January 8, 2026 • 29 mins
In this episode, Bill touches on the US forces boarding and seizing a Russian-flagged oil tanker, part of a shadow fleet selling oil under the table. The conversation also delves into the tragic shooting of a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis during an ICE protest, and the differing views on the incident. Additionally, Bill explores the topic of rent control in LA with Joel Larson from 'How-To-Money', discussing its potential effects on housing affordability and the long-term consequences of such policies.
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 kf I AM six forty the bill handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio F Well, it is
a Thursday morning, December the eighth, and before we get
to Joel real quickly some of the stories we're looking at,
of course, the shooting yesterday in Minneapolis, and they'll be
(00:22):
being talked about for the rest of the day. Also,
the United States boarded yet another tanker, confiscated another tanker
in the part of the shadow fleet coming out of
Venezuela that has the oil. I didn't know this, but
of those three, do you have any idea how many
shadow tankers are out there? These are tankers that obviously
(00:45):
they onload oil and millions of barrels a couple million
barrels at a time or a million barrels at a time,
and then they're sold to Russia and China, and Russia
then has its own How many do you think there are, Joel?
If you had to guess how many of these shadow tankers,
(01:06):
illegal tankers, sanctioned oil that hide everything they can, how many?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
How many would you guess?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Thirty two?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
One thousand? No, Yeah, according to the Wall Street Journal,
a thousand.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
That's hard.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
I know, stunning, stunning, isn't it? Okay? Joel large guard
how to.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Money every Sunday twelve to two pm right here on KFI.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
How to Money Joel.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
He that's his social address at how to Money Joel
and the website howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel, we
have a lot going on to talk about. One of
them is where President Trump and Gavin Newsom agree with
each other. It's the only thing I think they agree with,
and that's banning large investors from buying single family homes.
(01:57):
And yesterday I was talking to Lindsey and we were
talking talking about investors buying up properties land in the
Pacific Palisades and I'm going to be flipping it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That really hurts affordability. So what's going on with that?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So, I mean this is one of those things that
in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the housing crash,
we started to see more Wall Street corporatized buying of
single family homes, not just oneing of like apartment complexes,
but buying up single family home stock, specifically in some
cities in particular, like you're talking about Atlanta, Philadelphia, Tampa
(02:34):
being like some of those markets and it's just I've
hobviously done incredibly well from a return perspective because you've
seen what's happened with housing over the past twelve to
fifteen years. But then you look at the ripple effects,
and some people say it's not that big of a deal.
Corporate ownership with single family homes is like four percent
(02:55):
of the overall housing stock, but in some markets in particular,
it has, especially in the starter home space, it's really
depleted that supply and it's part of what's made it
more expensive and much harder for young people to get
into a starter room to buy their first place.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, we're not talking about flipping properties that these companies
are engaged in. We're talking about buying these homes and
then renting them out.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Do I have that right?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
That's right, And there's obviously problems with any landlord from
time to time. Right, Not every landlord is perfect, even
if you're with a mom and pop landlord. Sometimes they're awesome.
There's some really great mom and pop landlords out there
who treat their tenants well, and then there are others
who just don't do a good job, right, who don't
we're not very responsive, don't keep their properties up. When
you look though at some of the big corporate Wall
(03:47):
Street type landlords, there are a lot of complaints against
some of them. There's Invitation Homes in particular is one
of the biggest ones, and it has just had copious complaints.
And so when you look at like, what's the impact
of this going to be one, how's this going to
come about? Is this going to be some sort of
active congress, which is what it seems like it would
have to be because right now this is again like
sort of a dictate via social media. But if this
(04:10):
comes to pass and Wall Street landlords are forced to
liquidate some of that supply or to at least stop
sucking up more of it, it's at least a being
it's a dent into housing affordability. I think it is
a positive step at least from a consumer standpoint.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
And we'll see the possibility of federal law because a
lot of these are companies that buy in various states,
not just a single state. And then local California law
that's I'm going to I guess pick up the rest.
So kind of interesting that both of them, by the way,
just real quickly aside story is I'm one of those
(04:48):
landlords that I was a great, great landlord, which is
why I got rid of the duplexes I had, and
the duplex I bought. I had two of them when
I lived in. One I rented was built in nineteen
twenty seven and tenants had destroyed it. Basically, I went
and bought it, and it went crazy to bring it
(05:10):
back to what it was, so it looked like it
was brand new. You're walking in the door in nineteen
twenty seven, And I spent a fortune and I treated
our tenants that way, and it was so expensive and
so obnoxious.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I just bailed. I couldn't take it anymore.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Yeah, the landmarding is not for the faint of part
and some people assume that landlords just all make money
handover fists, and the truth is, for most mom and
pop landlords, it is a part of a long term
well building strategy. It's not like they're getting rich overnight.
And it's a highly risky endeavor, and especially in the
market right now, like if you bought a house recently.
Talking about this all the time, with how the money listeners,
(05:48):
it's like it's really hard to make it as a
new landlord right now. Given kind of the macroeconomic state
of things.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Yeah, it's really difficult.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
And I certainly wasn't making any money at it because
I kept it up and you know, I gave the
tenant here's a phone number of a plumber if anything happens,
here's no electrician.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
And frankly they were taking way too much advantage of that.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Okay, so so much for the Trump allied with Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Go figure that one out.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So Joel LA and rent controls, let's talk about that.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh yeah, fun times. This is just one of those
things where I understand the impulse right to say rents
are really high, how are we going to protect renters
out there? And so often the political impulse is to
say we're going to cap rent increases, and so that's
there's been this update essentially to rent control and how
(06:48):
much many apartments in the LA area are allowed to
raise rents in a given year. And so now instead
of something like three to eight percent being decapping the
most that landlords can get every single year, now it's
down like between one and four percent, depends on kind
of what's happening with inflation. And this is one of
(07:09):
the things I mean, when you survey economists who of
all different stripes. Rent control is never a popular thing
with economists, and it's because of the long term impacts
typically that rent control has, Like it has these beautiful
short term gains for renters, but over time it disincentivizes
(07:30):
landlords from keeping up with their properties. It disincentivizes building.
And let's be honest, like, at the heart of the
problem around a lot of the country and specifically in
Los Angeles, at the heart of the problem is that
we just don't have enough units and we need to
be better at incentivizing building. That's going to help bring
costs down truly over time.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Yeah, with the lack of housing, and that seems to
be the biggest, biggest issue is there just ain't enough.
And when you don't have enough of anything, obviously it
gets more expensive. And so that becomes a problem of
its own making that if the government doesn't allow, doesn't push,
(08:09):
doesn't give money, doesn't give grants, doesn't give loans to
and then laws to help builders, of course, it's going
to get insanely expensive.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
And so go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
I'm just saying, you can look at the history of
what happens in places, in cities that enact stuff like this,
Like Saint Paul, Minnesota is one of those places that
had incredibly restrictive rank control laws and it just it
just disincentivized new construction. And you see what happens like
in a city next door where they don't have the
same rank control laws and there's just not the same
(08:47):
There is more new housing being built. And then those
cities often go back and they end up loosing some
of those rank control offs because they realized that the
short term benefit, the short term political benefit, doesn't worth
the long term costs.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Now you're looking at the other side.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
You're right on a capitalism system, return of investment building, right,
that's a negative. And then you have renters that simply
can't afford to rent. They can't come here southern California.
They have to move someplace else, which, by the way,
is not the end of the world for a lot
of us who live here because there's too many people anyway.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
But you know, it's a problem either way.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
That is, it seems almost insurmountable, and it's a question
of just choosing either a bad situation or a worse situation.
There doesn't seem to be a win on this one.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of trick
to that. There was like literally an article this week
in the Watter Journal about how people are choosing to
move to the Midwest because they can actually port a
home there, and so, yeah, I would love to see
in some of the most desirable places to live, Los
Angeles being one of those, New York City being another.
Wouldn't it just be nice to see housing policy keep
(10:01):
up with people's desires to live in a place, so that,
of course, in a place like Los Angeles, it makes
sense the rents are going to be higher than they
are in random place in Iowa, right, I mean, it
just makes sense. There's an attractive it's an attractive place
to live, there's access to high paying jobs, really really
great jobs, it's a great quality of life. So in
(10:22):
some ways it just makes sense it's going to cost
more to live there. But there's also I think a
lot that can be done, especially on the supply side,
on the loosening allowing making it easier right to build
some of those new units, just creating more places for
people to live and not making it just this incredibly
painful process that could at least reduce some of the
(10:43):
rent friction and pricing out that a lot of people feel.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, many many of us live on the four or
five freeway twenty four hours a day just to get
on the freeway. All right, one last one, and this
is wage guard garnishment. This is the government coming down,
the Trump administration coming down and saying, hey, guys, you
borrowed the money.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
We want it back, and if you.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Can't pay it back, we're going to garnish your wages
like any other vendor would do.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
So let's talk about that.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Your take on that, Yeah, I mean it's in some
way I understand that the student loan borrow or how
shocking it is, right, especially after the super soft kind
of approach that the Biden administration had to student loans
and to borrowers. It was basically like, hey, we're going
to try to forgive these things. We're going to pause
loan payments for three plus years. And so everybody was like, yeah,
(11:35):
out of side, out of mind. I feel like I
don't even have student loans anymore. And then the payments resumed.
The Trump administration takes a different tactic, and you know,
the court struck down the forgiveness proposal, and people are
like oh gosh, I guess I got to think about
those things again. And so because of that that whiplash effect,
a lot of people just haven't been paying on those
student loans. Millions and millions of people have not been
(11:55):
paying even though payments have restarted, and the Trump administration
has basically said, yeah, if you are delinquent, we're going
to start garnishing your wages, and so that could be
up to fifteen percent of people's paychecks. That's going to
start literally as soon as this week. People are going
to start getting notices in the mail. And it's not
just your paycheck, like you could see part of your
(12:15):
tax refund or maybe your whole tax refund garnished as well.
So it's one of those things where if you haven't
thought about your student loan, it's time to start thinking
about it. If you are delinquent, right, it's time to
see if there is a payment plan that you can
get on with the federal government. Some of those are
still going to be around. They're going to be able
(12:35):
to lower your payment maybe to something that is affordable. Also,
we're seeing and this is something probably that you've noticed,
bill people are able to charge discharge their student loans
via bankruptcy if they have true inability to pay. They
used to be something that was like basically impossible.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah, that's very well, very very difficult to do, if
not impossible. And I believe that government should be there
to help people, you know, I believe to an extent
social services should be there. And I'm fine with borrowing
money from the government to go to school. I think
that is a tremendous advantage to society and to the individual.
(13:12):
I think it's uh for the most part, upside my opinion. However,
those borrowers who are looking for moratoriums or looking for
forgiving loan the student loans, I would like you to
google the word borrow and just see what part of
you got to pay it back. And they're having a
(13:34):
problem with that and so making it easy. But I
think it's a great investment for a government to loan
money as long as it comes back.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Joel, did you borrow? Did you have a student loan?
Speaker 1 (13:45):
I know you didn't get out of what high school
or junior high didn't get out of it, so you didn't
have to pay a lot of money, right.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I barely graduated middle school.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Did you did you borrow? Money. Do you go to school?
Speaker 3 (13:56):
I did, Yeah, a small amount first two years. But
then I realized, guess what, I was going to private
school for a couple of years, and I didn't want
my didn't loan debt to increase anymore. I was like,
saw the writing on the wall. I was like, if
this keeps going, but I'm going to be in for
a long haul of debt payback. So I went to
a school that offered better financial aid and was able
(14:17):
to get the last two years for free, so that
I kept my student loan balance pretty well.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, I borrowed money.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I borrowed money for law school and it was not cheap,
and I paid and I.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Paid it back just like I thought I would. Amy,
did you borrow money to go to school?
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Yeah, okay I didn't. Personally, my parents basically took all right.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
They so you got so you got it for free?
They paid, right, they borrowed, they paid. Yes, Yeah, that's
not you borrowing money. Thanks very much for well joined
them borrowing money. I still had to work through college.
Oh I understand. I mean so even people who don't
borrow money work through college.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Yeah, but they took out loans for me all.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Right, we all thanks. We'll talk again next Thursday. This Sunday,
twelve to two. How to Money Joel at how to
Money Joel's social address, and don't forget the website howdomoney
dot com.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Joel. You have a good one, Have a good weekend.
We'll catch on Sunday.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Okay, US forces boarded and seized a Russian flagged oil
tanker yesterday, tracking across the Atlantic for weeks. And this
is it was a tanker that had sanctioned oil and
it was a sanctioned tanker and it became a Russian
tanker somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic when they
all of a sudden started paying Russian flags on it.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
So fascinating story.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Okay, what happened yesterday in Minneapolis, and it is a tragedy.
A thirty seven year old woman was shot, was killed
as she was in her parked suv. That was, she
had blocked a portion of the road and the ice
agents came up to her and effectively were I think
(15:59):
we're telling her move.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
But in any case, she backs up and.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Tries to drive away and get shot, or she backed
up and then tried to hit an ice agent that
was there and we'll see what the investigation then produces.
So now let me explain what happens to people who
go out and protest. And here is the difference in
terms of the protesting when you're dealing with ice. And
(16:28):
this is I mean, think about this for a moment.
I was contemplating this during the break. And that is
normal protests, I mean protests other than ice protests. You're
normally protesting a policy or what the government is doing. Here,
you're protesting what is happening right in front of you,
(16:48):
you know, for example, or the Black Lives Matter movement
was talking about protesting a general concept black Lives Matter.
They weren't protesting that cop right there. Well, these ice
protests are all about that cop right there, that ice agent.
So all you're gonna have altercations on a different level
(17:13):
because the hatred spews far higher. The defense on the
side of ice is at a higher level. They're going
after people specifically, to go after people. It doesn't happen
in most demonstrations, doesn't happen in many most protests. So
already we're set up with a contentious situation that is
(17:35):
far greater than otherwise. And so what were these protests
about it's the way, not only the policy of the
United States, but the very way that ICE is picking
up people. Christinome always talks about we're only picking up
the worst of the worst. She's still saying that, which
I don't get. That's the worst of the worst. You know,
(17:55):
people they go into poultry factories, they go to the
home home depot outside on the driveway and just pick
people up, which they do in most part they are illegal,
which they are, but the way they're doing it is
in fact really difficult for many many people.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
So now.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
This woman was described by US Representative eleon Omar, Democrat
from Minnesota, probably one of the most left wing legislators
we have.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
She's right there with AOC.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
And she said that the woman killed was a quote
legal observer, shot while in her car, and local law
enforcement says she was blocking the street. I don't know
about that because cars were passing in front of her
and she was waving cars through. I mean, there again,
the investigation is going to prove where it is. There
(18:52):
are two divergent views and looking at the same video,
which is kind of interesting. But she was a quote
legal observer, and Ken Paulson, the director of the Free
Speech Center at Middle Tennessee University, State University.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
What a shocker.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
What he said, Make no mistake, what happened in Minnesota
is not about free speech niceties. If they disobeyed the
police officer, they can be arrested, but under no circumstances
can they be shot. This is far less an issue
about free speech than it is the exercise of power. Now,
(19:33):
the woman was shot, she was killed, and literally within
probably an hour, Christinome, the Secretary of Homeland Security, came
out and immediately defended ICE and blamed the shooting on
the radical left. And the woman attempted to run over
and did hit the ICE agent. And it just went
(19:57):
on and I you don't usually hear that.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
You here is we have to investigate it. We have to.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I mean, you had the mayor of Minneapolis, you had
the governor, you have people that educate free speech. They
didn't say outright, this is a murder. They said it
looks like one, but we have to do an investigation.
We have to look at it and find out exactly
what happened. The administration, this administration said we're done. This
(20:24):
was a justified shooting.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
This was a woman attacking one of our agents.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
This was self defense and effectively effectively saying, we don't
even have to look at the video, we know what happened.
And Donald Trump said the same things. It was simply
the radical left. It was an attempt to kill an
ICE agent. So I guess, let's not even do an investigation.
(20:51):
And then I was talking this morning too, Amy, will
the FBI even investigate this? Now FBI is out there,
and it could be that Christineolam and the president are
simply they're just blurting out what they think. Christinoam in
that press conference when she said that in this ridiculous stetson,
(21:14):
I didn't get that. Why she should have been wearing
a holster and doing target shooting or spinning the spinning
a gun around on her finger. She might as well
have done that. But she had then not a word
mentioned about an investigation.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Well, actually, Bill, Now the Minnesota officials are saying that
the FEDS are blocking them from investigating what happened.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Wow, you know, that gets a little bit deeper, doesn't it.
And we'll see if that's true. You know, because even
that we don't know, you can't investigate part of it,
or you investigator stopping all of it.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I mean that is a stunner, to say the least.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
All Right, the US forces boarded and seesed a Russian
flagged oil tanker, this shadow fleet, it was, it's been
a Russian vessel for thirty five minutes. It's part of
this under the table fleet of tankers that sell oil
under the table. And Venezuela, by the way, receives the
(22:13):
majority of its money in oil and buy this shadow fleet.
The other issue is what happened yesterday in Minneapolis with
the ICE shooting of that woman in her suv at
the protest, and she's being described by those who are
liberal on the left Democrats as a legal observer. Now
(22:35):
I don't know if that actually has a legal definition.
But what does that mean? Well, do you have rights?
Can you go and video anything? Of course you can.
You have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement
other government employees while they're doing their jobs, even if
(22:55):
an ICE agent is arresting someone. Of course, and here's
the problem that happens with ICE agents as well as
police officers during these protests. Someone will be videoing them
and the coup will come up and say stop videoing,
just stop and you can say, but I have a
(23:16):
right to do that, and a couple will say, I
don't care you stop right now, or I'm going to
arrest you. Well, you have the absolute right. You will
win in court. If he does he or she does
arrest you, you will win. The problem is is you
get arrested. So what happens. I'm going to get a
little practical here. If you're not the only one there,
(23:39):
let's let the other people video it. Literally, do you
want the hassle?
Speaker 3 (23:45):
You know?
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Just for example, in this case, dozens of videos were taken,
So an ICE agent going up to a single person
and saying stop videoing, what's going to happen?
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Nothing?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And let's say you have a dozens and dozens of people.
Are they now going Are the cops the agents now
going to spread out, stop arresting the purported illegal aliens
and stop people from videoing?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Of course not. And you can't get in the way.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Of a police person doing his or her job or
a federal agent. You can't stand in front of front
of them while they're going to do their job or
arresting someone. But just you know there are other people there,
so and you don't scream at these people either and
you hear the screaming.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
That's the last thing I.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Would do, because you can still do your job as
an observer, which you absolutely have the right to do. Now,
there are a bunch of state legislators, legislatures that have
passed laws around these quote buffer zones around crime scenes.
They haven't done well legally because number one, they're vague,
(24:53):
and second of all, if someone is not interfering with
the police action and simply standing four feet away for example,
and videoing and you have a lot of this says
you have to be twenty five feet away. Arizona did
that within eight feet at a buffer zone. It was
(25:13):
Indiana that did the twenty five foot buffer law. Struck down,
I mean instantly struck down. So legal observers, I want
to go back to that for a moment. Typically citizens
who watch, there's my dog going crazy. Typically citizens who
watch document record interactions between the police and protesters. And
you've got these grassroot networks, and man, you look what
(25:37):
happened yesterday after the shooting. Within minutes, hundreds of people
showed up. And we're not talking about the protesters. We're
talking about people that came to the area to protest
to let the known and they were screaming at the
cops like crazy. And so when you have a situation,
keep in mind two things. Number One, you have the
(25:57):
right to video. You have the right to protests. And
this has become a lot more commonplace because of smartphones
and bystanders. For example, the death of George Floyd was
videoed and that video was just incredibly important in convicting
the cop who did this. And you're going to see
(26:21):
that happening because I'll tell you, witness statements are useless
because for every witness that says A happened, you'll have
a witness that says B happened. Video is right there.
Now you can interpret it one way or the other.
But the video is there. And what are the cops
going to say? What is anybody going to say if
(26:41):
he or she is being videoed?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Who are you.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Gonna believe me or your lying eyes? You know, video
is very very important. So protesting an absolute right under
the First Amendment, but those rights do have limits. For example,
reasonable time to protest, reasonable manner and place. Can they
(27:07):
move you into an area blocked up for protesting? Yeah,
the police have been told that that is a legitimate.
There's no question about that. Why because we're looking at
the clashes and this is usually between two groups, two
protest groups, where the police are looking at a clash
that is going to happen, where the hatred is so
(27:29):
high that you know people are going to get hurt.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
So here's what the cops do.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
And this happens in the Los Angeles and happened in
Los Angeles with several protests. Is you guys are on
that side of the street, We're going to put up barriers.
You guys who are against these guys are on the
other side of the street, and we're going to be
putting up barriers. Those in fact are legitimate. So what's
(27:53):
the bottom line? Well, I mean, do you harass the
ice agents?
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think so, because people are pretty upset. Don't go
up there and start videoing their faces. Don't get anywhere
near them. We're going to be argued that you interfered
with police officers. Okay, we're done, guys coming up as
Gary and Shannon. We're back again tomorrow. I'm assuming Kono
joins us tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
If his car gets fixed, yeh.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
If his car gets fixed. If not, well I'm here
to bail them out again. There you go, there you go.
All right, we're done, guys, Amy and Neil is still
not here. We're going and we're not gonna have Will. God,
we're half gone. Is Will coming back tomorrow?
Speaker 3 (28:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Do we know?
Speaker 4 (28:39):
Nope, he's gone till Monday because he's he's flying over
the Fiesta Bowl today and then he's headed out to
fly over a playoff game.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Yeah, so he actually wants to earn some money. Yeah, okay,
that makes sense. All right, guys, we're done. We're finished.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Tomorrow morning, all over again. You've been listening to The
Bill Handles Show.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listenings kf I AM six forty the bill handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio F Well, it is
a Thursday morning, December the eighth, and before we get
to Joel real quickly some of the stories we're looking at,
of course, the shooting yesterday in Minneapolis, and they'll be
(00:22):
being talked about for the rest of the day. Also,
the United States boarded yet another tanker, confiscated another tanker
in the part of the shadow fleet coming out of
Venezuela that has the oil. I didn't know this, but
of those three, do you have any idea how many
shadow tankers are out there? These are tankers that obviously
(00:45):
they onload oil and millions of barrels a couple million
barrels at a time or a million barrels at a time,
and then they're sold to Russia and China, and Russia
then has its own How many do you think there are, Joel?
If you had to guess how many of these shadow tankers,
(01:06):
illegal tankers, sanctioned oil that hide everything they can, how many?
Speaker 2 (01:12):
How many would you guess?
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Thirty two?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
One thousand? No, Yeah, according to the Wall Street Journal,
a thousand.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
That's hard.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
I know, stunning, stunning, isn't it? Okay? Joel large guard
how to.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Money every Sunday twelve to two pm right here on KFI.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
How to Money Joel.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
He that's his social address at how to Money Joel
and the website howdomoney dot com. All right, Joel, we
have a lot going on to talk about. One of
them is where President Trump and Gavin Newsom agree with
each other. It's the only thing I think they agree with,
and that's banning large investors from buying single family homes.
(01:57):
And yesterday I was talking to Lindsey and we were
talking talking about investors buying up properties land in the
Pacific Palisades and I'm going to be flipping it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That really hurts affordability. So what's going on with that?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So, I mean this is one of those things that
in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the housing crash,
we started to see more Wall Street corporatized buying of
single family homes, not just oneing of like apartment complexes,
but buying up single family home stock, specifically in some
cities in particular, like you're talking about Atlanta, Philadelphia, Tampa
(02:34):
being like some of those markets and it's just I've
hobviously done incredibly well from a return perspective because you've
seen what's happened with housing over the past twelve to
fifteen years. But then you look at the ripple effects,
and some people say it's not that big of a deal.
Corporate ownership with single family homes is like four percent
(02:55):
of the overall housing stock, but in some markets in particular,
it has, especially in the starter home space, it's really
depleted that supply and it's part of what's made it
more expensive and much harder for young people to get
into a starter room to buy their first place.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, we're not talking about flipping properties that these companies
are engaged in. We're talking about buying these homes and
then renting them out.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Do I have that right?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
That's right, And there's obviously problems with any landlord from
time to time. Right, Not every landlord is perfect, even
if you're with a mom and pop landlord. Sometimes they're awesome.
There's some really great mom and pop landlords out there
who treat their tenants well, and then there are others
who just don't do a good job, right, who don't
we're not very responsive, don't keep their properties up. When
you look though at some of the big corporate Wall
(03:47):
Street type landlords, there are a lot of complaints against
some of them. There's Invitation Homes in particular is one
of the biggest ones, and it has just had copious complaints.
And so when you look at like, what's the impact
of this going to be one, how's this going to
come about? Is this going to be some sort of
active congress, which is what it seems like it would
have to be because right now this is again like
sort of a dictate via social media. But if this
(04:10):
comes to pass and Wall Street landlords are forced to
liquidate some of that supply or to at least stop
sucking up more of it, it's at least a being
it's a dent into housing affordability. I think it is
a positive step at least from a consumer standpoint.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
And we'll see the possibility of federal law because a
lot of these are companies that buy in various states,
not just a single state. And then local California law
that's I'm going to I guess pick up the rest.
So kind of interesting that both of them, by the way,
just real quickly aside story is I'm one of those
(04:48):
landlords that I was a great, great landlord, which is
why I got rid of the duplexes I had, and
the duplex I bought. I had two of them when
I lived in. One I rented was built in nineteen
twenty seven and tenants had destroyed it. Basically, I went
and bought it, and it went crazy to bring it
(05:10):
back to what it was, so it looked like it
was brand new. You're walking in the door in nineteen
twenty seven, And I spent a fortune and I treated
our tenants that way, and it was so expensive and
so obnoxious.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I just bailed. I couldn't take it anymore.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Yeah, the landmarding is not for the faint of part
and some people assume that landlords just all make money
handover fists, and the truth is, for most mom and
pop landlords, it is a part of a long term
well building strategy. It's not like they're getting rich overnight.
And it's a highly risky endeavor, and especially in the
market right now, like if you bought a house recently.
Talking about this all the time, with how the money listeners,
(05:48):
it's like it's really hard to make it as a
new landlord right now. Given kind of the macroeconomic state
of things.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Yeah, it's really difficult.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
And I certainly wasn't making any money at it because
I kept it up and you know, I gave the
tenant here's a phone number of a plumber if anything happens,
here's no electrician.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
And frankly they were taking way too much advantage of that.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Okay, so so much for the Trump allied with Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Go figure that one out.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So Joel LA and rent controls, let's talk about that.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Oh yeah, fun times. This is just one of those
things where I understand the impulse right to say rents
are really high, how are we going to protect renters
out there? And so often the political impulse is to
say we're going to cap rent increases, and so that's
there's been this update essentially to rent control and how
(06:48):
much many apartments in the LA area are allowed to
raise rents in a given year. And so now instead
of something like three to eight percent being decapping the
most that landlords can get every single year, now it's
down like between one and four percent, depends on kind
of what's happening with inflation. And this is one of
(07:09):
the things I mean, when you survey economists who of
all different stripes. Rent control is never a popular thing
with economists, and it's because of the long term impacts
typically that rent control has, Like it has these beautiful
short term gains for renters, but over time it disincentivizes
(07:30):
landlords from keeping up with their properties. It disincentivizes building.
And let's be honest, like, at the heart of the
problem around a lot of the country and specifically in
Los Angeles, at the heart of the problem is that
we just don't have enough units and we need to
be better at incentivizing building. That's going to help bring
costs down truly over time.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Yeah, with the lack of housing, and that seems to
be the biggest, biggest issue is there just ain't enough.
And when you don't have enough of anything, obviously it
gets more expensive. And so that becomes a problem of
its own making that if the government doesn't allow, doesn't push,
(08:09):
doesn't give money, doesn't give grants, doesn't give loans to
and then laws to help builders, of course, it's going
to get insanely expensive.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
And so go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
I'm just saying, you can look at the history of
what happens in places, in cities that enact stuff like this,
Like Saint Paul, Minnesota is one of those places that
had incredibly restrictive rank control laws and it just it
just disincentivized new construction. And you see what happens like
in a city next door where they don't have the
same rank control laws and there's just not the same
(08:47):
There is more new housing being built. And then those
cities often go back and they end up loosing some
of those rank control offs because they realized that the
short term benefit, the short term political benefit, doesn't worth
the long term costs.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Now you're looking at the other side.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
You're right on a capitalism system, return of investment building, right,
that's a negative. And then you have renters that simply
can't afford to rent. They can't come here southern California.
They have to move someplace else, which, by the way,
is not the end of the world for a lot
of us who live here because there's too many people anyway.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
But you know, it's a problem either way.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
That is, it seems almost insurmountable, and it's a question
of just choosing either a bad situation or a worse situation.
There doesn't seem to be a win on this one.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of trick
to that. There was like literally an article this week
in the Watter Journal about how people are choosing to
move to the Midwest because they can actually port a
home there, and so, yeah, I would love to see
in some of the most desirable places to live, Los
Angeles being one of those, New York City being another.
Wouldn't it just be nice to see housing policy keep
(10:01):
up with people's desires to live in a place, so that,
of course, in a place like Los Angeles, it makes
sense the rents are going to be higher than they
are in random place in Iowa, right, I mean, it
just makes sense. There's an attractive it's an attractive place
to live, there's access to high paying jobs, really really
great jobs, it's a great quality of life. So in
(10:22):
some ways it just makes sense it's going to cost
more to live there. But there's also I think a
lot that can be done, especially on the supply side,
on the loosening allowing making it easier right to build
some of those new units, just creating more places for
people to live and not making it just this incredibly
painful process that could at least reduce some of the
(10:43):
rent friction and pricing out that a lot of people feel.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, many many of us live on the four or
five freeway twenty four hours a day just to get
on the freeway. All right, one last one, and this
is wage guard garnishment. This is the government coming down,
the Trump administration coming down and saying, hey, guys, you
borrowed the money.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
We want it back, and if you.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Can't pay it back, we're going to garnish your wages
like any other vendor would do.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
So let's talk about that.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Your take on that, Yeah, I mean it's in some
way I understand that the student loan borrow or how
shocking it is, right, especially after the super soft kind
of approach that the Biden administration had to student loans
and to borrowers. It was basically like, hey, we're going
to try to forgive these things. We're going to pause
loan payments for three plus years. And so everybody was like, yeah,
(11:35):
out of side, out of mind. I feel like I
don't even have student loans anymore. And then the payments resumed.
The Trump administration takes a different tactic, and you know,
the court struck down the forgiveness proposal, and people are
like oh gosh, I guess I got to think about
those things again. And so because of that that whiplash effect,
a lot of people just haven't been paying on those
student loans. Millions and millions of people have not been
(11:55):
paying even though payments have restarted, and the Trump administration
has basically said, yeah, if you are delinquent, we're going
to start garnishing your wages, and so that could be
up to fifteen percent of people's paychecks. That's going to
start literally as soon as this week. People are going
to start getting notices in the mail. And it's not
just your paycheck, like you could see part of your
(12:15):
tax refund or maybe your whole tax refund garnished as well.
So it's one of those things where if you haven't
thought about your student loan, it's time to start thinking
about it. If you are delinquent, right, it's time to
see if there is a payment plan that you can
get on with the federal government. Some of those are
still going to be around. They're going to be able
(12:35):
to lower your payment maybe to something that is affordable. Also,
we're seeing and this is something probably that you've noticed,
bill people are able to charge discharge their student loans
via bankruptcy if they have true inability to pay. They
used to be something that was like basically impossible.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah, that's very well, very very difficult to do, if
not impossible. And I believe that government should be there
to help people, you know, I believe to an extent
social services should be there. And I'm fine with borrowing
money from the government to go to school. I think
that is a tremendous advantage to society and to the individual.
(13:12):
I think it's uh for the most part, upside my opinion. However,
those borrowers who are looking for moratoriums or looking for
forgiving loan the student loans, I would like you to
google the word borrow and just see what part of
you got to pay it back. And they're having a
(13:34):
problem with that and so making it easy. But I
think it's a great investment for a government to loan
money as long as it comes back.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Joel, did you borrow? Did you have a student loan?
Speaker 1 (13:45):
I know you didn't get out of what high school
or junior high didn't get out of it, so you didn't
have to pay a lot of money, right.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I barely graduated middle school.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Did you did you borrow? Money. Do you go to school?
Speaker 3 (13:56):
I did, Yeah, a small amount first two years. But
then I realized, guess what, I was going to private
school for a couple of years, and I didn't want
my didn't loan debt to increase anymore. I was like,
saw the writing on the wall. I was like, if
this keeps going, but I'm going to be in for
a long haul of debt payback. So I went to
a school that offered better financial aid and was able
(14:17):
to get the last two years for free, so that
I kept my student loan balance pretty well.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, I borrowed money.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I borrowed money for law school and it was not cheap,
and I paid and I.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Paid it back just like I thought I would. Amy,
did you borrow money to go to school?
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Yeah, okay I didn't. Personally, my parents basically took all right.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
They so you got so you got it for free?
They paid, right, they borrowed, they paid. Yes, Yeah, that's
not you borrowing money. Thanks very much for well joined
them borrowing money. I still had to work through college.
Oh I understand. I mean so even people who don't
borrow money work through college.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Yeah, but they took out loans for me all.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Right, we all thanks. We'll talk again next Thursday. This Sunday,
twelve to two. How to Money Joel at how to
Money Joel's social address, and don't forget the website howdomoney
dot com.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Joel. You have a good one, Have a good weekend.
We'll catch on Sunday.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Okay, US forces boarded and seized a Russian flagged oil
tanker yesterday, tracking across the Atlantic for weeks. And this
is it was a tanker that had sanctioned oil and
it was a sanctioned tanker and it became a Russian
tanker somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic when they
all of a sudden started paying Russian flags on it.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
So fascinating story.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Okay, what happened yesterday in Minneapolis, and it is a tragedy.
A thirty seven year old woman was shot, was killed
as she was in her parked suv. That was, she
had blocked a portion of the road and the ice
agents came up to her and effectively were I think
(15:59):
we're telling her move.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
But in any case, she backs up and.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Tries to drive away and get shot, or she backed
up and then tried to hit an ice agent that
was there and we'll see what the investigation then produces.
So now let me explain what happens to people who
go out and protest. And here is the difference in
terms of the protesting when you're dealing with ice. And
(16:28):
this is I mean, think about this for a moment.
I was contemplating this during the break. And that is
normal protests, I mean protests other than ice protests. You're
normally protesting a policy or what the government is doing. Here,
you're protesting what is happening right in front of you,
(16:48):
you know, for example, or the Black Lives Matter movement
was talking about protesting a general concept black Lives Matter.
They weren't protesting that cop right there. Well, these ice
protests are all about that cop right there, that ice agent.
So all you're gonna have altercations on a different level
(17:13):
because the hatred spews far higher. The defense on the
side of ice is at a higher level. They're going
after people specifically, to go after people. It doesn't happen
in most demonstrations, doesn't happen in many most protests. So
already we're set up with a contentious situation that is
(17:35):
far greater than otherwise. And so what were these protests
about it's the way, not only the policy of the
United States, but the very way that ICE is picking
up people. Christinome always talks about we're only picking up
the worst of the worst. She's still saying that, which
I don't get. That's the worst of the worst. You know,
(17:55):
people they go into poultry factories, they go to the
home home depot outside on the driveway and just pick
people up, which they do in most part they are illegal,
which they are, but the way they're doing it is
in fact really difficult for many many people.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
So now.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
This woman was described by US Representative eleon Omar, Democrat
from Minnesota, probably one of the most left wing legislators
we have.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
She's right there with AOC.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
And she said that the woman killed was a quote
legal observer, shot while in her car, and local law
enforcement says she was blocking the street. I don't know
about that because cars were passing in front of her
and she was waving cars through. I mean, there again,
the investigation is going to prove where it is. There
(18:52):
are two divergent views and looking at the same video,
which is kind of interesting. But she was a quote
legal observer, and Ken Paulson, the director of the Free
Speech Center at Middle Tennessee University, State University.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
What a shocker.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
What he said, Make no mistake, what happened in Minnesota
is not about free speech niceties. If they disobeyed the
police officer, they can be arrested, but under no circumstances
can they be shot. This is far less an issue
about free speech than it is the exercise of power. Now,
(19:33):
the woman was shot, she was killed, and literally within
probably an hour, Christinome, the Secretary of Homeland Security, came
out and immediately defended ICE and blamed the shooting on
the radical left. And the woman attempted to run over
and did hit the ICE agent. And it just went
(19:57):
on and I you don't usually hear that.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
You here is we have to investigate it. We have to.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I mean, you had the mayor of Minneapolis, you had
the governor, you have people that educate free speech. They
didn't say outright, this is a murder. They said it
looks like one, but we have to do an investigation.
We have to look at it and find out exactly
what happened. The administration, this administration said we're done. This
(20:24):
was a justified shooting.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
This was a woman attacking one of our agents.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
This was self defense and effectively effectively saying, we don't
even have to look at the video, we know what happened.
And Donald Trump said the same things. It was simply
the radical left. It was an attempt to kill an
ICE agent. So I guess, let's not even do an investigation.
(20:51):
And then I was talking this morning too, Amy, will
the FBI even investigate this? Now FBI is out there,
and it could be that Christineolam and the president are
simply they're just blurting out what they think. Christinoam in
that press conference when she said that in this ridiculous stetson,
(21:14):
I didn't get that. Why she should have been wearing
a holster and doing target shooting or spinning the spinning
a gun around on her finger. She might as well
have done that. But she had then not a word
mentioned about an investigation.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Nothing.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Well, actually, Bill, Now the Minnesota officials are saying that
the FEDS are blocking them from investigating what happened.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Wow, you know, that gets a little bit deeper, doesn't it.
And we'll see if that's true. You know, because even
that we don't know, you can't investigate part of it,
or you investigator stopping all of it.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
I mean that is a stunner, to say the least.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
All Right, the US forces boarded and seesed a Russian
flagged oil tanker, this shadow fleet, it was, it's been
a Russian vessel for thirty five minutes. It's part of
this under the table fleet of tankers that sell oil
under the table. And Venezuela, by the way, receives the
(22:13):
majority of its money in oil and buy this shadow fleet.
The other issue is what happened yesterday in Minneapolis with
the ICE shooting of that woman in her suv at
the protest, and she's being described by those who are
liberal on the left Democrats as a legal observer. Now
(22:35):
I don't know if that actually has a legal definition.
But what does that mean? Well, do you have rights?
Can you go and video anything? Of course you can.
You have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement
other government employees while they're doing their jobs, even if
(22:55):
an ICE agent is arresting someone. Of course, and here's
the problem that happens with ICE agents as well as
police officers during these protests. Someone will be videoing them
and the coup will come up and say stop videoing,
just stop and you can say, but I have a
(23:16):
right to do that, and a couple will say, I
don't care you stop right now, or I'm going to
arrest you. Well, you have the absolute right. You will
win in court. If he does he or she does
arrest you, you will win. The problem is is you
get arrested. So what happens. I'm going to get a
little practical here. If you're not the only one there,
(23:39):
let's let the other people video it. Literally, do you
want the hassle?
Speaker 3 (23:45):
You know?
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Just for example, in this case, dozens of videos were taken,
So an ICE agent going up to a single person
and saying stop videoing, what's going to happen?
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Nothing?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And let's say you have a dozens and dozens of people.
Are they now going Are the cops the agents now
going to spread out, stop arresting the purported illegal aliens
and stop people from videoing?
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Of course not. And you can't get in the way.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
Of a police person doing his or her job or
a federal agent. You can't stand in front of front
of them while they're going to do their job or
arresting someone. But just you know there are other people there,
so and you don't scream at these people either and
you hear the screaming.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
That's the last thing I.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Would do, because you can still do your job as
an observer, which you absolutely have the right to do. Now,
there are a bunch of state legislators, legislatures that have
passed laws around these quote buffer zones around crime scenes.
They haven't done well legally because number one, they're vague,
(24:53):
and second of all, if someone is not interfering with
the police action and simply standing four feet away for example,
and videoing and you have a lot of this says
you have to be twenty five feet away. Arizona did
that within eight feet at a buffer zone. It was
(25:13):
Indiana that did the twenty five foot buffer law. Struck down,
I mean instantly struck down. So legal observers, I want
to go back to that for a moment. Typically citizens
who watch, there's my dog going crazy. Typically citizens who
watch document record interactions between the police and protesters. And
you've got these grassroot networks, and man, you look what
(25:37):
happened yesterday after the shooting. Within minutes, hundreds of people
showed up. And we're not talking about the protesters. We're
talking about people that came to the area to protest
to let the known and they were screaming at the
cops like crazy. And so when you have a situation,
keep in mind two things. Number One, you have the
(25:57):
right to video. You have the right to protests. And
this has become a lot more commonplace because of smartphones
and bystanders. For example, the death of George Floyd was
videoed and that video was just incredibly important in convicting
the cop who did this. And you're going to see
(26:21):
that happening because I'll tell you, witness statements are useless
because for every witness that says A happened, you'll have
a witness that says B happened. Video is right there.
Now you can interpret it one way or the other.
But the video is there. And what are the cops
going to say? What is anybody going to say if
(26:41):
he or she is being videoed?
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Who are you.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Gonna believe me or your lying eyes? You know, video
is very very important. So protesting an absolute right under
the First Amendment, but those rights do have limits. For example,
reasonable time to protest, reasonable manner and place. Can they
(27:07):
move you into an area blocked up for protesting? Yeah,
the police have been told that that is a legitimate.
There's no question about that. Why because we're looking at
the clashes and this is usually between two groups, two
protest groups, where the police are looking at a clash
that is going to happen, where the hatred is so
(27:29):
high that you know people are going to get hurt.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
So here's what the cops do.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
And this happens in the Los Angeles and happened in
Los Angeles with several protests. Is you guys are on
that side of the street, We're going to put up barriers.
You guys who are against these guys are on the
other side of the street, and we're going to be
putting up barriers. Those in fact are legitimate. So what's
(27:53):
the bottom line? Well, I mean, do you harass the
ice agents?
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think so, because people are pretty upset. Don't go
up there and start videoing their faces. Don't get anywhere
near them. We're going to be argued that you interfered
with police officers. Okay, we're done, guys coming up as
Gary and Shannon. We're back again tomorrow. I'm assuming Kono
joins us tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (28:18):
If his car gets fixed, yeh.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
If his car gets fixed. If not, well I'm here
to bail them out again. There you go, there you go.
All right, we're done, guys, Amy and Neil is still
not here. We're going and we're not gonna have Will. God,
we're half gone. Is Will coming back tomorrow?
Speaker 3 (28:37):
No?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Do we know?
Speaker 4 (28:39):
Nope, he's gone till Monday because he's he's flying over
the Fiesta Bowl today and then he's headed out to
fly over a playoff game.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Yeah, so he actually wants to earn some money. Yeah, okay,
that makes sense. All right, guys, we're done. We're finished.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Tomorrow morning, all over again. You've been listening to The
Bill Handles Show.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
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
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!