I bought it. And a week later Trump
produced I mean, the must reduce the price of the
car twenty percent. I lost twenty percent in a week
just because of the arbitrary lowering of the price, and
(12:17):
no one knew it was coming either. It was on
a Thursday, had no idea on a Friday, the cars
reduced twenty percent. Okay, Australia has done something that many
countries in the world are looking at. Many states are
looking at banning social media for people under sixteen.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
And it's a new law. We talked about it with
Rich Murley yesterday.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Anyone younger sixteen will not have social media accounts and
that goes into effect two day. And it's about sheltering children,
of course, from the efforts of social media. And you know,
the problem is the Internet has done some extraordinary things
positively and at the same time has done some extraordinary
things negatively in terms of the negative aspects of social media.
(13:04):
On the political side, it has turned around what's reality.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
I mean, that's just done.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
But on the social side, kids are particularly susceptible because
the shaming that goes on the stories of there been
some teens who have committed suicide because of the influence
of social media from people they knew, and then the shaming,
(13:32):
the fat shaming. Neil, I can use the radio to
do that, so I don't need the Internet to do that.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
I'll take it. Okay, yes you will.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
And I think that a lot of people say it's
a legitimate threat. Now even those that advocate social media
and adicate First Amendment rights, and you can't have the
government stopping this will tell you that there is an
issue with kids being particularly sceptable and social media and
just the time they spend on social media. I mean,
(14:06):
you look at this, forget about everything else, just the
time which doesn't leave time for anything else. Social intercourse
basically disappears, Homework disappears. I mean family dinners. You ever
gone on to a restaurant and everybody is on the phone.
Whatever happened to people having conversations? I remember, and I've
(14:27):
told this story as many times. This was years ago.
My daughters were on either end of a couch and
they and I said, so, what's going on?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
And they're texting?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
And what are you doing? We're texting to each other.
You're six feet away from each other. You ever thought
of just turning your head left and talking social media?
So the Australians did this, and they couldn't actually make
it work because they're asking the your social media companies Facebook, Instagram, kick, Reddit, snapchat, TikTok,
(15:06):
twitch x YouTube to create algorithms, and without AI it's
almost impossible to do. And with algorithms, even if a
fourteen year old says I am seventeen, there's enough information.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Out there where they were.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
The AI can establish what your age is, if not specifically,
a pretty good idea of who you are and what
age you are, based on your text, based on your
posts of photos, that sort of thing. If you look
at we post here on the show, and I post
photos of what's going on, and if I lived in Australia,
(15:46):
I'd be kicked off because I certainly come off like
a fifteen year old, and that's one of the problems.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Neil is nodding his head.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
But in reality, we have to look at how kids
are affected. We've just started to understand this, and of
course science is diving into this. You know, whenever I
make these broad sweeping statements like kids are being affected,
a lot of that is anecdotal, and I tell you
it's anecdotal, but a lot of studies are being done.
(16:16):
Sociologists are jumping into this, Scientists are jumping into this,
and so we're going to find out is Australia right
I think they are. I think Australia is right on this. Now.
Can you imagine fifteen year olds not being able to
use social media. They're going to kill themselves. Oh, there's
an argument for social media. If you don't allow social media,
(16:41):
you're going to see suicides go up dramatically because kids
are going to be so upset they can't use social media. Okay,
that's a premise that probably is not going to be
used very much. Okay, Now a story and crazy. I
love this one. I really do love this story. Start
with the Biden administration, and this has to do with
(17:04):
the State Department. In twenty twenty three, Anthony Blinco and
the Secretary of State shifted the typeface on documents from
the State Department. And he basically did it on the
recommendation of the State Department's Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
which is now gone. And it had to do from
(17:25):
folks with disability that the typeface was going to be
easier to read people who had impaired vision, and it's
just okay, we're going to make it easier for those people. Well,
we've got the Secretary of State. Now we've got mister Rubio,
Marco Rubio, who is turning that around. Why is that
we do not want anything having to do with diversity
(17:49):
and helping people with disabilities. We're changing it around again,
and the State Department will not use the Anthony Blinken
Biden administration font. And he is there switching back to
the use of now times new Roman font. And that's
(18:10):
to restore the decorum and professionalism to the Department's written work,
much like what the President Trump is doing, where Baroque
architecture and the gold and the Guild is now the
new normal for the US government. Now we're going to
go on and go to the formal font for the
(18:35):
State Department. Now do you think this has to do
with the changing of the font under Biden?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
And I, by the way, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
If it worked or not, but at least the reason
seemed to me to be legitimate. Helping people with disabilities
read the font easier. No idea if it actually worked. Okay,
that one. You know, I may say NAE in favor
of it, but there is a legitimacy to that. This
one is we do not have diversity or wokeness anymore.
(19:08):
And anything that reminds us of that, read the Biden
change of the font, we're gonna undo. There is no question.
If it is Biden, it is bad. It's not simple
it's not at all complicated. If the car, let's say,
a car that's assigned to Marco Rubio now or to to.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Blink and was afford.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
You can't have a Ford because you've got Biden Ford
bad and so we need another car. By the way,
I don't know if that's true or not. I have
no idea if they've changed the kind of car. I'm
just hypothesizing here, but it has gotten so crazy that
(19:54):
I mean, come on, guys, really the font is it
so offensive that at least that are saying we did
this because of the Department of Disability and whatever the
hell they call it, you know, I mean, what kind
of damage is that? Well, if it's Biden, it's bad.
(20:19):
It's it's nuts. And the reason is, and maybe that's
a legitimate reason. Now his directive, Rubio's directive is to
diplomatic posts around the world, and he blamed radical diversity, equity, inclusion,
and accessibility programs for this misguided and ineffective switch from
(20:41):
one type face to the one we're now using. I
don't even know what's saying. So I'm going to be
doing this on a regular basis, and I know that
I attack Trump more than I don't, but keep in mind,
when Biden was president, I did my share of attacking Biden.
It's just the Trump is an office, and whoever is
(21:02):
in office, it's easier to attack. So don't don't judge
me that much, or go ahead and judge me because
you do anyway, bastards.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Kf I am sixty you've been listening to The Bill
Handle Show.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.