November 13, 2025 • 20 mins
(November 13, 2025)
Host of ‘How to Money’ Joel Larsgaard joins the show to discuss Trump’s proposed 50-year mortgage idea, $2,000 tariff checks, and a new Visa/Mastercard settlement changing how credit cards will be accepted. Feds allege ex-advisors for Gov. Newsom, Becerra schemed to fund luxuries. Trump asks Israel’s President to pardon Netanyahu from corruption charges.
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 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf I
AM six forty KFI AM six forty Bill Handle.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It is a Thursday morning. Why what I was about
to say? Monday Thursday morning, November thirteenth. The rains are
coming and it's I think that what the big first
big storm of the season. It's you're shaking your head, Amy,
I think we had one last month, did we? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, I've already forgotten. I mean, I won't remember what
I said.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Well, yeah, there wasn't like a huge There weren't a
bunch of mudslides and that kind of stuff, so we
kind of forgot about it.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah, but this was gonna be huge. Oh we don't know.
If there are no mudslides, there will just be a
lot of water. Okay, Uh, it is time for How
to Money with Joel Larsgard.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Joel heard every Sunday twelve to two pm right here
on KFI. His website is howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel,
good morning, hello Bill Oh quick question? All right, the
President came up with something that was kind of interesting
and in light of the insane mortgage rates and the
(01:11):
cost of financing a home, simply because the cost of
the cost of the home. He proposed a fifty year
mortgage instead of the standard thirty year mortgage.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
I've never heard well, of course i've heard.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Of a fifty year mortgage, but I don't know if
he was even ever offered by the financial institutions. I
think the thirty year were the outside. So your thoughts
on this.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't like it.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I think it's a really bad idea.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I think we're seeing the extension, the term extension of
debt products, and people keep making their are their own
worst enemies so much of the time when they're offered
an inferior debt product, that keeps them in debt for longer.
And so if we just continue to offer people, hey,
why I mean, if the fifty year mortgage, why not
one hundred year mortgage?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
You know, that's an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
My friend Mark, who had a company, HMS Capital I
did commercials for, he actually argued for one hundred year
mortgage based on the fact that, well, at that time,
money was so cheap, and the fact is, no one
stays in their house anyway longer than seven or eight years.
So if you can get your payments as low as possible,
(02:19):
assuming you move every seven years or ten years.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
It makes sense, and this is yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
You'll never own your home. You will never ever own
your home.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
So if you have one hundred your mortgage, or if
you have a fifty year mortgage, you're going to Yes,
you will lower your payments by a little bit. Let's
say on a five hundred thousand dollars house, which doesn't
really exist in this part of the country, but let's
just say on a five hundred thousand dollars house you
go from a thirty year mortgage to a fifty year mortgage.
You're going to increase the interest rates slightly, and yes,
you're going to decrease the monthly payment. But let's say
(02:52):
you move from that house eight years down to the line.
In one case, in the thirty year mortgage case, you
would have paid off at least a chunk of principal balance.
If we're talking about a fifty year mortgage, you're paying
even more in interest, so much less towards that principal balance.
You move, well, you would have been better off renting
than having the fifty year mortgage because you made such
a small dent into the principal balance of the loan.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And the other fact which a lot of people don't understand,
which I hate, is that interest is front loaded. Yes,
and I hate that you would say, I would you
would think there'd be a law that wouldn't allow front
loaded interest, which means the interest payments are huge the
first few years of the.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Loan, which is why the longer you stay in that
in that home, right, at some point, just keep paying
off that loan is agreed if you have a low
interest rate. But yeah, I worry if people are offered
fifty year mortgages, even if they stay in the home
for ten or twelve years, they just haven't made much
of a dent in the mortgage.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
They're like, all right, it's time to move.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
They sell the home, they get to the closing table,
and they realize because realtor fees and the transaction cost
of buying and selling a home, like.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
They're not walking away with much at all.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
And so it's just a it's just another attempt to
allow people to finance something that they can't actually afford.
That's going to keep them on the perpetual debt treadmill.
It's it's similar to kind of what we've seen with
car loans, where hey, let's bump it out to seven years,
and then you know what, when you refinance, you can
get another seven year loan. And so people are staying
(04:29):
in car debt for eight, nine, ten years, which is crazy.
And the same thing is going to happen with homes
if mortgages are extended to fifty years. I think it's
just a terrible, a terrible, terrible idea. And you know,
keeping your mortgage around for as long as you can
when you have a three percent rate is great, but
think about where rates are now. I don't think they're
abnormally high historically, but it's certainly not fun to have
(04:50):
an eight percent, seven or eight percent mortgage for fifty
years either.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
When are we going to forget three percent money? At
what time in our lives were that?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
That is? That is history where we don't pay attention
to it.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I mean, I think, you know, it's the objects in
the rearview mirror closer than the impior whatever. I mean.
I think it still feels like I still remember those times,
but at some point, just like you know, the high
schoolers today don't remember nine to eleven. They have no
they don't. They don't remember when that happened. Whereas I
was in high school when it happened. I have the
distinct memory exactly where I was when that event occurred.
(05:27):
I think the same thing is going to be true
over time, that people will not expect two and three
percent mortgage interest rates. But for now, like it's still
it's still not too far in the rear BW mirror,
and so people are still like the six and a
half percent rates. They're hard to stomach, even though from
a historical perspective, they're really not all that bad.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
No, I mean that you're a historical Let's go back
to the Civil War era, all right, when you did
have a mortgage, when you borrowed to buy a house.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Do you know what the interest rate was? I guess
six percent?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Okay, But then you can go back to other other
points a few decades ago, and you're talking about I mean,
even the point where my parents were buying their first house,
and you were talking about double digit mid double use.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Oh yeah, no, during six percent industry. Oh during the
Jimmy Carter years. It was crazy. I mean it was
double digits. And you wonder, how does anybody, how does
anybody buy a home at twelve thirteen percent interest? Well,
it was creative financing, is what they did. It was
just all kinds of wild different machinations, all right.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Oh yeah. At some point though, I just worry.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I just worry about all of the crafty, clever debt
products that people are are that are afforded to us now.
And what it prevents is people to from achieving any
sort of financial independence and any sort of margin in
their lives. And we were payment buyers to that, you know,
to the nth degree, and it just it disallows us
(06:52):
from really achieving any meaningful financial goals in our lives
if we live that way.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
And when we had three percent money borrowing, when he
made it was free money basically because you'd be making
five percent on your money and you'd be paying three percent.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Sure, those days are gone, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So Joel, the President decided that everybody in America is
going to get a tariff check, and no one knew
that he was about to say that. And I'm convinced
that the president wakes up in the morning and decides, oh.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Let's do this.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Let's uh, we'll do a thirty percent tariff, and then
by noon it's now, let's make it forty percent. And
then by dinner time. Let's make it twenty two percent.
I think that's exactly what happened here. And so he says,
we want a two thousand dollars per person tariff check.
(07:45):
Let's talk about the feasibility and how you would even
do that, because who is going to be able to
get it?
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Kids, adults, households When I don't get it.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Some would call this flying by the seat of your
pants and throwing caution to the wind, and just like
making statements that you want to be true even if
they can't be or.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Likely won't be.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And in this you know, this is while the Supreme
Court is weighing the legality of the tariffs to begin with,
the president's ability to just say, yeah, forty percent tariffs
on you Canada, or eighty percent tariffs on you random
island in the Pacific, Right, so he right now, even
just that ability for him to create tariffs is legally dubious.
(08:35):
And so then giving rebate checks to Americans, which this
is me I mean the way that his people on
his team are having to talk about this because they
weren't ready for it either. Like the Treasury Secretary was quoted,
he was basically saying, yeah, I mean it could be
captain like people who have an income of one hundred
(08:56):
thousand dollars. It could just be these these tariff rebate
checks that the President talked about on true social could
just be the tax decreases that we're already seeing all
the President's agenda.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
So this is his attempt to say.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Maybe we've already kind of given those to you with
the big beautiful bill thing that passed. So maybe this
will be a check. Maybe it won't be like what
this is going to look. I just don't want people
to get their hopes up and spend the you know,
count their chickens before they hatch, assume they're getting a
two thousand dollars check when there's a decent chance they won't.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
And on the tariff, and this is more political than
anything else.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I think it's legitimate when we talk about a balance
of trade and we have to undo that because a
lot of countries has been very unfair and I think
the President is right about that.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
And so they nail us, will nail them.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
And then there are the other fun ones to Brazil
fifty percent tariff because they're going after Bolsonnaro, the former
president that.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
He likes just a friend of his.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Okay, let's tear iff the hell out of that country
or Canada.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Let's tear if the hell out of Canada. Why a
balance of trade?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I hope they ran that ad that he wasn't comfortable with.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I mean, it's pretty crazy to.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Trade policy via personal vendetta. Doesn't really make much sense
when you're talking about a country of three hundred, three
hundred and fifty million people with a ton of economic
importance worldwide. And I get what you're getting at too,
but I also I have a trade imbalance with the
grocery store that I go to. You know, I give
them money and they give me groceries. And guess what,
(10:28):
we're both happy with the way the deal is structured.
And so yeah, I think it's also okay to have
trade imbalances with certain countries as a matter of policy.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
I don't think that's necessary.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It's not a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But I guess when we're talking about promises of tariff
rebate checks like this is just another one of those
ideas that's floated around because there's just so many of
them and it's hard to keep up because something new
is hitting the headlines every day.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
Or multiple time times.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Today and this is one of those things that's just
it's highly unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I think we're in some tough financial times just even understanding.
One of the things you talked about is the products,
the credit products that are out there that are exploding,
and no one knows what the hell's going on and
what they mean and how far they go. It was
like the times when mortgages you would have a single
mortgage lender and then they combined them and made the
(11:25):
portfolio and slice them up, and no one had any
idea of who owned what.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And it's just a.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Really complicated world and not getting any easier, is it.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
No, No, it's not. And I think that's that's why.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Not to puff up my own importance, but I just
think that personal finance knowledge is even more necessary in
today's day and age because it's so confusing and people
are like, oh, by now, pay later at checkout. This
is why not like this this obvious. I think we
just assumed that if it's offered to us, that if
somebody vetted it, and it must not be terribly you know,
(11:59):
we might not probably not doing something that's harming ourselves severely.
If we take advantage of that, but we lose so
much of our own optionality and freedom the more we
take advantage of some of these more nefarious ways of
taking on debt that are allowed for us. And it's
just literally a new kind of credit card offered by
(12:20):
US bank that's attempting to merge kind of the worlds
of credit cards and buy now, pay later, and charging
you a fee by being able to delay essentially paying
your credit card bill by an extra month or two.
And it's just getting worse and worse, and the terms
are getting less consumer friendly, and we feel like the
frogs sitting in the pot of boiling water and it's
(12:40):
getting hotter and hotter, and we're just kind of oblivious
to it in so many ways.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And by the way, just for the record, Joel, when
you said you're not blowing your own horn, yes you are.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That's precisely what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
I'm so necessary right now, Bill, That's why I'm.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah, that's exactly my point.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Congratulations, we can do it without you, all right, we'll
do this again next week. I have a good one, Joel,
you too, Bill. Okay, Now, this is a this is
a problem for Newsom and it has to do with
someone very, very high up in California politics. A political
(13:19):
consultant by the name of Dana Williamson was arrested yesterday
and faces a twenty three count federal indictment.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Now, the fun part of this is the kind of
stuff that she.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Did allegedly did in embezzling money and the government's well.
One of the allegations is that she and her employees
she has her own company, build a Dorman campaign account
for Bogus Consulting Services. Now she is Gavin Newson's former
chief of staff. But the money that she allegedly built
(13:55):
was that of Xavier Bessera.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
He was a gubernatorial hopeful in twenty twenty six, and
he had a state campaign account which she controlled, and
she to a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And wrote off a million dollars of luxury handbags that.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Were bought and high travel, high flying travel as business
expenses on her tax returns. Now, to be fair to Newsom,
he has not mentioned at all in connection with these allegations,
he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. However, as
I pointed out earlier in the Epstein case, that just
(14:44):
being near these accusations is toxic, much like Donald Trump
knowing Epstein, having had the relations with him, social relations
with him, as mung as every place, gone to his house,
partied with him. Just that alone is toxic, much less
(15:05):
the emails that have been released where.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Epstein said, yeah, he was part of it. He was there.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
He didn't actually engage in sexual misconduct, but he was there,
he knew about it. And that's why the Epstein files
are blowing up like crazy. It's the connection too without
being connected too. And that's exactly the case here with Newsom. Now,
she was his former chief of staff. And let me
tell you how connected this woman is. She worked for
(15:39):
three governors, she worked for Newsom, she worked for Jerry Brown.
I mean she is, and she is a consultant, I
mean very highly regarded.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Now here is the issue.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
This is where the politics come into play, and that
is the Newsom is not mentioned in connection. Her connection
to Newsom is enough that when she was arrested, and
according to her and her attorney, the FEDS pushed her
pretty hard to somehow connect Newsom to the wrongdoing. Now
(16:19):
would the FEDS ever do that connect someone, go after someone,
or ask for the cooperation if someone connected to Newsom
to try to nail him.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
No, that's not believable at all, is it?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
And so because of that, she says, her attorney says,
she is now facing the ultimate, the most serious accounts
that she can. It's a twenty three count federal indictment.
There is a sort of run of the mill scandal,
financial scandal with this political consultant, Dana Williamson, who actually
(16:57):
she stole money, or she's accused of stealing money, siphoning
two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars out of Xavier
Bessera's state campaign. He was going to run for governor
and she took money or his alleged take money from
his account and then did all kinds of crazy stuff
and bought handbags with I'll tell you about it.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The governor is not mentioned at all, no wrongdoing. He
is not even mentioned in the federal indictment.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
However, she was his chief of staff. There's the connection.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And now the politics gets a little crazy because, according
to her attorney, the Feds pressured her into somehow connecting
Newsome with some wrongdoing. Don't know if that's true or not,
but this money that she stole or is allegedly stole,
and what she used it for is kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Let's do. Let me go through some of it. According to.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
The FEDS her write offs, she bought herself a fifteen
thousand dollars Chanel purse, a fifty hundred, fifty eight hundred
dollars fendy wallet. How do you spend fifty eight hundred
dollars for a wallet? One hundred and fifty thousand dollars
(18:24):
birthday trip to Mexico. Let's say that's a lot of diarrhea.
By the way, I'm sure that the Mexican I'm not
going to be asked to do in the Mexican tourist board.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
I'll tell you that right now.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
She charged an eleven thousand dollars yacht trip. She's alleged
to have a twenty one thousand dollars trip on a
private jet. And this is the one I don't understand.
Ten thousand dollars in an unnamed California theme park. Where
do you spend ten thousand dollars at a theme park
unless you are taking eighty of your best friends?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
But in any case, the politics of this, As I said,
this is sort of a run of the mill in
Vezzleman case, except the political connection. Connection Number one is
chief of staff to Newsom. She also worked for Jerry Brown.
She also worked for Gray Davis. I mean, she's been
a politico for a long time. So the two issues
(19:26):
are her connection to Jerry Brown as her former chief
of staff and the fact that she alleges that she
was pressured by the DOJ to put Jerry Brown to
put Newsom in some kind of a trouble. She said, no,
she didn't have any information, he didn't have anything to
(19:47):
do with it. And then she says, then the twenty
three count indictment comes down.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
On top of that.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
She is handcuffed when arrested, and her lawyer says, wait
a minute. Anybody else in the same position would simply
be told, come on down and turn yourself in. She's
being held on five hundred thousand dollars bail. It is
a financial crime. Now, I don't think they did a purplock,
(20:17):
which is that gets pretty serious.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
So what this is politics.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Everybody goes after everybody here, and the Democrats are going
after Donald Trump with the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
This situation is probably going.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
To disappear fully fairly quickly because there's no accusation of
wrongdoing yet.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
All right, we're done, guys.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show Catch My
Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am, and
anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf I
AM six forty KFI AM six forty Bill Handle.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
It is a Thursday morning. Why what I was about
to say? Monday Thursday morning, November thirteenth. The rains are
coming and it's I think that what the big first
big storm of the season. It's you're shaking your head, Amy,
I think we had one last month, did we? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, I've already forgotten. I mean, I won't remember what
I said.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Well, yeah, there wasn't like a huge There weren't a
bunch of mudslides and that kind of stuff, so we
kind of forgot about it.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Yeah, but this was gonna be huge. Oh we don't know.
If there are no mudslides, there will just be a
lot of water. Okay, Uh, it is time for How
to Money with Joel Larsgard.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Joel heard every Sunday twelve to two pm right here
on KFI. His website is howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel,
good morning, hello Bill Oh quick question? All right, the
President came up with something that was kind of interesting
and in light of the insane mortgage rates and the
(01:11):
cost of financing a home, simply because the cost of
the cost of the home. He proposed a fifty year
mortgage instead of the standard thirty year mortgage.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
I've never heard well, of course i've heard.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Of a fifty year mortgage, but I don't know if
he was even ever offered by the financial institutions. I
think the thirty year were the outside. So your thoughts
on this.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't like it.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I think it's a really bad idea.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I think we're seeing the extension, the term extension of
debt products, and people keep making their are their own
worst enemies so much of the time when they're offered
an inferior debt product, that keeps them in debt for longer.
And so if we just continue to offer people, hey,
why I mean, if the fifty year mortgage, why not
one hundred year mortgage?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
You know, that's an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
My friend Mark, who had a company, HMS Capital I
did commercials for, he actually argued for one hundred year
mortgage based on the fact that, well, at that time,
money was so cheap, and the fact is, no one
stays in their house anyway longer than seven or eight years.
So if you can get your payments as low as possible,
(02:19):
assuming you move every seven years or ten years.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
It makes sense, and this is yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
You'll never own your home. You will never ever own
your home.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
So if you have one hundred your mortgage, or if
you have a fifty year mortgage, you're going to Yes,
you will lower your payments by a little bit. Let's
say on a five hundred thousand dollars house, which doesn't
really exist in this part of the country, but let's
just say on a five hundred thousand dollars house you
go from a thirty year mortgage to a fifty year mortgage.
You're going to increase the interest rates slightly, and yes,
you're going to decrease the monthly payment. But let's say
(02:52):
you move from that house eight years down to the line.
In one case, in the thirty year mortgage case, you
would have paid off at least a chunk of principal balance.
If we're talking about a fifty year mortgage, you're paying
even more in interest, so much less towards that principal balance.
You move, well, you would have been better off renting
than having the fifty year mortgage because you made such
a small dent into the principal balance of the loan.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And the other fact which a lot of people don't understand,
which I hate, is that interest is front loaded. Yes,
and I hate that you would say, I would you
would think there'd be a law that wouldn't allow front
loaded interest, which means the interest payments are huge the
first few years of the.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Loan, which is why the longer you stay in that
in that home, right, at some point, just keep paying
off that loan is agreed if you have a low
interest rate. But yeah, I worry if people are offered
fifty year mortgages, even if they stay in the home
for ten or twelve years, they just haven't made much
of a dent in the mortgage.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
They're like, all right, it's time to move.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
They sell the home, they get to the closing table,
and they realize because realtor fees and the transaction cost
of buying and selling a home, like.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
They're not walking away with much at all.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
And so it's just a it's just another attempt to
allow people to finance something that they can't actually afford.
That's going to keep them on the perpetual debt treadmill.
It's it's similar to kind of what we've seen with
car loans, where hey, let's bump it out to seven years,
and then you know what, when you refinance, you can
get another seven year loan. And so people are staying
(04:29):
in car debt for eight, nine, ten years, which is crazy.
And the same thing is going to happen with homes
if mortgages are extended to fifty years. I think it's
just a terrible, a terrible, terrible idea. And you know,
keeping your mortgage around for as long as you can
when you have a three percent rate is great, but
think about where rates are now. I don't think they're
abnormally high historically, but it's certainly not fun to have
(04:50):
an eight percent, seven or eight percent mortgage for fifty
years either.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
When are we going to forget three percent money? At
what time in our lives were that?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
That is? That is history where we don't pay attention
to it.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
I mean, I think, you know, it's the objects in
the rearview mirror closer than the impior whatever. I mean.
I think it still feels like I still remember those times,
but at some point, just like you know, the high
schoolers today don't remember nine to eleven. They have no
they don't. They don't remember when that happened. Whereas I
was in high school when it happened. I have the
distinct memory exactly where I was when that event occurred.
(05:27):
I think the same thing is going to be true
over time, that people will not expect two and three
percent mortgage interest rates. But for now, like it's still
it's still not too far in the rear BW mirror,
and so people are still like the six and a
half percent rates. They're hard to stomach, even though from
a historical perspective, they're really not all that bad.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
No, I mean that you're a historical Let's go back
to the Civil War era, all right, when you did
have a mortgage, when you borrowed to buy a house.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Do you know what the interest rate was? I guess
six percent?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Okay, But then you can go back to other other
points a few decades ago, and you're talking about I mean,
even the point where my parents were buying their first house,
and you were talking about double digit mid double use.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Oh yeah, no, during six percent industry. Oh during the
Jimmy Carter years. It was crazy. I mean it was
double digits. And you wonder, how does anybody, how does
anybody buy a home at twelve thirteen percent interest? Well,
it was creative financing, is what they did. It was
just all kinds of wild different machinations, all right.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Oh yeah. At some point though, I just worry.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I just worry about all of the crafty, clever debt
products that people are are that are afforded to us now.
And what it prevents is people to from achieving any
sort of financial independence and any sort of margin in
their lives. And we were payment buyers to that, you know,
to the nth degree, and it just it disallows us
(06:52):
from really achieving any meaningful financial goals in our lives
if we live that way.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
And when we had three percent money borrowing, when he
made it was free money basically because you'd be making
five percent on your money and you'd be paying three percent.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
Sure, those days are gone, all right.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So Joel, the President decided that everybody in America is
going to get a tariff check, and no one knew
that he was about to say that. And I'm convinced
that the president wakes up in the morning and decides, oh.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Let's do this.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Let's uh, we'll do a thirty percent tariff, and then
by noon it's now, let's make it forty percent. And
then by dinner time. Let's make it twenty two percent.
I think that's exactly what happened here. And so he says,
we want a two thousand dollars per person tariff check.
(07:45):
Let's talk about the feasibility and how you would even
do that, because who is going to be able to
get it?
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Kids, adults, households When I don't get it.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Some would call this flying by the seat of your
pants and throwing caution to the wind, and just like
making statements that you want to be true even if
they can't be or.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Likely won't be.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And in this you know, this is while the Supreme
Court is weighing the legality of the tariffs to begin with,
the president's ability to just say, yeah, forty percent tariffs
on you Canada, or eighty percent tariffs on you random
island in the Pacific, Right, so he right now, even
just that ability for him to create tariffs is legally dubious.
(08:35):
And so then giving rebate checks to Americans, which this
is me I mean the way that his people on
his team are having to talk about this because they
weren't ready for it either. Like the Treasury Secretary was quoted,
he was basically saying, yeah, I mean it could be
captain like people who have an income of one hundred
(08:56):
thousand dollars. It could just be these these tariff rebate
checks that the President talked about on true social could
just be the tax decreases that we're already seeing all
the President's agenda.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
So this is his attempt to say.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Maybe we've already kind of given those to you with
the big beautiful bill thing that passed. So maybe this
will be a check. Maybe it won't be like what
this is going to look. I just don't want people
to get their hopes up and spend the you know,
count their chickens before they hatch, assume they're getting a
two thousand dollars check when there's a decent chance they won't.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
And on the tariff, and this is more political than
anything else.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I think it's legitimate when we talk about a balance
of trade and we have to undo that because a
lot of countries has been very unfair and I think
the President is right about that.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
And so they nail us, will nail them.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
And then there are the other fun ones to Brazil
fifty percent tariff because they're going after Bolsonnaro, the former
president that.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
He likes just a friend of his.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Okay, let's tear iff the hell out of that country
or Canada.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Let's tear if the hell out of Canada. Why a
balance of trade?
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I hope they ran that ad that he wasn't comfortable with.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I mean, it's pretty crazy to.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Trade policy via personal vendetta. Doesn't really make much sense
when you're talking about a country of three hundred, three
hundred and fifty million people with a ton of economic
importance worldwide. And I get what you're getting at too,
but I also I have a trade imbalance with the
grocery store that I go to. You know, I give
them money and they give me groceries. And guess what,
(10:28):
we're both happy with the way the deal is structured.
And so yeah, I think it's also okay to have
trade imbalances with certain countries as a matter of policy.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
I don't think that's necessary.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It's not a bad thing.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But I guess when we're talking about promises of tariff
rebate checks like this is just another one of those
ideas that's floated around because there's just so many of
them and it's hard to keep up because something new
is hitting the headlines every day.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
Or multiple time times.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
Today and this is one of those things that's just
it's highly unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I think we're in some tough financial times just even understanding.
One of the things you talked about is the products,
the credit products that are out there that are exploding,
and no one knows what the hell's going on and
what they mean and how far they go. It was
like the times when mortgages you would have a single
mortgage lender and then they combined them and made the
(11:25):
portfolio and slice them up, and no one had any
idea of who owned what.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And it's just a.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Really complicated world and not getting any easier, is it.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
No, No, it's not. And I think that's that's why.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Not to puff up my own importance, but I just
think that personal finance knowledge is even more necessary in
today's day and age because it's so confusing and people
are like, oh, by now, pay later at checkout. This
is why not like this this obvious. I think we
just assumed that if it's offered to us, that if
somebody vetted it, and it must not be terribly you know,
(11:59):
we might not probably not doing something that's harming ourselves severely.
If we take advantage of that, but we lose so
much of our own optionality and freedom the more we
take advantage of some of these more nefarious ways of
taking on debt that are allowed for us. And it's
just literally a new kind of credit card offered by
(12:20):
US bank that's attempting to merge kind of the worlds
of credit cards and buy now, pay later, and charging
you a fee by being able to delay essentially paying
your credit card bill by an extra month or two.
And it's just getting worse and worse, and the terms
are getting less consumer friendly, and we feel like the
frogs sitting in the pot of boiling water and it's
(12:40):
getting hotter and hotter, and we're just kind of oblivious
to it in so many ways.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
And by the way, just for the record, Joel, when
you said you're not blowing your own horn, yes you are.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That's precisely what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
I'm so necessary right now, Bill, That's why I'm.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah, that's exactly my point.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Congratulations, we can do it without you, all right, we'll
do this again next week. I have a good one, Joel,
you too, Bill. Okay, Now, this is a this is
a problem for Newsom and it has to do with
someone very, very high up in California politics. A political
(13:19):
consultant by the name of Dana Williamson was arrested yesterday
and faces a twenty three count federal indictment.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Now, the fun part of this is the kind of
stuff that she.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Did allegedly did in embezzling money and the government's well.
One of the allegations is that she and her employees
she has her own company, build a Dorman campaign account
for Bogus Consulting Services. Now she is Gavin Newson's former
chief of staff. But the money that she allegedly built
(13:55):
was that of Xavier Bessera.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
He was a gubernatorial hopeful in twenty twenty six, and
he had a state campaign account which she controlled, and
she to a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And wrote off a million dollars of luxury handbags that.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Were bought and high travel, high flying travel as business
expenses on her tax returns. Now, to be fair to Newsom,
he has not mentioned at all in connection with these allegations,
he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. However, as
I pointed out earlier in the Epstein case, that just
(14:44):
being near these accusations is toxic, much like Donald Trump
knowing Epstein, having had the relations with him, social relations
with him, as mung as every place, gone to his house,
partied with him. Just that alone is toxic, much less
(15:05):
the emails that have been released where.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Epstein said, yeah, he was part of it. He was there.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
He didn't actually engage in sexual misconduct, but he was there,
he knew about it. And that's why the Epstein files
are blowing up like crazy. It's the connection too without
being connected too. And that's exactly the case here with Newsom. Now,
she was his former chief of staff. And let me
tell you how connected this woman is. She worked for
(15:39):
three governors, she worked for Newsom, she worked for Jerry Brown.
I mean she is, and she is a consultant, I
mean very highly regarded.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Now here is the issue.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
This is where the politics come into play, and that
is the Newsom is not mentioned in connection. Her connection
to Newsom is enough that when she was arrested, and
according to her and her attorney, the FEDS pushed her
pretty hard to somehow connect Newsom to the wrongdoing. Now
(16:19):
would the FEDS ever do that connect someone, go after someone,
or ask for the cooperation if someone connected to Newsom
to try to nail him.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
No, that's not believable at all, is it?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
And so because of that, she says, her attorney says,
she is now facing the ultimate, the most serious accounts
that she can. It's a twenty three count federal indictment.
There is a sort of run of the mill scandal,
financial scandal with this political consultant, Dana Williamson, who actually
(16:57):
she stole money, or she's accused of stealing money, siphoning
two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars out of Xavier
Bessera's state campaign. He was going to run for governor
and she took money or his alleged take money from
his account and then did all kinds of crazy stuff
and bought handbags with I'll tell you about it.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
The governor is not mentioned at all, no wrongdoing. He
is not even mentioned in the federal indictment.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
However, she was his chief of staff. There's the connection.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And now the politics gets a little crazy because, according
to her attorney, the Feds pressured her into somehow connecting
Newsome with some wrongdoing. Don't know if that's true or not,
but this money that she stole or is allegedly stole,
and what she used it for is kind of fun.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Let's do. Let me go through some of it. According to.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
The FEDS her write offs, she bought herself a fifteen
thousand dollars Chanel purse, a fifty hundred, fifty eight hundred
dollars fendy wallet. How do you spend fifty eight hundred
dollars for a wallet? One hundred and fifty thousand dollars
(18:24):
birthday trip to Mexico. Let's say that's a lot of diarrhea.
By the way, I'm sure that the Mexican I'm not
going to be asked to do in the Mexican tourist board.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
I'll tell you that right now.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
She charged an eleven thousand dollars yacht trip. She's alleged
to have a twenty one thousand dollars trip on a
private jet. And this is the one I don't understand.
Ten thousand dollars in an unnamed California theme park. Where
do you spend ten thousand dollars at a theme park
unless you are taking eighty of your best friends?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
But in any case, the politics of this, As I said,
this is sort of a run of the mill in
Vezzleman case, except the political connection. Connection Number one is
chief of staff to Newsom. She also worked for Jerry Brown.
She also worked for Gray Davis. I mean, she's been
a politico for a long time. So the two issues
(19:26):
are her connection to Jerry Brown as her former chief
of staff and the fact that she alleges that she
was pressured by the DOJ to put Jerry Brown to
put Newsom in some kind of a trouble. She said, no,
she didn't have any information, he didn't have anything to
(19:47):
do with it. And then she says, then the twenty
three count indictment comes down.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
On top of that.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
She is handcuffed when arrested, and her lawyer says, wait
a minute. Anybody else in the same position would simply
be told, come on down and turn yourself in. She's
being held on five hundred thousand dollars bail. It is
a financial crime. Now, I don't think they did a purplock,
(20:17):
which is that gets pretty serious.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
So what this is politics.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Everybody goes after everybody here, and the Democrats are going
after Donald Trump with the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
This situation is probably going.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
To disappear fully fairly quickly because there's no accusation of
wrongdoing yet.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
All right, we're done, guys.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
You've been listening to The Bill Handle Show 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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.