[00:00:05] Speaker A: You're listening to casual talk radio, where common sense is still the norm. Whether you're a new or longtime listener. We appreciate you joining us today. Visit
[email protected] and now here's your host, Leister.
[00:00:21] Speaker B: Today's episode presented a great opportunity to talk about loans, loans, debt, that sort of thing. I was going to follow up on last week's episode that talked about coons, but I figured I left the point pretty strong. I left the point in a good spot that I could move on from that particular conversation.
Then I can circle back now that that's off my chest and I can talk about loans and debt. And the reason I wanted to focus on loans and debt is because there's musings out there that we are headed to very problematic financial times as a society. And I referred to worldwide, if you didn't watch, and I do recommend you do, but if you didn't, it's long and it's a bit dry. So if you're one of those that has add, it's probably not for you. But I do recommend if you get a chance to watch the interview with Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin's on his site, tuckercarlson.com. It's free. I do recommend watching it. It's a good watch. But again, if you have add, it's going to drive you nuts. So maybe have it in the background because you don't need the video at all. You just need the audio. It's basically a podcast is what it is. And I want to level, if you're older and most that listen to the show are of an older generation, you will appreciate what Tucker Carlson did. But you may have already taken aside, you may be on the side of a Joe Biden, you may be on the side of Russia, bad, Russia, bad, Ukraine, good. It's one of those where you have to listen to it without taking aside, you have to listen to what Vladimir Putin's saying and then take that information if you want, cross reference it with facts that are out there. There was very little I detected that was not accurate or true. And the reason I'm spending so much time on it, he spent arguably the first 35 to 40 minutes going through the entire, when I say entire, I'm talking, he went back, jeez, very close to a century. He went back in time and he broke down with specific points in time of the history of he was, and he tied it in to Nazi, he tied it into Ukraine, he tied it into Poland, he tied it into Hitler. He was critical of certain events that happened over time. He was critical of certain decisions of past leadership. I think it's a compelling, listen, again, you've got to go at it not taking his side, because if you go at it, not taking his side, and you are somebody that appreciates the history behind because the narrative has been in the media pretty much to a t, Russia bad. Russia bad. Russia bad. The only exception to that would have been Donald Trump who criticized certain actions, but he was never on that Russia bad deal.
But the media has always presented certain narratives. And Putin talks about this in a way that makes them the good guy, right? It makes the United States the good guy and everybody else is the bad guy who doesn't do what the US says.
When he, Putin connected NATO into it, there was a point, he talked about how there was a question asked and I think this was to, you know, if Russia wanted to join NATO, would that be an option? And Clinton allegedly said, let me check in on it. I don't see that's a problem. And then came back and said, yeah, it's not going to happen.
Tucker tried to pin it down and said, would you have joined if that was presented? And Putin refused to answer the question directly.
I think Putin's point is it didn't matter because I asked if it even could be a thing and I was told no. So it doesn't matter if I would have or like, he's very, Putin practiced in his responses. That's the best way I can stage it. He's very practiced in his responses, be they true or false. He's practiced in how he communicates and listening to a world leader being able to express himself clearly and points of history because obviously our current is not even close to this is refreshing. It's refreshing to me.
So when he ties this into NATO and then he talks about basically NATO was celebrating and clapping for Hitler, which happened. That actually happened. And what I took from it is Tucker Carlson, was ultimately that the summation of, well, why are you doing the Ukraine? What do you want? What's going to stop this thing? And Putin basically said, stop funding it. Stop sending money across the Ukraine and it stops in a couple of weeks. Stop helping, stop sending money, which multiple who have been critical of the current administration have said over time, why is it that american dollars are being sent over to a war that does not directly affect us?
And the media has presented, and even I believe it was Ted Cruz who said we have to support Ukraine. We don't have a choice. And it's because of the whole NATO connection. It's a very fascinating listen, tying this spider web together into, well, Russia's doing what we're doing. And yes, we are kind of nationalists.
[00:05:22] Speaker C: In the sense that we want to.
[00:05:24] Speaker B: Be on our own, and we believe.
[00:05:26] Speaker C: That our stance is what it is.
[00:05:30] Speaker B: The United States and NATO are taking this stance like they can dictate to other people how to run their own stuff. We're bordered with China. We see that China is going to become a power because they're far exceeding anything else the US is doing, which is factual. And the US has this deluded notion that the United States dollar runs everything when the United States dollar is losing its power. And it's losing its power because the United States sanctions, in this case Russia, but also others, and prevents them from transacting it. Well, when you prevent companies who want to transact it from transacting it, all you're doing is you're killing off its value. You're harming the value of your own money, and you don't even understand because of whatever mission that you're on to try to dictate to other people. It's a very fascinating listen. Again, if you have add, it's not going to work for you. If you're having a hard time following what he's ultimately getting at, feel free to reach
[email protected]. And hit the contact form. And I'll do the best and I'll even offer a follow on episode dedicated to it. But the reason it ties in when he starts talking about the devaluation of the United States dollar as connected to the sanctions that have been applied to.
[00:06:41] Speaker C: Russia that prevent them from transacting on.
[00:06:43] Speaker B: The US dollar, that's compelling. And the excessive spending to Ukraine, which is what printing, printing, printing.
[00:06:49] Speaker C: All of these strategic attempts to devalue.
[00:06:52] Speaker B: The US dollar, which are doing what.
[00:06:55] Speaker C: They'Re trying to sell the narrative of.
[00:06:58] Speaker B: Being the white knight.
[00:06:59] Speaker C: We have to do this. We have to help our brethren. And the NATO connect basically compels them. And then senators are saying, this is what we've signed on to do, which.
[00:07:08] Speaker B: Is contrary to what Donald Trump was wanting to do, where he said, billions and billions of dollars and we get.
[00:07:14] Speaker C: Nothing for it, and we're the ones spending now, it connects the dots of what he was saying to what everybody else had been saying. And Trump got attacked as a nationalist and a xenophobe and everything else. Now you're hearing different sides of the story triggered by this conversation, which was.
[00:07:30] Speaker B: Necessary to hear one of these countries that is under sanction, basically criticize how we're handling our own currency. Like listen to that. Because we feel it as Americans, we feel the impact of our own money being devalued. And we see the excessive printing, printing, printing of money. And what then happens is the downstream, they attack cryptocurrency, they want to bump the taxes, so they're trying to get more money back from the american people. Meanwhile, they're printing more money and they're sending it overseas to a war that doesn't directly affect us. And then the whole pipeline situation, Putin didn't directly say it, but he implied maybe the CIA had something to do with that in order to trigger it. Which ties then back to what was stated during 911. This idea that unless we have, and I paraphrase, unless we have some sort of a large scale event that gets large media coverage that we can use to enrage the american people, we're not going to be able to convince them to give more money to the cause that we're pushing.
This is going to sound conspiratorial, but you got to connect the dots and all the different people that have spoken on both sides of the aisle where, okay, there was some shady business happening here. And the whole bin Laden thing with Obama, there's a whole different train of controversy around that as well. But in a way it's connected because it's this idea that the United States feels like they have to white knight everything and are getting in everybody else's business. And what's really happening with these wars that are spinning up and the situation in Iran is, okay, Jerusalem, it's like they're just pushing back. They're fighting back now on what's been imposed upon them, where we didn't see anywhere near this level of turmoil. When Donald Trump was in office, because he was pulling out of these deals, he was pulling out of anything that compelled us to act. He was pulling out of these situations where we were spending, to quote him, billions and billions of dollars where nobody else was putting money in and it was all us funneling its money and its currency was the only one being devalued out of everybody else's. So how does this then connect to debt? It connects directly to debt because the debt that we feel, I'm talking that you and I feel, the debt that we feel is in form of inflation.
[00:09:48] Speaker C: But it's also in the form of job loss.
[00:09:51] Speaker B: It's in the form of general availability to money and wealth and loans, how harder it is to get loans, how much they're using credit to discriminate against lower class.
It all connects because we are being disenfranchised essentially by the devaluation of the United States dollar. That is coming from upstream decisions that really don't affect the down. And those decisions come from the voters who voted, those people in office who had that agenda, that did not focus on fixing the economy. Remember Joe Biden? First of all, he didn't really campaign, but the point is, when he came in, he said nothing about fixing the economy. He unraveled every single thing that was potentially going to help the economy go in the right direction. Remember, he killed off the keystone. That was one of the first things he did that was going to be a significant boon to our economy. He completely killed it off. He added significant red tape on business loans. Doing that made it to where those businesses were not able to hire the people that they thought that they could do. A lot of money was sent out to businesses for aid during COVID and they didn't do a good accounting of it. They didn't cover it correctly. And so they found a lot of fraud and they really didn't enforce the fraud. The regular layman person with the so called stimmies that were being sent out, even though they knew, and this was starting in the Trump administration, everybody knew that that wasn't going to go very far for the vast majority of America, it wasn't going to go that far at all. But what everybody didn't understand is that the whole distribution was a fraction of the total amount of money that was printed. And the vast majority, this is now the Biden administration, the vast majority of wealth is now going other ways. It's going to defense, it's going to wars, it's going overseas to help other countries. There was so much money that was printed to others, not our own people, that they could have actually covered more sufficiently. People struggling during this time. They gave money to these rental companies, property managers, et cetera, as aid during the pandemic. And then the way that they controlled the stream of this, as I said on the past episode, they don't want you to have the money directly.
[00:12:01] Speaker C: So they made these aid programs available.
[00:12:03] Speaker B: You as a tenant had to apply for them. The property manager couldn't apply on their own. They got backlogged. They took months to process this stuff.
[00:12:12] Speaker C: They still allowed the property manager to.
[00:12:14] Speaker B: Do eviction notices and everything else. During this period, only certain states precluded you from actually executing the eviction, but the property manager would still do the eviction notice.
[00:12:24] Speaker C: They would still put it on the.
[00:12:25] Speaker B: Door, which is what it's embarrassing to.
[00:12:27] Speaker C: Renters once the thing gets processed. Then in this case, the state would process to do the payment out to the property and to the utilities. Well, think of the connections, think of the handoffs to this process.
[00:12:41] Speaker B: The money was made available, ultimately was made available to the states. The states had to build up a program to be able to manage and distribute it and take applications et.
The property manager could not get involved. They couldn't just say, look, my monthly bill is x. I want you to just give me x and I'll waive the monthly payment for these renters. They wouldn't do that. They wanted the renter to apply for it based on need as a need based. It's like a grant in a way. They wanted the renter to apply. The need is always qualified. The property manager knows how much you have to spend for them. They know how much the utility bill is because it's a shared utility cost. In most cases, if it's a house, let's say it's a single family home, they still know what the meter reads are because they own the property. They have to know this information. That means that the rental owner, the property owner already knew how much money that that person really needed in order to support the expenses that were imposed on the property manager. So it didn't make any sense that the tenant had to go and basically do a rat wheel race to try to get access to this money and then have to deal with the stress and everything else of getting the property manager to reply, because then the property manager would have to apply reply R-E-P-L-Y with all of the supporting documentation, it's almost like the tax system. We send this, the feds, when we say, we send this money to each state and we say, use this to cover rent for people, sounds good. But then the property manager, who's the one who ultimately has to pay the bill, they can't participate, they can't apply. It has to be the tenant. The tenant's getting threatened the whole time. That never stopped. They didn't prohibit the threats, so the tenant has to apply, which assume that you have Internet access because you couldn't apply at any local installation. They said you could. That's a lie. You do the application process. The property manager then has to basically substantiate the claim. So instead of just going straight to the person who ultimately has the bill, which is the property manager, and saying, here's the total amount of money I need to manage my property, I got 32 units. The rent is x for each unit. X times y is this total amount of money. Send me that and then just book it every month instead of doing it that way, and I'll get to why that made better sense. Instead of doing it that way, you saddle each tenant because they expected that some tenants would not apply because they were hoping that the vast majority of people who needed it were either not competent enough or were not capable enough or were not equipped enough as an Internet or computer to be able to apply for the program to offset the impact on the money that they allocated to the states. See, that's the strategy that they were banking on when they did this business. Why do I think that my approach.
[00:15:26] Speaker C: Would have been a better solution?
[00:15:28] Speaker B: And why do I suspect that they were shady in how they did this? Now let's go into a different program that's always been there, available for people of lower, significantly lower incomes.
You got food service programs, you got some money service programs, you got childcare programs. SNAP is another program, right, eb? So food benefits. So these programs, the way that they work, and they're flawed too, because they follow the same pattern as in, you have to prove the need. I got no problem with proving the need. But the way that they force you to do that is stupid. And then you have to re qualify for it every two months or three months or some odd, because they don't trust you. They think you're lying. Now step back. Does it matter that somebody's lying? Because if it's really about money, let's say it's about money, then why would they do the business loans where they required? Really no proof of anything. The business loans were more significant than the food service stuff. And the food service stuff could actually go a long way towards homeless people who can't produce the same documentation as somebody who's not homeless to be able to get access to food that they actually need. Which means we actually could feed all of America if we really wanted to. But we put these hoops in front of it because we don't trust the regular person, the actual tenant, the actual person asking for food. We don't trust them. We trust businesses. If we fully trust businesses on this program here, which was the loan program.
[00:16:56] Speaker C: And to a lesser degree, grants, but really it was loans.
[00:16:59] Speaker B: If we fully trust that segment, then why wouldn't we simply trust the property manager to send one bill that says, this is the total I need, send it to me every month, just set.
[00:17:09] Speaker C: It up as a monthly, and then I will waive and I'll agree to waive the rents of everybody there because the government doesn't want everybody to get the benefit. They're putting it out there anticipating that some people won't qualify. Anticipating some people won't apply to mitigate it. So let's say they put out a trillion dollars.
[00:17:28] Speaker B: A trillion dollars. So they're expecting, and I don't know the exact ratio, but let's say it's an 80 20 split. So they're expecting that $800 billion is roughly going to be consumed by this great program. And then $200 billion will go wasted and they can reallocate that $200 billion to something else, usually a war or something stupid. That's the game and how it's played. So the money they say they set aside isn't actually going to the intended recipients as you might think that it is.
If they were to do the monthly, if you were to do the food service for the individual, that's how it works. Once you qualify, it's just a monthly benefit. It just credits your account with x amount of money. Usually it's like $200 or something. It's not a great amount of money, but it's enough. If you're frugal with your spend and you get your eb card and you can get the basics of food, it's not going to be amazing food, right, but it's not meant to be. It doesn't limit what you can buy, but you have to make it work. You got to make it stretch because you're only going to have it for a couple more months until you qualify, that you need it again. And they're going to be expecting that you're going to be getting off the program. They're trying to anticipate that you're going to go to work, that you're going to make more money, and it's just a temporary blip. Covid wasn't really a temporary blip at all. It went for a long period of time. So the re qualification was stupid because they already know if you worked at X and X closed, they already know you're not going back to that one. The unemployment offices were swarmed because unfortunately nobody was really hiring. But everybody needed a job. So then they're slammed. The feds have that data. They already know the number of job lists was going up, not going down. That meant that there's a logic. Okay, let's just lighten up these requirements for the food service until we get past the pandemic, everybody qualifies for food service. I don't care. You don't have to prove that you're working. You don't have to prove you're not.
[00:19:24] Speaker C: Working because that's a great way to offset the financial burden on everybody during.
[00:19:29] Speaker B: This pandemic where it's not their fault.
Now you can prove by stats and numbers, okay, that means we could technically feed America with this thing. We could use this program and feed America. So we create levels and we say, just a simple question. Are you working right now? If you're working right now, you just get less of a benefit than those that are not working. It's that simple. Your re qualification stays. But you do it every six months. Not every two, not every three. You do it every six. Why every six?
Statistically speaking, it takes on average, three months minimum to be able to switch jobs if you didn't already have the new job lined up. When you have a rough economy, a bare economy, if it's hard times or things like Covid or something disruptive has.
[00:20:18] Speaker C: Happened, on average, it's about three months to getting to another job when you're between.
[00:20:23] Speaker B: So doing cut off at three made.
[00:20:25] Speaker C: No damn sense because it's a given.
[00:20:27] Speaker B: They have these numbers.
[00:20:29] Speaker C: They have the data.
[00:20:29] Speaker B: They can prove it themselves. They don't have to listen to me.
[00:20:32] Speaker C: They know this. The fact that they know it is what makes it frustrating because they're not acting on it the way they could. To say, we change it to six.
[00:20:40] Speaker B: Months, we're going to dumb down this.
[00:20:42] Speaker C: Application to one question. You're either working or you're not. If you're working, you get less of a benefit than if you're not working. The only exception to that would be if you're working for no money, like an internship, say, if it's an unpaid internship, okay, that's an exception to the rule, and you can account for those exceptions. But it shouldn't be a lengthy application. It shouldn't require an interview, shouldn't require any of that garbage. It's just a basic process that could increase the amount of people that are fed in our country at a basic level, irrespective of your current level status. You just consider different levels of benefit based on that status.
[00:21:18] Speaker B: Now fast forward and we get into debt loans.
One of the net effects of the pandemic and other situations that happen is an increase in the amount of loans people need. Part of the problem, and the reason I say that credit is a scam. Having worked at a bureau, mind you, credit is a scam. It's a scam because predominantly, the banks want to give you money when they know you don't need it. They'll stage it as they want to give you money when they know you can pay it back. That's not true. Credit was never intended as a disincentive or a barrier or discriminatory wall against money. It was intended to identify how well could you pay it back. The flaw is that credit alone does.
[00:22:05] Speaker C: Not consider how much money you make.
[00:22:07] Speaker B: How much money you make, and how much money you have in the bank now are very infrequently used to determine whether you'll get approved or not like it used to be in the olden days. In the olden days, if I knew I had liquid assets, right, liquidity at my disposal, and I can prove that.
[00:22:27] Speaker C: It'S on a constant basis, I can prove that it's of a sufficient amount. For the most part, the bank would override it. There was not a computer that was making the decision. The bank person would talk it out.
[00:22:38] Speaker B: And they'd look at the numbers and.
[00:22:39] Speaker C: They'D make it work.
[00:22:40] Speaker B: They'd figure out how to make it.
[00:22:41] Speaker C: Work, because their incentive, when I say incentive, I'm talking bonuses. Their incentive was to make that loan happen for you.
[00:22:49] Speaker B: We're in a modern era where technology just basically throws out a decision generally not overridden by a bank person. If you walk in, they might be able to make an override, but the vast majority have simply said, if the computer says deny, then we're just going to deny this extended then into the rental market. In the olden days, the rental spaces, they would run a credit check, but it would never be a straight deny. It would always be approved with conditions or an approve. The only time you would ever conceptually get denied is if you have like a criminal record or something, which is discriminatory in of itself, but it's understood, but the approved with conditions. Let's say it's a rent and we're in a different era, but let's say it's a rent that's $1,500 a month. If it's a rent that's $1,500 a month, they would already have a condition that says you need to make three times the rent per month as a salary, $4,500 a month. You need to effectively make. The vast majority of people don't make $4,500 a month. So by nature of the price of rent, you're already kind of priced out. And so you're forced to go to lower, secure areas. The ones that have lower rent prices because they can't entice wealthy people. It's just not going to work. And then what happens? Crime and drugs and everything else, because they can't get access to higher paying jobs and they can't get rent that's safe and secure. And the places that are safe and secure, overpricing the rent, that's a different problem for a different day. Suffice to say, though, let's say you go through the qualification. So they've already asked you for the amount of money that you make per month. Let's say you get past that. The amount of money you make per month. If you make three times that per month, and you can prove that on a steady, consistent basis, you've been working at the same job for three, four years, whatever should be sufficient to say, this person is capable of paying this rent. It should be that simple.
They'll run a background check. The background check is discriminatory in of itself, but there are obligations for things like, are you a sex predator? Are you a criminal? Are you so sure?
[00:24:54] Speaker C: Whatever.
[00:24:54] Speaker B: I still think it's discriminatory because what I believe should simply happen is that you are in a probationaries type of deal. There are certain things you cannot do. If it turns out these things flag true, like if you have a criminal record, you went to prison, you're just out. I don't think it should be eligible to deny that person. I understand what society wants to do, which is to isolate those people, but if they serve their time, I think there should just simply be conditions around it to say, there are certain things you cannot do. You can't use the clubhouse, you can't go here. You're under some sort of surveillance or whatever, but there should be conditions. But it's not a straight denial. The denial is where I have a problem, because the denial is predicated on what a computer thinks that's been programmed by discriminatory people. This was a big problem in places like Milwaukee, where they were using property lines to actually create a form of segregation. When you do these things for the application, see, it sounds good. If you're never going to get denied for something, you got an 800 credit score and you come from a wealthy family or not. Sounds good to say. Well, no, but I don't want those people near me. That's perfectly fine. If that's the way you feel, there's nothing wrong with it. I'm saying that the reality is all.
[00:26:05] Speaker C: You'Re doing is you're pushing people to.
[00:26:08] Speaker B: Homelessness and you're pushing people to crime.
[00:26:10] Speaker C: Because they're not able to.
[00:26:12] Speaker B: If they can pay it, they're not.
[00:26:14] Speaker C: Able to even give you money.
[00:26:15] Speaker B: And somebody have that money in the bank. Some might have saved up, let's say $60,000. If you've got a rent, that's $1,500.
[00:26:25] Speaker C: And so for a year, that's 30 grand. And you're taking a person who's got 60 grand in the bank. Let's say that person says, I'll just pay off the whole fucking lease straight away. And you still get denied. You know, the system's broken, and you know, it's no longer about your capacity to pay, which means that credit is not being used as a form of determination of the capacity to pay. It's being used as a form of discrimination. You're purposely looking for things that somebody doesn't like. That's discrimination in its purest form. It is no longer a straight line of capacity to pay versus non capacity to pay, or at least presumptive capacity to pay.
[00:27:04] Speaker B: It's not even about that. Did you know if you have crap tons of money, so you got money all out, you make 100,000 a year, right? And I know in some areas that doesn't go a long way, but I'll throw out a number, 100,000 a year. You make all kinds of money. You filed bankruptcy, chapter seven, bankruptcy. Did you know it'll actually be easier for you to make things happen than it would be if you just simply had the same amount of money, took out some credit cards, you have a car loan, you had bought a condo, whatever, you got all these loans, you're going to be more scrutinized than somebody else who just completely avoided the system or washed it all with a bankruptcy where it cleared it all out. Because when the computers see that there's nothing there or limited history, they can't discriminate against you.
[00:27:51] Speaker C: They have to fall back to a different tier that says basically no credit.
[00:27:56] Speaker B: As stupid as it sounds, when something's there. This is why I say a credit is a scam. When credit cards are there, credit card history is there, they can throw all sorts of additional rules at it. Well, you missed one payment four years ago or whatever, during a pandemic where everybody was missing payments. There was no exception to say, look, it's a pandemic, don't care about it. Or what I would have liked to see is the government, in addition to this aid, going down to rental companies and everybody else, say credit bureaus, you will delete any negative. Anything that happened from this period, basically, say November 2020, all the way up through mid 2022, you will delete any negative entries of credit during that time. We don't care if they're valid or not. If it's a negative entry, you will delete it because we don't know if it was impacted by Covid or not. Let's just assume that none of them were. They didn't do that because they were hoping that this would ultimately eliminate certain people from being able to qualify for some of these aid programs because they don't want to give you that money. Meanwhile, they're all too willing to send that money off overseas.
That's really what's happening. So as I close, all of that is something to really compelling think about and how we're coming full circle, because it's a very similar paradigm we have now, as we had during the era of the Mafia and with the Mafia, and I'll probably expound upon this on a different episode. In the era of the Mafia, what you had was people who were struggling to make ends meet. That could be business owners, it could be regular people, whatever. They couldn't get loans at banks. So it's very similar to what we have now. They would turn to organized crime. Organized crime, which was always partnered with these businesses, and they were getting different faculties of money from different outlets, would basically make turn to loan sharks. They would make money available.
No credit checks, really no paperwork. Obviously, the rates are sky high and they're rip offs. That's what they are. Desperate times call for desperate measures. They would make this money available on the under. And if the person couldn't pay it back, they would take parts of what they own. They would take parts of their homes, their cars, businesses. And so then they grew in popularity and wealth and power.
But that was the only way people could get access to the money that they needed to get over a slump. I'm not suggesting that everybody fell in the hole. Certainly a lot did. But there were certain ones that were able to turn that into something. They were able to flip it into something a little bit stronger on the outside.
I'm saying we may be headed towards that world again. We may be headed towards a world where simply money is not as easily accessible as it was, which is strategic, because they don't want people qualifying for the money. They make it available. They don't want you to really qualify for it. Doing that creates a bubble effect, because if those people happen to own property and they take out, treat their homes like atms, and just drain out a bunch of money to try to make ends meet. And then everything goes belly up on the values because many of those homes are being devalued now, if you haven't noticed. And then cryptocurrency is starting to hit a peak, and we might have a major crash there again because it's cyclical and the IRS is just asking for more money while we are printing and printing and printing and shipping it overseas. It feels like a powder keg. And that may, I can't guarantee nothing that may contribute to the rise of some of this organized crime money funneling that we saw before.
Is there anything that can stop what I'm anticipating might happen? Absolutely.
You've got to get people in office who understand why you have to take care of your own people first. You've got to take care of your own country. You've got to take care of your people here who are starving, people here who are homeless, and the system that's designed to keep them homeless and starving, because the system is designed not to give money to people. That's the truth. You can see evidence all over the place, even if you have access to aid, if you have to re qualify for it, if the application for it was greater than one page, if it took you more than two days to get it activated, if anything is a hoop or a block in front of it, it's a disincentive to doing it. Those that pay taxes would say, I don't want it easy to get. I understand. Because in your mind, your tax money is possibly being wasted, but the money that's going to these programs is a fraction of the money that you pay into taxes. The vast majority of the money you.
[00:32:27] Speaker C: Pay into taxes is going overseas anyway.
[00:32:30] Speaker B: If you stop that flow, it's infinitesimal.
[00:32:33] Speaker C: How much is going to potential aid for people that really need it to.
[00:32:37] Speaker B: Where we can get our country back.
[00:32:39] Speaker C: On track before we start talking about aiding other countries. Otherwise, we're just sending ourselves into debt and continuing to devalue our own state, which is just going to cause people to go to organized crime avenues. It's also going to cause people to start hoarding again because they don't trust the government. And you're seeing that in many places. All of this should concern people, if I'm correct, and I just put out things that I'm spitballing, but it should concern people if I'm correct. I think you see that there's a significant lack of desire to make people whole here in the United States. As opposed to countries that we don't even neighbor?
[00:33:20] Speaker B: Oh, close.
