Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/10/21: Budget Reconciliation, Josh Hawley, Climate Change, AOC, Vaccine Mandates, Healthcare Mafia, Liberal Misinformation, Biden Economy, and More!

Episode Date: August 10, 2021

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them it on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Prof. Wolff’s Work: https://www.democracyatwork.info/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're gonna be totally upfront with you.

We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more,

support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show, ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys.

Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We got another amazing show for you today, and Kyle Kalinske is back in the house. Great to have you back, sir. It's my pleasure to be here, and thank you to everybody out there for putting up with me. I know I am not the one and only Sagar and Jetty. I promise you he's going to be back next week, so just a little bit longer. People loved you yesterday, though. People were happy to see you in the chair. It was a little bit of a mixed reaction. No, it was not a mixed reaction. It was overwhelmingly positive, but I'm sure you found two things that were negative and those were the ones that stick with you.

You know, I don't really look at criticism much, but I watched it back and I have some criticisms of myself. Like, I have to try when in Rome to be in Rome, and so the vibe of this show is more professional and less cursing, and I'm still in like secular talk mode or I'm just flying off the wall, so. Right, right, but that's who you are, that's fine. That's true, that's true, but I will attempt

to reel it in 20% because I do think that that was a fair criticism. I mean, I watched one of our videos and I was like, Jesus Christ, dude. What are you, a pirate? Sailor? There's a fine line between, and we've seen this in other programs,

when someone fills in and they try to like parrot the way that the person who normally does the show is. So that's not good either. So there's a fine line between being yourself and bringing the things that uniquely make you Kyle Kalinsky to the table and also fitting in with the show. Yeah, if I was too, like, prudish isn't the right word. If I was too, like, attempting to be professional and buttoned up, people would be like, look at this prudish, uptight lefty who's being like a typical elitist lefty. But then when I'm myself and I curse a little too much and stuff,

people are like, bro, you're filling in for Sagar? So, like, relax. Can't do all that. I thought you did a great job yesterday. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And bring us to the table, which is why we have you here and why we have you back. Lots of good stuff to get to today.

We're going to break down first to start with the details of the reconciliation bill. We got some new information yesterday. Josh Hawley made an incredibly hilarious, cringey argument against the infrastructure package. If you could even call it an argument, it's mostly just like a word salad of conservative buzzwords at this point. A groundbreaking report on just how quickly climate change is accelerating and how some of the damage may be irreversible,

but that does not mean that we should give up hope and not try to do anything about it. AOC made some new comments about whether or not she would primary Chuck Schumer that are getting people's attention. The military has decided that they are going to mandate the COVID vaccine. We're going to debate that a little bit. Richard Wolff is going to be in the show. One of my favorites, Professor Richard Wolff, to talk about where we are in the economy, that big jobs report number

that came out last week. But we did want to start, Kyle, with the details of that reconciliation package that we learned about yesterday. Yeah, so huge updates on this front, and I'm very interested to see what you think of the package, Crystal. So let me give you guys some of the specifics that we just got on the budget reconciliation bill from Bernie and the Democrats. So Jeff Stein lays this out for us. Guys, if you could throw that up on the screen. Bernie Sanders says budget includes child tax benefit, universal pre-K, paid family and medical leave, tuition-free community college, lower prescription drug costs, dental, hearing, and vision, Medicare expansion, housing, home care, major climate money, immigration, also lower Medicare age. I'm surprised that's still in there.

Obamacare expansion, increasing physical supply. I don't know what that means. I'm surprised that's still in there. Obamacare expansion. Increasing physical supply. I don't know what that means. I don't know what that one means either, Jeff, even though Jeff's usually phenomenal at this. Too many climate and clean energy plans to summarize here. And they say the new revenue is from beefed up IRS tax enforcement. That's so-so because it'll probably be on the working class. Taxing the rich. Taxing corporations.

Fees on pollut, and Medicare negotiations. So, I mean, there's a lot there. Let me just pause you. I actually think on the beefed up IRS tax enforcement, I'm less cynical than you because I think they already tax enforced the working class as much as they can. That is true, that's fact.

All the money to go after is with the rich people. So I am actually a little hopeful there. Okay, well, I mean, I hope you're right. But overall, what do you make of this overall? Because there's a lot in here, and it's more than I suspected, to be honest with you. Yeah. So, listen, if these provisions actually get passed into law and you end up with universal pre-K and tuition-free community college, and it actually ended up being controversial, the idea of negotiating, Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices, which would be huge cost savings.

The fact that that's controversial is ridiculous, but anyway, it ends up in there. I think you and I had both been pretty skeptical that lowering the Medicare age would ultimately end up in there. That was something I asked Senator Sanders about in our interview with him, and he said, no, that's still on the table, and here it is. It's still, as of today, in the package. So if these provisions actually go through, this is incredibly significant. I mean, it really is. The child tax credit alone is like a universal benefit for parents. It's really helping to ease the burden in a lot of ways on parents and families. There's elder care provisions in there.

There's affordable housing provisions in there. There's affordable housing provisions in there. A couple pieces that I'm not happy about are, number one, and Jeff Stein points this out, $15 minimum wage. We weren't expecting it to be in this package, but you can't just ignore the fact that this was one of the primary pledges that Joe Biden made when he not only ran for office, but when he secured the endorsement of Bernie Sanders, the very first thing that he said is $15 minimum wage. That has not only dropped out of this package, but seems to be just disappeared from the conversation altogether. Seems very unlikely that $15 minimum wage is going to come to pass anytime during the Biden administration. I just don't see how it happens since they've decided to go by the parliamentarians' rulings and whatever

and keep the filibuster in place, and they're not putting it into a reconciliation package. So it seems like that is a lost cause, which is insane, considering that this is the longest time in the history of the program that the minimum wage has gone without being lifted. So that's a disappointment. The other thing here that's just ridiculous is that the salt tax people, Democrats who wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy by the salt tax cap deduction, putting that back into place, they got their way. That is one of the things that they list as an investment, meaning that it costs money in this whole thing. So I have some, I don't want

to call them quibbles because I think they're pretty significant. But if you look at this package overall, is it a good deal if it goes through as is conceived here? 100%. But that's the big question is how much of this package is actually going to make it through the process. And I'll dig into this a little bit more in a moment. But, you know, on the climate change provisions, we're going to talk today about this report that spells out just how dire the situation is in terms of climate. They're calling it a red alert for humanity. The bulk of those provisions, the committee that they have to go through that writes what it actually is going to look like, is chaired by Senator Joe Manchin, who is very skeptical of doing anything about climate change. So there are some big question marks about how much of this is ultimately going to end up getting through. Yes. So there's a bunch of stuff to say on this.

I think I have a definitive answer to the question, you know, is this going to be the final package? Is this going to be the thing that ultimately gets through or even gets voted on? The answer is no. I think that this is the starting negotiation position, knowing that Manchin and Sinema, and in fact, in reality, there's actually seven or eight Democrats who agree with Manchin and Sinema. Most of them are just quiet about it. Yes. I think that this is just the starting position where, you know, you ask for a lot and then it's going to get whittled down.

And like you said, some of the things that are definitely going to get left out are like all the climate provisions. I bet immigration gets left off as well. Well, immigration is going to get cut by the Senate parliamentarian. I mean, I see that one. Well, that's the other issue, right? Right. So I see that one. And it's so silly to – I hate myself for phrasing it that way, but that's the structure that they've set up is basically whatever the Senate parliamentarian says goes.

I think most of the immigration reform provisions will get cut by that. I also think one thing that wasn't mentioned in that tweet, but I went and checked, at least some or all of the PRO Act is included in this. That's another one that is probably going to get axed by the parliamentarian. Yes, so there's ample evidence that this is the beginning of the negotiation. But, you know, that does raise the bigger point of if this is the beginning of the negotiation, and it is, then really you 100% should have kept in the $15 minimum wage, you know. But honestly, what I think Biden's dodge on that is going to be, and just to be clear, this is not something I think is a good dodge. It's not something I think is fair. I think it's totally messed up. But he's going to say,

I did all I could because I single-handedly through an executive order raised the federal minimum wage for contractors who work with the federal government and for just federal government employees and workers. And even for tipped workers, he raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour through executive order. So he's going to say, look, I've shown my commitment to it. What am I going to do? It's the Senate parliamentarian. It's the seven or eight Democrats.

He's going to make it seem like he doesn't have the ability, Lyndon B. Johnson style or FDR style, to put pressure on the ones who are against it and actually wage a campaign on that front. The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was under George W. Bush. How sad is that? So yes, let me echo your point here because I think you're 100% correct. If this gets through as it is, oh my God, I'd be doing cartwheels in the streets because there's so many good things in here. My general rule on this, and granted this is arbitrary, this is just my view on it and people are free to disagree, but I think that if they can negotiate a bill that's over $2 trillion and keeps in a lot of these solid provisions, I'll be happy. I think if you drop under that $2 trillion number, then the progressives will have really gotten hosed.

Or I shouldn't even say the progressives. The non-corporatists inside the party will have really gotten hosed. Or I shouldn't even say the progressives. The non-corporatists inside the party will have really gotten hosed. Well, not even the working class people of the country who need these provisions in order to have a decent life. That's the real ballgame here rather than a left-right thing. Well, no, correct. But my point is that they are going to be the ones who are fighting for the better provisions to stay in it.

And so that's my line. I know it's rather arbitrary, but you have to have some sort of standard by which you judge this. And so I hope it's over $2 trillion. What do you expect? What do you think is actually going to end up happening? Do you think it's going to be under $2 trillion? And what do you think gets cut out? I really am not sure.

And I guess I do look at it a little bit differently. I'd have to judge it like which programs got left on the cutting room floor and which ones remained because, you know, it has become clear as day that we cannot dither any longer in dealing with climate. And I do think that those provisions are some of the most in danger in terms of actually making it in. It's in part because, like I just said, the Natural Resources Committee is headed by Joe Manchin. He's already expressed a lot of skepticism about the climate change provisions that have been discussed. But also the other challenge here is that these, again, are some of the things that could get axed by the parliamentarian. The big marquee policy that they're pushing here is a renewable energy standard. Well, that would almost certainly get axed by the Senate parliamentarian. So they're leaving it to

Manchin and his committee to figure out a way to sort of collude something that would have the effect of a renewable energy standard through, you know, an incentive structure, tax incentive structure, something like that. So how well will he write those rules? Will it actually pass muster and scrutiny with the parliamentarian? Those are the pieces that I'm probably most concerned about. So if you had all of these other, it's really tough because there's so many things in here that would really help people, right? Paid family and medical leave. I mean, two years free community college. You think about even just the dental hearing and vision expansion, Medicare. That's a, you know,

my dad struggles with his hearing. Like, that's a huge quality of life thing. And hearing aids are not cheap, you know. So, these are real tangible benefits that would improve the lives of millions of people. So, I think I'll just have to judge it on its merits when we learn the final details here. But the piece I'm most concerned about is how strong the climate provisions actually are. That's the piece that got stripped out of the infrastructure bill, you know, the bipartisan effort. Most of the climate change, most of the sort of like transformational climate change provisions were taken out of that. They were punted to the reconciliation bill. And a lot of that has to go through Manchin's committee. And then you also

have the other piece that they're talking about with climate is the conservation corps that would create burning sand, hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people in renewable green energy, which is awesome. But all the experts are saying the most transformational potential provision there is this renewable energy standard. So we have to see how that ultimately is crafted. Yeah. I guess my final point on this would be, for the love of God, when they end up leaving stuff out, because they're going to leave stuff out, just don't lie to us about why it's getting left out. And I think that frustrates me. Oh, they're going to.

Oh, of course. And that's the thing that frustrates me the most. Like we always talk about with the parliamentarian. It's like the parliamentarian has ruled or decreed. And it's like, they're a staffer. They give an advisory opinion. They don't have the ability to rule or decree. You're just hiding behind that.

You know what I mean? So I don't want them to lie to us about it. They're going to end up lying to us about it. Well, and I think the other piece that we know that they're going to attack, and I keep saying this, but I think it's really important because that Exxon lobbyist gave up the game of what their strategy is. Right, yeah. Is they're going to go after, like, they've set this arbitrary standard of it must be paid for.

Yes. And then they attack the pay-fors and offer no alternative. So, oh, we can't raise taxes on people that much. We can't raise taxes on corporations that much. And so that inherently pairs back the size and scope of the bill. So I think we're going to see some of that too, which isn't, it is in part about those taxes, but it's more a way to avoid saying, hey, we're not going to give people a universal pre-K when it's an incredibly popular program. It's a way for them to have to avoid making the case against programs that they don't want to see, but which are dramatically popular. It's not discussing the merit of the issue in question. It's basically hiding behind more procedural nonsense, dodging, and so that's annoying. Yeah.

And also, let's just be honest about what happened with Schumer here, because I believe it was Ryan Grimm who reported not too long ago that Chuck Schumer was working on getting that $15 minimum wage into the next reconciliation bill. And then you find here, not true. Forgot about that. Yeah. That's the worst part, of course, is the $15 minimum wage getting left out. But if it gets through as is, I'll take it. If some provisions are stripped out, but it's still overwhelmingly good, I'll take it. But cross your fingers because I don't know if that's going to happen. Yeah, well, and I do also want to say that there is zero doubt the package would not be this good if it wasn't Bernie Sanders, who was chair of the Budget Committee right now. Yes, totally.

And so, look, we'll wait to, you know, see what the final analysis is and what ends up ultimately making it through the reconciliation process, which is lengthy. And what they're doing, just so you know, in the Senate this week, there will be a vote on this budget resolution, which says basically, broadly, here are the buckets of money. Here are the instructions to the committees of what you're supposed to do with this money. And then it gets punted to the various committees to actually write up specifically what's going to happen. And then there's more votes. And then it goes to the House and they have to, that's why it's called reconciliation, they have to reconcile their own version. So it's a long process that kicks off this week. But the vote this week, just on the budget resolution, or at least it's supposed to happen this week, on the budget resolution will

give us a significant sign of what the ultimate price tag and kind of outlines of the program is going to be. So that's where we are. Yes. Kyle, you also were looking at some comments from Senator Josh Hawley on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That's right. So let's jump into it here. Senator Josh Hawley, he commented on this Biden infrastructure deal. Let's see what he had to say. It's not really about infrastructure at all. It's about woke politics. Why is President Biden so enthusiastically for it? Because it advances his far left agenda. The Green New Deal, elements of it across this bill, the climate change agenda, it's stuffed into this bill, quotas for this, that, and the other in this bill. So this is a bill that is about the woke political agenda of

the left. It is being paid for with this massive pork barrel spending. And I just hope Republicans will open their eyes to what's actually in the bill. You know, when you get a bill this late in the process, this 2,700 plus pages long, sometimes it's tempting not to actually look and see what's in the bill. Folks actually look and see what's in the bill. Folks should look and see what's in this bill. I think it's going to be awfully hard to explain to Republican voters that we have gone along or some Republicans have gone along with this kind of an agenda, this sort of a social agenda, this kind of pork barrel spending. And so I think it's absolutely vital that Republicans take a principled stand and say, we're not going to be part of Joe Biden's left-wing agenda. We're

not going to advance his woke political agenda. We're going to stand up for the principles that we share and believe in as Americans. We're going to stand up for some basic fiscal responsibility. And for those reasons, we're going to vote no on this bill. Thanks for having me. Basic fiscal responsibility, Kyle. So he says this is, you know, this is woke politics and this is Biden Thanks for having me. Basic fiscal responsibility, Kyle. So he says this is, you know, this is woke politics and this is Biden's far left agenda. Well, listen, I'm going to tell you guys exactly what's in the bill. We have $110 billion in new funds for roads and bridges, $39 billion for public transit, $66 billion in rail, $42 billion on ports and airports,

$65 billion with a goal of providing broadband internet to all Americans. $7.5 billion into a national network of electric vehicle chargers. $7.5 billion towards electrifying buses and ferries. $28 billion on power grid infrastructure. $46 billion to mitigate damage from floods, wildfires, and droughts. $55 billion on clean water infrastructure, particularly to eliminate lead pipes and other dangerous chemicals that are in today's service lines. $21 billion to clean up Superfund sites and mines.

I'm just giving you guys a little sampling here. But the bottom line is, the point is, this is as traditional an infrastructure bill as you could get. And allow me to say, the bill had actually gotten better over time. Because I remember originally there were some questionable things in there that were effectively regressive taxes on working class people that I oppose. That's right. And then over time, a lot of this stuff was stripped out and a lot of this stuff got better. So we're talking about as traditional an infrastructure bill as you can possibly get.

And this guy, who likes to embrace the idea that he's a populist, now says this. And in fact, let me go ahead and show this tweet that he said. He said this not too long ago, by the way. So Hawley said, Republicans in Washington are going to have a very hard time processing this, but the future is clear. We must be a working class party, not a Wall Street party. Well, if you actually were for the working class, infrastructure would be top of the list, but it's not. Yeah, I mean, it's just so silly. Like, he doesn't say one substantive thing in there about what he actually opposes in the infrastructure bill.

Like, okay, if you got issues with it, lay it out. Tell us what they are. Instead, he's just like, it's woke and Biden's far left agenda, which is just so completely laughable. And this is the dude who was previously painting himself as like populist. I would think different on economics. And now he sounds exactly like Tea Party rhetoric talking about pork barrel spending and we need to be fiscally responsible, by the way, the same, you know, people who all voted for the gigantic corporate tax cuts under the Trump administration. And he just layers on top of like standard issue Tea Party rhetoric saying woke a bunch of times as if that's an argument. Okay. So to your point, you're on the left. I'm on the left. You're very critical of wokeness

and cancel culture and things of that nature. I're very critical of wokeness and cancel culture and things of that nature. I'm very critical of wokeness and cancel culture and things of that nature. When I think of wokeness, I think of like identity stuff or banning speakers from college campuses or joke policing. There's nothing remotely woke about an infrastructure bill. They're not like telling you what pronouns to use with your bridge or whatever. Exactly. So to your point, they just sort of throw the buzzwords out there and say, It's woke. It's bad.

No pun intended. It's a Trump card. I win the debate because I said you're woke. It's so disingenuous. And I also want to go ahead and let everybody know, listen, Josh Hawley, yes, he was for the $2,000 checks, which is something I gave him massive credit on because that's not something you see from many other Republicans.

It was basically him and Trump and then a handful in the House who were for it on the right. But listen, this is a guy who is also for so-called right-to-work legislation. And right-to-work is really right-to-work for less because non-union states make 11% less than union states. He was against that $15 minimum wage vote when it came up recently in the Senate. He's against the PRO Act. In 2018, he was for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Like, you can't say— This guy's just totally a hollow shapeshifter. That's exactly right. Like, it's all just about political ambition. And there was a—he had a test case that he ran back in December and January. In December, he was there with Bernie pushing for the checks,

and he got all kinds of shit from Republicans for that. Did not have a gigantic fundraising boon from fighting for something that was actually good. Then January 6th happens, and he's out there pictured with his fist in the air. Yeah, go on. Insurrectionist and storm the Capitol, raises millions of dollars. And much, you know, his esteem and his clout within the Republican base is much lifted from that one moment. We have this Axios tear sheet that we can put up there that spells out the numbers. individual donations shot up 3,552% based on his abhorrent behavior on January 6th and totally like shameless and embarrassing way that he conducted himself. They have other people here. Ted Cruz, who also was terrible, 832% increase. Matt Gates, 752% increase. But Hawley was the real winner here, 3,552% increase compared to the first six

months of the 2019 cycle. The other people who have had huge fundraising boons are like the Liz Cheney's of the world who are like famous on the other side of this and are getting all kinds of like resistance liberal money. People who didn't distinguish themselves in terms of stop this deal in January 6th basically flatlined. And this guy, Doug Hay, who's like, I think he's like a Republican strategist type, but he had a good quote. He said, it's not an exaggeration to say that one picture, the fist in the air, shameful picture is worth a million dollars. So he ran this test case. Let me try doing the $2,000 checks and see how that works out for me. It was, you know, challenging for him within the party.

He got no fundraising bump. Then he does what he did on January 6th. And this is massively successful for him. So ever since then, he's decided like culture war all day long. This is who I am. Let me just say woke a million times. Let me hug Trump as closely as I possibly can because this is clearly the most effective path for me

to achieve my political ambition, which is ultimately what this totally vapid and hollow person is all about. It's pathetic. It's vapid. It's non-substantive. And there's one other thing I really take issue with that he said there. He called out Biden's, quote, far left agenda. And this is something that really annoys me because I am very, very, very critical of Biden.

Some would even say unfair. I totally disagree. Obviously, I think I'm fair, but I'm very critical of Biden. But you have to be honest about Biden's record and who he is and what he's done and what he stands for. This is a guy who supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq War and NAFTA and the crime bill and the bankruptcy bill. On no planet is he far left. And so you could say, hey, he's a huge corporatist and he's a huge sellout. And so here's why I don't like him for factual reasons. But you can't just say he's, quote, far left and use that to attack him. So that really gets under my skin as well.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, this is like the idea that Joe Biden is woke is hilarious, right? I mean, it's just like this guy is seconds away from making an ethnic slur at any moment, right? I mean, what did he say about the, he said about 7-Eleven, something like that. It's always the Indians, one of those things you know i'm saying the idea is like some woke mob type of president is so

ridiculous there's a dude that when when activists were saying defund the police he put out an op-ed saying we're gonna increase funding to the police that was his response so it doesn't land or fit at all and i think that i actually think that they kind of know that. It hasn't worked for them, turning him into this, like, woke, far-left villain. But they're going to keep trying because they don't really have anything else to do. political calculation coming into the midterms because of a couple things. Because Democrats have gotten bogged down in this wanting to do this stupid bipartisan thing rather than just actually executing and getting things done and delivered for the American people so they have tangible results in their hands. So that. And then you have, you know, a Republican base that is really agitated and angry and fired up.

And the third factor is that Democrats knew that if they were going to defy history and hold on to power during the midterms, that they were going to have to do redistricting reform. But they're not going to do it because they don't want to get rid of the filibuster. So they've essentially hamstrung themselves. And I think they're pretty screwed in the midterms, frankly, even though the Republicans are absurd and silly and ridiculous and don't make a single coherent argument about anything. Yes, the Republicans are all in on the culture war and they're really repping those arguments. And the Democrats are all in on, let me not brag about any of the good things I did and let me not push for very many other good things. And so if you're not going to brag about the good things you did and you're not going to very vocally push for other economic good things, well, then, you know, the culture war argument

can effectively win out because at least they're offering something, whereas the Democrats are offering utter silence. And the Democrats, we learned recently, they are planning to run as Joe Biden Democrats because Joe Biden has a higher approval rating than Democrats in Congress, the Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate. But what they don't realize is that Biden's dropped like 10 points since he's been in office. So like you're hugging a sinking ship. That's a weird analogy, but you're latching yourself onto a sinking ship. Seems like a bad idea to do that though. Yes, it is. So yeah, this will, even though it's sad, even though it's

pathetic, unfortunately, because the Democrats are really pathetic at, you know, marketing and making their arguments. Yes, it does have a chance of working. And I just want to say, when I think of woke Joe Biden, I giggle at the thought of Joe Biden, like dyeing his hair pink, being like, my pronouns are Z now. Like imagine, that's what it was. You said woke Joe Biden. That's what I think of. Biden with pink hair. Yeah, I mean, actually,

one of the better qualities of Joe Biden is that he doesn't bite on every single, like, culture war outrage. That is one of the reasons why he won the primary. It's one of the reasons why he won the election. It's one of the reasons why he's been as popular as he has been able to maintain up to this point. Why he's way more popular than Kamala Harris, for example. It is that is actually one of his better qualities. And I just think you're going to have a hard time convincing the

public that the problem with Joe Biden is that he's too woke. That one's that one's just not going to really land with folks. Hey, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was? Well, here we are again to remind you that becoming a premium member means you don't have to listen to our constant pleas for you to subscribe. So what are you waiting for? Become a premium member today by going to breakingpoints.com, which you can click on in the show notes. At the same time, we really want to get to some of the details from this really shocking and disturbing report from the UN about climate change. This is from the UN's climate panel. It's called the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And they're calling this a code red for humanity. So to give you a few of the details from the CNBC report, they are warning that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or even 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is going to be beyond reach in the next two decades without immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Now, 1.5 degrees Celsius, that is the sort of threshold that scientists have long identified as a major tipping point beyond which it becomes very difficult, beyond which you have irreversible damage that continues for potentially centuries. And that is going to make life very difficult for a lot of people around the world and make some parts of the globe, frankly, unlivable. So they're saying, basically, we're already effectively there. And then at two degrees Celsius of global warming, the report says that heat extremes would often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health. Of course, this comes on the heels of, we've all been seeing, my God, these fires

everywhere around the world. You have the coldest place on earth that was on fire. You've had droughts. You've had, we saw the flooding in Europe. Just this complete cavalcade of extreme weather events, one after another after another, that if that hasn't convinced you that we have to do something, that we have to act now, even if you, you know, yes, sure, China is part of the problem too, but we also are a big part of the problem here and we have to be able to do what we can that is within our control. So I also read the New York Times summary, had a good summary of the report as well. And they said that the world, this report finds, has already warmed about 1.1

degrees Celsius. It concludes that humans have put so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This warming will continue until at least mid-century, even if nations take immediate steps to act. So the effects that we're seeing now, the droughts, the heat waves, the catastrophic downpours and flooding, those are going to continue to get worse for at least the next 30 years, even if we act in an extreme way today. So some of these things have taken on a life of their own. Some other impacts will continue for even longer. The ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica will continue to melt at least through the end of the century, and global sea levels will continue to rise for at least 2,000 years.

So the report does not talk about specifics in terms of what nations should do with this information. However, there are two big takeaways. One, a lot of damage is already done. And in a lot of ways, you know, the terrible things we're going to see that we're seeing now are going to continue no matter what action we can take. But that does not mean that we should not take action because the report lays out five different potential climate futures, depending on how much we're able to limit greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide pollution, and keep that temperature range under control, it's the difference between, you know, vast swaths of the planet being unrecognizable and unlivable and being in a place where it's not great no matter what we do, but we can manage and potentially get through this in a way that doesn't destroy civilization. So that's where we are.

Yeah, absolutely devastating. The thing that haunts me is that every single time we hear from the scientists, they say, yeah, it looks like it's worse than the worst case scenario that we thought five years ago or 10 years ago. And, you know, I'm no genius, but if every single time you revisit it, it's worse than the worst case scenario, bit of a trend there, and that's something to really fear. Now, do we have the video of the fire that we wanted to show everybody yeah let's take a look at this because this is really apocalyptic people fleeing um an island in greece from wildfires that you can see in the background i mean it does it just looks absolutely apocalyptic and at the same time right now

the dixie fire in northern california is that state's second largest wildfire in history. The smoke from that is so intense that it's reaching places and impacting places as far away as your home in New York City. That's right. I'll tell that story. So, you know, these fires, the droughts, the flooding, all of this, this isn't one off. Oh, there are climate, you know, things happen in the weather and the wildfires aren't new. I get that a lot. Like, oh, there were never wildfires before. What are you talking about? Well, these scientists are saying the amount and the intensity of all of these things would not be possible without climate change. And I was just reading as well, Seattle, which normally has very temperate and rainy,

almost rainforest climate, are in for another triple-digit heat wave, unprecedented, after they just had multiple other record-breaking heat waves. So this is the cycle that we're in. And the failure to act to this point has already created devastating consequences. The best we can do is keep it from getting even worse than the track that we're already on. So to your point, Seattle was a lot more like Phoenix there for a while. I think they hit 115 degrees. Insane. It was so hot that some of the roads were buckling. Right. And a lot of people there don't even have air conditioning. That's right.

Because Seattle is not supposed to be 100 degrees. I think it's over 50%. That's what I read. It was some freakishly high number that I couldn't believe. I mean, yes, so it's absolutely scary. People died as a result of it. The thing you said about New York, yeah, it was a very strange experience because usually this time of year in New York, it's sunny all the time. And, you know, there was like four or five days there where it was just,

it's not like anything I've ever seen because it clearly wasn't cloudy. It was just like really hazy. And then come to find out, yeah, this is the smoke from the giant wildfires out west that made its way all the way across the U.S. and parked itself over New York for days. And I was like, this is crazy. I've never seen anything like this before. And there's a few facts that I think are underreported, which really might help move the needle a little bit in a climate change discussion.

But I remember a few years ago reading an article about how the Middle East at some point is going to become uninhabitable. And that some point is actually rather soon, relatively speaking. By 2100, it could be uninhabitable. And then guess what, guys? When you have a Middle East that's uninhabitable, you're going to have a giant immigration crisis, the likes of which we've never seen before, that you can't compare just the Syria and the Iraq situation. To this, it would be far, far worse than that.

And then, of course, we've discussed the wet bulb temperatures before, where, you know, there's a temperature where it's uninhabitable for people to live that involves not just the dry heat, but it's humid heat. And that, I remember being surprised that number was actually lower than I thought. Wasn't it like 88 degrees with humidity above 90% or something like that? Something like that. Yeah. And so there are going to be a number of places that basically uninhabitable, but I do want to give everybody a little bit of hope, even though it seems we sound really grim and pessimistic because there is a way to look at this that is positive. And the way to look at this positive is, take the Great Depression, for example.

Really, ultimately, FDR viewed that as an opportunity, an opportunity to remake the country, do a new, new deal and you basically retool our economy and go 100% in the direction of renewable energy, then you absolutely can have the inevitable patents for the next generation. So this can be a giant boon to America and American industry and working people. We just have to dedicate ourselves to that path and really invest in that path and basically take lemons and turn them into lemonade. Because if we could use this towards, you know, a brighter future, towards people working, towards retooling our economy for positive ends, honestly, then it really is an opportunity. And that's the only silver lining I could think of. But if we don't decide to go down that path, we're screwed. Yeah.

No, I mean, that's it. And that was the real innovation of the framework of the Green New Deal. First of all, framing it in those New Deal terms and also leading with job creation and making sure that, you know, it's not what the typical tension of like, oh, well, you're going to fight climate change and I'm not going to be able to feed my family. Right. You're going to ruin jobs. Sorry. I'm focusing on my family and future generations. Good luck to you. Of course, that's been, you know, vilified, demonized, not just by Republicans, by the way, but actually I think Democrats have been far more effective at demonizing Green New Deal and taking

that off the table than Republicans have been able to. I mean, there's a few things that I think. First of all, it just makes it absolutely clear what complete evil villains these fossil fuel companies have been that have hide the science and lied about the science and continue to lie and obfuscate and try to convince people that there's going to be this miracle technological solution that we'll be able to keep doing everything as we are. We're just going to come up with this, you know, miracle technology that makes all these problems go away so that we can keep making our profits the way that we have been. And you guys don't have to change your behavior

and any of that. So that's one piece. But the other thing to your point about, you know, a sort of New Deal style or World War II style mobilization, which is what we hear, the rhetoric we hear from politicians all the time, including Joe Biden, is like, we got to have a World War II mobilization. We got to act. I saw he tweeted something yesterday like, the world can't wait. We've got to act. Yeah, you are the most powerful person on the planet. And the Gravel Institute actually tweeted this like, dude, you're the president of the United States. You are the most powerful man on the planet. And the Gravel Institute actually tweeted this, like, dude, you're the president of the United States. You are the most powerful man on the planet. If someone is not acting, that someone is you. And as we were discussing earlier, imagine the insanity

of saying, and maybe actually believing, this is a red alert for humanity. We need a World War II style mobilization. And then being like, but if the parliamentarian says no, well, maybe next time. I mean, that's insane. That is truly insane. But the unfortunate part of the problem with climate change is it's not an issue that our political system, or apparently any political system really, though some countries do a lot better job than we do, is set up to handle well. Because when there's a clear, like, a villain or a clear and present danger that's going to, you know, threatening life, like, tomorrow instantaneously, we generally at least used to know how to get our act together and mobilize and deal with that threat, whatever the cost, and rearrange society and impose burdens on some people in order to be able to get that done. But when it's this slow-moving crisis where it's amorphous and there's not one clear villain that you can say, that's the bad guy and let's all rally around the flag and go out and get him,

it's very, very difficult to get people to actually respond because everyone's living in this denial of like, my family is ultimately going to be okay. You know, everybody's living in this denial of not really having the imagination to understand what, like you said, with the potential massive migration flows and the way that that could upend politics and create war and catastrophe and, I mean, just the most like civilizational dire consequences that you can possibly imagine. So that's why there's just been, and you couple that with, like I said before, the fossil fuel industry being the worst actors possible and plenty of politicians, all of the Republicans, and plenty

of the Democrats as well, doing the bidding of those companies at the expense of, you know, the best interests of the country and the planet. And you end up with the situation that we're in right now, where even in the best of circumstances, if we act today, if we implemented the entire Green New Deal today and, like, took dramatic steps that aren't even on the table now with what Joe Biden is saying, you still have at least 30 more years of the type of events we've been having getting worse and worse and worse. So I have a lot to say about that. First of all, I do put a little bit of the blame when it comes to the issue of the Green New Deal. I actually do put it on some of the people who crafted it because it should have been very targeted and specific and focused as a new New Deal with an emphasis on jobs programs.

And those jobs programs really are in the spirit of and in the vein of and in the direction of green technology, renewable technology, reworking our energy grid, so on and so forth. And unfortunately, it really did become this grab bag of every single left-wing idea that you could think of that really had nothing to do with the original idea of a Green New Deal or a New New Deal. So I do put some of the blame on them. But really, I mean, just go back to the drawing board and start pushing it as what I'm talking about and what you're talking about. And then, yeah, maybe the conversation will change. But unfortunately, I do think they messed that up. You made a good point. I do think that human nature, there's something in human nature where we can't conceive of a threat that long term.

So everybody just defaults to, well, I'm okay now and my family's going to be okay and so we're going to handle it. But since it's so far out, it's like people feel like, ah, this isn't all that tangible because we have all these more pressing issues. And that's a flaw in human nature. I think it really is. And then the final thing is, to your point about big oil, I actually think it's worse than that. I don't think they're like colossal immoral actors. I actually think big oil is amoral because the whole point of being a corporation is that you're an amoral machine and all you're trying to do is maximize profits for your shareholders. So what they end up doing is the logical thing in the context of the current system,

which is by the entire Republican Party, by some of the Democrats, enough of the Democrats, and all you have to do in order to win this debate and this discussion on climate change is raise doubt. Because as long as there's some doubt, even if it's just 5% doubt, well, that 5% doubt is going to stop you from acting and doing anything giant, which is what needs to be done in order to address this. Right. And so that's why, and you could, this is directly from the fossil fuel industry themselves, with all like the pseudo-intellectuals that they buy to raise doubt on this stuff. Yeah.

And now they've even gotten to the point where they've given up on arguing the merits of it. They used to say, oh, it's not real. Then it became, oh, climate change is real, but there's nothing we can do about it. And now it's just, well, the procedures don't allow us to address it in any serious, substantive way. So the procedures are what they are. The laws are what they are. What are we going to do?

So they keep moving the goalposts. But, yeah, hopefully, you just hope that at some point there is no more doubt and we can really act in a serious way. Yeah, their strategy now is to, number one, back solutions that they know have zero chance of politically passing. And again, this all comes from this ExxonMobil lobbyist. And that conversation was incredibly revealing that was leaked from an environmental activist group in the UK. Number one, back solutions so you can cloak yourself in like, oh, of course we care about climate change and the planet, et cetera, et cetera. Solutions that you know are never going to happen and technologies that are like miracle, you know, silver bullet type technologies

that like I was saying before, would just allow you to continue to operate. But that's the sort of thing also that forestalls action because if you put that out there of like, oh, we're going to be able to, you know, have this thing and we're inventing it right now as we speak and we're putting all kinds of money towards it. So don't worry guys, it's going to be good to go. That's another way

of forestalling action. The last piece I wanted to add to this, just to show you the distance between the Biden administration's rhetoric and what they're actually doing is a great piece from TNR talking about really laying out a framework that I think is important, which fits into the conversation that we're having that like, okay, not this point. Most people accept the science is real, the climate is changing, and this is a problem. The new form of denialism is basically throwing up all the roadblocks for why you can't take action or creating, you know, the most limited, like, greenwashing action of all time in order to just sort of like cloak yourself and, yeah, I care and I'm doing something about it and we can move on to the next issue. If we can throw that tear sheet up on the

screen from the New Republic about Biden. And so what the Biden administration, one of the big things that they've been focused on and emphasizing is a move to electric vehicles. And it's at the core of their climate agenda. And they write here, this is Kate Aronoff, she writes, their thinking is that with the right incentives, the U.S. can transform a historically important sector into an engine of green job creation and decarbonization. All sounds great, right? So what have they actually done in terms of sparking this electric vehicle revolution, which again, on its own, wouldn't even be sufficient, but sure, step in the right direction.

They announced they'd reached a non-binding deal with the country's biggest automakers that half their new vehicles would be electric plug-in or hybrid by 2030. That target falls short of what the car companies themselves had previously pledged. The funding for achieving the goal is next to nothing. They're dramatically behind competitors like China, for example, that gets held down as like, oh, we can't really do anything because China's terrible. So it just shows you that for

all of their language about taking this seriously and how much they care, the thing that they did on electric vehicles, the core of what they are talking about with regards to climate, is a non-binding pledge that the automakers themselves had already voluntarily pledged to go beyond. So it's pathetic. That's all I can say is it's pathetic. That deal is like Joe Biden and the corporate Democrats summed up in a nutshell. It totally is. Yeah, it totally is. But they'll go out and say, oh, we're a historic deal and never before in the history of the nation.

It's practically like FDR. And that's the reality of what they're doing. Yeah, so your options are that deal or somebody who's like, none of this is real bullshit. Yeah, I mean, it's better than what Trump was doing. Trump was actively like, let's pollute as much as possible.

Let's cut down all the forests. Let's drill everywhere we can. So it's better, I guess. But it's so radically below. Damning with faint praise. Yeah. Tallest kid in kindergarten type stuff. Exactly. I mean, radically. And that's what this report spells out, is how radically below where we need to be. Even the most ambitious proposals of the Biden administration are at this point. Sad.

Indeed. Interesting comments from AOC that we wanted to touch on. Yeah. So let's jump into that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing this new CNN show. I think it's called Being AOC, which is- It's kind of cringey. It's the most cringey thing I've ever heard in my life. That's not her fault. That's CNN's fault, but it's cringey nonetheless. Yeah, but you have to know that CNN's ratings are abysmal and nobody likes them. And like you have Chris Cuomo with the thing going on with Andrew Cuomo. And you got Brian Stelter like awkwardly pretending to go after them while covering for them.

They got all these terrible things going on. And, you know, this weird marriage made in unpopular heaven right now between AOC and CNN. It's just strange being AOC. It sounds so narcissistic and self-absorbed. So anyway, for whatever reason she agreed to do it, I don't know if she knew the name beforehand or not, but being AOC, Dana, I think is how you say her name, not Dana?

Yeah, Dana Bash interviewed her, and she's going to say something interesting here in regards to whether or not she's going to primary Chuck Schumer. Are you going to challenge Senator Schumer in a primary race? You know, here's the thing, is that, and I know it drives everybody nuts, but the way that I really feel about this and the way that I really approach my politics and my political career is that I do not look at things and I do not set my course positionally. And I know there's a lot of people who do not believe that, but I really, I can't operate the way that I operate

and do the things that I do in politics while trying to be aspiring to other things or calculating to other things. And so all that is to say is that I make decisions based on what I think our people need and my community needs. And so I'm not commenting on that so the thing that annoys me about this is if you're going to be honest and up front

and answer it in a straightforward way you have to start with either yes, no, or I don't know so you should start with either yes, no, or I don't know and then you can give your answer but she jumps right into that answer which, I'm sorry, strikes me as like the most political answer of all time even though she's trying to pretend like I'm nothing but a

straight shooter and I don't do politics. And that really frustrates me. I hate not getting a direct answer from politicians. That wasn't even close to a direct answer. And it's also just really smug because I think she really thinks that she's like nailing it and giving a direct answer. She said, I do not look at things and set my course positionally. I can't operate the way I operate in politics while trying to be aspiring to other things or calculating to other things. I make decisions based on what I think our people need. And the other thing that frustrates me about that is, listen, I hate to beat a dead horse and bring this up because even I'm sick of the dialogue at this point on this particular issue, but people were asking her, hey, can you do force the vote to try to force a vote on Medicare for all? Her response was no, because I want to keep my powder dry for

forcing a vote on something we have a chance of winning, like the $15 minimum wage. And then the $15 minimum wage fight came up and she didn't fight. So don't tell me that you're doing, I make decisions based on what I think our people need. That's not true. And then also there was the scandal recently where she was caught giving a lot of money that she fundraised to these terrible corporate Democrats. Remember that? Yeah, they didn't even want the money. It was the saddest thing. Exactly. They didn't even want the money because it was associated with her. So tell me again how you make decisions based on what you think our people need. If you're donating to these establishment corporate Democrats who are

hacks, then no, what you're saying is I support them over any potential left-wing challenger who may come up against them. Now, she still did the right thing on Nina Turner. She's done the right thing. She backed Bernie. So I don't want to make it seem like it's all terrible because that wouldn't be fair and that wouldn't be true. But no, I think you're immensely political, AOC. I think you're immensely political. And when she backed Bernie, I mean, it was literally when he was in his hospital bed. And, you know, it was at his lowest moment. And so a lot of credit for doing that. And we've seen the way that other politicians act. So I do think that's important out of the conversation. But, you know, it's funny in her response, which I agree with you, it's sort of, it's an interesting case study in the way that younger politicians speak in a typical politician kind of way.

Right. Because there's different jargon. There's a kind of like feigned vulnerability or, you know, I'm confiding in you. Feigned vulnerability, right. Yeah, I mean, that's what it feels like is I'm really going to like pour my heart out here and use this sort of jargony words like positional or whatever she said there. But ultimately, the end state is the same as the typical politician dodge, which is that we don't really have any greater insight. And you took a lot of time and used a lot of words to basically say, like, eh, we'll see, you know? Yeah. But I also think contained in this incident is a really important lesson about how much power she and others in the squad and other left open the door to potentially primary Chuck Schumer appears to have had an impact on Chuck Schumer. have to worry about your left flank, that's going to change how not only can we change the members of Congress and the people who are actually there, but it can also change the behavior of some of the members who were in Congress. Ed Markey is another good example of this. Since he got reelected from

based on like a left wing coalition, some of his behavior in the Senate has actually gotten better because now that's his constituency. Those are the people who put him there. And so they have power with him. So with Schumer, the most notable thing, and we can put this tear sheet I think we have up on the screen here, is he really made a big and loud fuss with Elizabeth Warren about not just, we don't just need a student debt freeze. We actually need cancellation of $50,000. And, you know, that's a shift in position for him. That's significant that someone with as much power as him is willing to be critical, really, here of the Biden administration and call for them to do more. Now, maybe just theatrical, because ultimately,

what are you doing to try to force that issue and get things done? But even the fact of him making that case shows that there is a lot of power that AOC and others could wield. And even with these sort of squishy answers has forced his hand in certain ways. I think one of the reasons why this annoys me so much is that when I co-founded Justice Democrats, my conception of it was a lefty party, effectively. And part and parcel of that is like, I want you to make enemies of the media. I want you to make enemies of Republican leadership. I want you to make enemies of Democratic leadership. And to see what CNN is doing, it's like they're sort of doing a puff piece on her. And, you know, I want you to understand and recognize and acknowledge that CNN actually

is the enemy because they do not cover the serious stories that the American people need to hear. They are taking a tremendous amount of money from every special interest group you could think of, whether it's Big Pharma or the health insurance companies. I mean, even on some of these networks, they have like Lockheed Martin commercials running on like the Sunday shows and stuff. And they're not doing that because they're trying to sell anything. They're doing that because they want to make sure that the narrative doesn't go too anti-war on some of the shows. So corporate media is terrible. I mean, they're part of the reason the nation is struggling as much as it is.

And for you to sort of get in bed with them and get softball questions, it just reminds me of how much the mission was lost. I didn't want you to go work with Nancy Pelosi and try to play the inside Machiavellian politics game because she's always going to win that game, because she's the master at that game. The only authority and power you had was as an outsider, where you have the bully pulpit. You have so many more Twitter followers and regular people who support you. So why not use your voice and use your power to call out Nancy Pelosi, call out Democratic leadership, use the bottom-up approach of the outsiders are now storming the house, no pun intended to compare to January 6th or anything. But it's not that. It's a puff piece.

And now CNN is warming to her and she's warming to CNN and, you know, obviously she's still trying to work with Nancy Pelosi. This isn't me saying

they never fight because they actually, to be fair to them, to AOC, but more particularly Cori Bush, she fought and she won when it came to

the eviction moratorium when she was sleeping on the Capitol steps. So that's the thing. They have some hope and they're still glimmers of, oh, this is good. But then when I see this, I'm like, this is so frustrating. And she was asked if she would run for president. And her answer was something along the lines of like, well, I don't want to say no because I don't want little girls out there to not aim high. And it's just, if you come across like a smug, arrogant narcissist,

it doesn't matter how many puff pieces they do on you, you're going to get routed even by Chuck Schumer in an election. And that's the saddest thing I could ever think of. Imagine Chuck Schumer beating you in an election. Yeah, well, we saw those. These numbers were a little suspect to me. They were primary numbers that came out in New York with regards to Cuomo and his downfall. And AOC was one of the candidates that they tested against him in a primary, and he smoked her and everybody else. And it was very grim. It was very grim numbers to look at. But again, they're very different from the other poll numbers that we showed you yesterday.

So I'm just going to sort of like wait for the polling to settle in some kind of direction on him because these were polar opposite of what we'd seen before. But, you know, I think you're correct that like you see these glimmers, not just with Cori Bush and the eviction moratorium. So far, the left has held a pretty strong line on reconciliation and the infrastructure bill of like, we are not voting for your infrastructure bill until we have the reconciliation deal. So there's kind of a test going on right at this moment. fact that CNN feels safe like doing this whole series and this very like puffy glossy interview just not that Bernie's perfect either but imagine him doing no he would never and and if they if they did ask him and I could imagine them asking him because he's popular and he rates well and all that stuff but the questions would not be

these like friendly like let's just talk about you kind of a thing and if they did um you and i both interviewed bernie like anytime you try to ask him anything personal he just gets pissed off because he's like this is not about me i know why are you asking about me like let's talk about people who need better wages let's talk about people who need better wages. Let's talk about people who need unions. So it's a very different stylistic approach, needless to say. And I do think it says something that they feel so comfortable with her, that she feels so comfortable with them. And there's nothing adversarial there whatsoever. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez only talked about universal health care, the pro-act and pro-union ideas, $15 minimum wage, free college, eliminating student loan debt, eliminating medical debt, go down the list of all the really substantive, important, serious issues, ending war. If she only talked about those things, the media would hate her.

Democratic leadership would hate her. And we know this because we have the case study of Bernie, like you said, for all those years. Yes, he's a curmudgeonly old guy, and that also leads them to not like him. But also, it is the fact that he's so substantive and he thinks the whole system is bullshit. If AOC was exactly like that, there wouldn't be a CNN puff piece. You know? And I mean, I do think, I don't want to be an asshole, but I do think she does lean too much into the identity stuff, and that makes them feel more comfortable with her. That wasn't the original idea of going there. The original idea of going there was to raise hell and be a lefty party. Like I said, it's not all bad. It's not all wrong.

They did fight on the eviction moratorium. They are fighting on the infrastructure deal. And I genuinely hope they continue doing that. And if they do that, I'll continue doing positive reinforcement. But this stuff is like, this is a good way to get everybody to turn on you. Because like I said, CNN really is not liked.

And a puff piece from the not liked people doesn't make you more liked. Well, let me say this, and this is a little more brutal than I actually intend, but this style of politics turns you basically into Kamala Harris. Yes. Because it becomes like, it's about you. Yeah, right. It's about the voters as a vessel for fulfilling your story and your personal journey rather than about

those core issues. And like I said, that's too harsh. Because as you're pointing out, she's good on the issues. She was there with Corey, the eviction moratorium. She will sometimes criticize occasionally in fleeting instances, Democratic leadership. Hopefully they're going to hold the line on the reconciliation package. But that's the direction of those type of politics where, you know, it's about who you are and your lived experience rather than I'm going to relentlessly focus on delivering for working class people. Right. Yeah. That's all I have to say about it. Yes, indeed. Okay, this is pretty interesting. And this is something you and I have been debating off air that we wanted to kind of flesh out here.

And I think both of us are a little bit like not totally clear on what our positions are. But the U.S. military just announced that they are going to require all servicemen and women to get the COVID vaccine by the fall. I think September 15th is the date. We can throw that tear sheet up on the screen showing that announcement. Yes, Pentagon will seek mandate for vaccination of all active duty military personnel by mid-September. And let me just set this up a little bit and then we can talk about what we think about it. So Mark Milley, General Mark Milley, who's chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he sent out a letter arguing most of his argument was that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is a key force protection and readiness issue. Right. Saying basically like, look, we need our soldiers to be fit and for them to be well and not be stricken with this incredibly infectious disease. So, yeah, we're going to add this to the list of inoculations that our service members must ultimately get. We've also got some numbers about how much of how many of the active duty troops are already vaccinated. It's 70%.

I think we have a terror shoot for this as well from, I think, Military Times. 70% of active duty troops have received at least one shot of a COVID-19 vaccine. That's actually way behind their original goal. They were hoping that the whole force would be vaccinated by mid-July. So they're at 70% with one dose. And I think the number is something like, yeah, so it's just below that. hoping that the whole force would be vaccinated by mid-July. So they're at 70% with one dose. And I think the number is something like, yeah, so it's just below that. About 50, right?

Yeah, it's about, I had the number here. Anyway, it's somewhere around 50% that have gotten both doses and are fully vaccinated. So that's where things ultimately stand. The president, of course, put out a statement in support of this decision and saying, you know, echoing some of those arguments about how this is important, it's safe. We're going to add this to a list of required vaccinations and that we are still on a wartime footing, it says, and every American who's eligible should take immediate steps to get vaccinated. Proud that our military women and men will continue to help lead the charge in the fight against the pandemic, as they often do by setting the example of keeping their fellow Americans safe.

So, Kyle Kalinske, what do you think of all of this? So, I actually am overall very split on it, but it's a weird kind of split, if I don't say so myself, because I feel like there's two separate questions that are going on here. One of the questions is, would this empirically have better outcomes? Would this lead to better outcomes? On that point, I don't think this is arguable. I don't think this is debatable. I think you'd have to deny all the data and all the evidence in order to say the opposite. It would be phenomenal for whoever,

you know, is under a mandatory vaccine because you, again, to even run through this at this point seems silly, but apparently we have to. In the original trials for all the vaccines, whichever, whether it's Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, the one that was overseas from the UK. In the trials for all of them, not a single person was hospitalized or died from COVID. Not a single person. And obviously, by the way, there's a lot of BS on this in the media where they say like, oh, this one's only 66% effective. That number is complete horseshit because the numbers that really matter are, are you protected against hospitalization, severe illness, and death? And when you look at those numbers, every vaccine is over 95%. Yes. So when they say 66%, that just means 66% to keep you from getting COVID. But a lot of those

people who get COVID after they have the vaccine, they have like the sniffles or they're asymptomatic. And so they count that against the vaccine, which I think is psychotic because obviously the vaccine is working. If you have the sniffles, I have to get the vaccine. When otherwise maybe you would have been moderately sick. Maybe you would have been hospitalized. Who knows? Right. So, um, I think the data is overwhelming. We, we know that it was literally a hundred percent of people who died in Maryland two months ago were, um, unvaccinated. So this really is a pandemic of the unvaccinated at this point. Again, you could try to, I'm not saying you will, but people who are listening, you could try to

disagree or try to debate. You're just wrong. The data is overwhelming. So empirically, whoever does a mandatory vaccine, it would have better health outcomes. So my issue is not with that. Where questions arise in my mind is here. There's a problem with the principle of mandating the vaccine because our institutions are phenomenally disliked and untrusted. And you know what? They fucking earned that. They earned it. Whether it's all like the illegal Iraq war that we were lied into or Fauci early on basically lying, saying masks don't work. And then it's like, well, when I said that, what I really meant was I don't want people to go out and buy them now because we need them for the frontline workers. OK, so you fucking lied. You're making that you fucking lied. And so people don't like our institutions for good reason. So for them to say, these same assholes who've been lying to me all along are now going to tell me to do some shit for my own well-being and force

something into my body? Hell the fuck no. And so I hear that and I'm like, yeah, you got a point. Now, this just so happens to be an instance where it's like, yeah, I know they've been wrong a thousand times and I know you shouldn't trust them and you shouldn't and you should be skeptical, but this is a rare instance where they're actually 100% correct that this would help you, so you should probably go get vaccinated. So that's why I struggle with it because empirically it would, it would work. But in, in principle, I really do have an issue with it. So right now, and I'm, you know, I'm loose on this position, but right now I do feel like the best path is sort of this middle path that we're already on where it's like the government is not mandating everybody get a vaccine. Yeah. Right. But you do have these different

institutions in society. So like maybe the business you work for says, hey, in order to work here, you have to have it. Or in order to work in the office, you have to have it. When you, you know, put your kids in school, they have mandatory vaccines in order to go to the school. You have to get the vaccine now that you still have the option. I'm going to homeschool them because I don't want them getting the vaccine. Okay, fair enough. So you have a way out of it. And some states have religious exemptions and other medical exemptions and things like that. I would say if there is a religious exemption, then there should be any ideological exemption.

Because if you're saying, because of my religion, I don't want to take it, that's no different from saying my political ideology makes me not want to take it. So if you're going to exempt that, you should just exempt everybody. But that's sort of my point is this middle path, I actually think is the least bad option of all bad options, because it's like, you actually can not take it, but number one, you should. And number two, it's like almost like a weak mandate where there's a million ways out of it. You know what I'm saying? I do. I think that both of us feel like we have a couple of principles that we hold that are in competition on this. Because I do think I'm not some like, you know, fringe libertarian who thinks you're only responsible for yourself and you have no responsibility to anyone else. I believe in, you know, communitarian principles. I believe in responsibility not only for yourself,

but your community and taking care of those around you and that we exist together in a society and that comes with certain rights and certain responsibilities. So I believe that. just about a government mandate about what you have to put into your body and what sort of medical care and information they're going to claim and enforce upon you. But I also get equally probably nervous about corporations taking that stance and empowering like your HR department is now going to be dictating to you what you need to do medically. I don't really like that either. So I also feel kind of like I have these principles that are butting up against each other on these individual things. And so I think I've looked at this on sort of a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket view one way or the other, like yes to vaccine mandates or no to vaccine mandates.

I'll say specifically with regards to the military, for me, this one is pretty clear, because if you voluntarily decided to join the U.S. military, you have already said, like, basically, I'm giving my body to the U.S. federal government. And you have, you know, you're there with your brothers and sisters who you're supposed to be like not only looking out for yourself, but looking out for them. You may be stationed in places around the world where people don't have access to the vaccine. So you're then, you know, not only endangering yourself, but you're endangering people around you. In this country at this point, if you want to get a vaccine, you can get a vaccine. That is

not the case in most places around the world. So you're endangering people who have no option to be able to protect themselves. So on the military, I do think it's clear, as we both pointed out, they're already required to get certain inoculations. Actually, there's an interesting piece in Time that lays out a little bit of the history here. Apparently, George Washington, in the Revolutionary War, required all of the soldiers in the American Revolution to get the smallpox inoculation because smallpox was killing more of the troops than were dying in battle. So this is literally, there's a tradition and a grounding that goes literally back to the founding of the country

of requiring certain vaccinations and obviously certain medical status, certain physical fitness status of the troops. I think in line with that, this makes all the sense in the world. I also think on things like if you're a nurse in a nursing home, yeah, you've signed up for this job. Like your job is to care for people, to protect yourself, but to protect the people that are around you, especially if you're in that setting, then you're going to have a lot of people who are probably more vulnerable, where even if they are vaccinated, they may have those rare instances of the breakthrough cases that can ultimately be serious.

Or they may be in a position where they're compromised enough where it's risky for them even to get the vaccine. And there were some questions about that. So in those cases as well, when you start to get into just like, you know, I'm a big giant corporation and I want to force my workers back into the office. And so I'm going to mandate this. Then I start to get like, I don't know if I'm down with that. I don't know if I'm comfortable with handing that sort of increasing power, not just to the government, but to these HR departments. So I continue to be kind of split in case-by-case basis on these things.

Yeah, so let me interject because I feel like you are sort of flipping on that principle, though, because if you're saying, well, for the nursing home, you can be forced to take it, and for the military, you can be forced to take it, well, then but it's still the same thing in principle that, you know what I mean? So you're even more split than I am on this, it sounds like, because, you know, I think the largely middle path that we've taken is the correct middle path. But let me just give everybody, so the biggest things I keep coming back to in my own mind that are the most damning points on both sides of this. Yeah. So you already have mandatory vaccines for like measles and smallpox and polio and a bunch of other things for the military, right? So they already have those mandatory vaccines and the people who are flipping out over mandating the COVID vaccine, they haven't said anything about like, well, you should also

stop making us take the measles and smallpox and polio one. So it's like, your issue is only with the COVID one, or are you actually like against vaccines across the board? So that's weird to me. I feel like if we already have it for those other ones, is it really that crazy to just add another one to the list? And also I would say, guys, there's a reason why Donald Trump got this shit ASAP. There's a reason why Joe Biden got it. There's a reason why the elites lined up down the block immediately to get it. And there's a reason why the rather poor countries, it's terrible to say, but it's true, the poor countries haven't really had access to it yet. So there's a direct correlation here between like people who are well off and can get it end up getting it, and they do that because it works. But I digress from that point. The fact that it's already

mandatory for certain things leads me to think like, is this really that much different? But on the flip side of it, the Tuskegee experiments. I know. You know, and Osama bin Laden, when they went to get Osama bin Laden, the U.S. set up, I don't know if it was the CIA or the U.S. military, but they set up a fake vaccination program. And now the vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan is through the roof because they know, hey, last time they said we were getting vaccines, it was just this fake tap dance to try to get Osama bin Laden. So they were lied to and it undermined public health. So again, the institutions have abused their power a million times. You shouldn't trust them.

I can't say it enough. You should be not just skeptical, but cynical about these people. So on the one hand, they shouldn't do it. But then on the other hand, it's like, this is an instance where it would work and it would help you. So it's hard, yeah.

And Tuskegee is important to bring up and it's very real in this dynamic because while the media has only focused on basically like white Republicans, usually men, young men who don't want to get vaccinated. If you look on a if you look by race, the people who are most hesitant are actually black Americans. I wonder why. And so, right. And so some of the neighborhoods that have the lowest vaccination rates are actually overwhelmingly minority urban neighborhoods. Exactly because of Tuskegee and, you know, a million other instances of racism and bad interactions with the American health care system. I also saw, and I think this is very relevant to this whole conversation as well, that there's a significant chunk of people who aren't getting vaccinated because they're afraid that they're going to get charged.

Because every other interaction that they've had with the American healthcare system, even when they go in and it's like, oh, this is something I have to do and it's supposedly going to be free or I'm supposedly covered or whatever, and you come home with a gigantic bill. So again, in this instance, that's So again, in this instance, that's not correct. In this instance, even though even here, there have been some unscrupulous providers who have tried to charge people for the vaccine that should be free, but it is actually free, but you've got a sizable chunk that's like, I don't believe you, and I can't really blame them for that. So one other thing that should be interjected into this conversation is like mostly liberals are very confident in their position that there should be vaccine mandates.

Everybody should be mandated to get a vaccine at your workplace, through the government, through the military, like wherever you are, you should be under a vaccine mandate. Just keep in mind that you are talking about a policy that will disproportionately impact black and brown people. That is the reality of the numbers. And yes, ideologically, if you look, it is conservatives who tend to have the more hard-lying position on these things. And there are plenty of white Republican men who you are happy to demonize and you're totally comfortable forcing them to do whatever. But if you're talking about barring people from workplaces and restaurants and public venues based on vaccination status, you are talking about a policy that disproportionately impacts black and brown people. And I don't hear anyone in the media really wanting to address that because it's much easier to hold the position

if you're just talking about forcing a group of people that you don't like already and that is essentially like foreign to most of your viewing or listening audience to do something. Yeah, and also, I mean, the numbers are what they are as you just laid out, but also, I mean, obviously, anecdotally, I know a zillion lefties who are just because they're so anti-Big Pharma, for good reason, that makes them then skeptical of the vaccine. And so they don't want to take the vaccine. And that's a real phenomenon. And again, you know, all I would say is both things can be true. Big Pharma, they're some of the worst in the country, and they totally bought the government, and they want to keep those

prices high, and they want to price gouge you. And there's been a million examples of the unscrupulous stuff. Like they'll try to get things that get approved through the FDA, but come to find out the thing doesn't work, but they basically bought off the FDA. There's all that stuff. That's all that's totally real. Well, they're doing that shit right now with the boosters trying to persuade them. That's exactly right. They are doing that with the boosters. People have to get the boosters. Yeah. Wow. You guys must really like listening to our voices. Well, I know this is annoying.

Instead of making you listen to a Viagra commercial, when you're done, check out the other podcast I do with Marshall Kosloff called The Realignment. We talk a lot about the deeper issues that are changing, realigning in American society. You always need more Crystal and Saga in your daily lives. Take care, guys. All right, Kyle. For your breaking points today, what are you looking at? A new study from the Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. dead last on the issue of health care in the developed world. The report analyzed 71 health care performance measures under five categories. It includes access to care, the care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. Eleven countries were ranked.

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. This was done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at the WHO. So Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia were the top performing countries overall. Again, the United States came in dead last. The U.S. ranked last on the issue of access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and healthcare outcomes, despite the fact that we spend 17% of GDP on healthcare, roughly double what other countries spend. We only did well in these areas here. Rates of mammography screening and flu vaccination for older adults, as well as the percentage of adults who talked with their physician about nutrition, smoking, and alcohol use.

Those were the only categories. 50% of lower-income Americans said that cost prevented them from receiving care. That would be 0% in every other developed country. 25% of high-income Americans said the same thing. It's really an astounding fact if you think about it. We also had the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy. The U.S. has been in last place, get this, for all seven studies the Commonwealth Fund has done on healthcare systems that they've released since 2004. There's a devastating quote from one of the people

involved in this study. He said, if healthcare were an Olympic sport, the U.S. might not qualify in a competition for high-income nations. So do you get that? It's not that maybe we have a shot at the bronze or the silver or the gold. We wouldn't even qualify. One study has claimed that 62% of bankruptcies in the U.S. were caused by medical issues. Yet again, this is not a category that exists in other developed countries. They have no medical bankruptcies. In the U.S. we have up to 500,000 medical bankruptcies every single year. Now beyond that, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that single-payer health care would save the U.S. 5.1 trillion dollars over a decade. That's right. So single

payer Medicare for all system would save 5.1 trillion over a decade. That's right. So single payer Medicare for all system would save 5.1 trillion over a decade. That's hard to wrap your mind around. But really, when you get rid of the price gouging middlemen, of course, you're going to save money. I haven't seen a single segment about this on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. And in a world that made sense, this would be a giant scandal. It would be a scandal that they talk about for at least a week straight. Giant study we know is credible. And yet again, we're dead last on this issue. Nobody's talking about it. The Democrats aren't talking about it. Joe Biden isn't even pushing for a public option, never mind Medicare for all. And the America First people who want to make us number one on the right haven't said anything about it either.

So where is the hair on fire coverage? Well, you're not getting it and you're not getting it because the media is broken. The reality is this is because a bunch of mediocre morons are hired on those networks. I don't think Wolf Blitzer is all that profound. And honestly, the networks are swimming in cash from health insurance companies and big pharma. And so the corruption prevents them from talking about this issue. And so you have to turn to shows like this for it.

Now, I wish they would talk about it. I wish it wasn't just us, but we're the only ones talking about it. And really, Crystal, this is something that's heartbreaking to me. I don't understand. I don't understand for the life of me, even though there are these institutional factors and there's the money angle and there's the fact that they're not that bright. I don't understand why this is the case. And it's hard when you realize we're the only ones that

are doing this. And that's not just... One more thing, I promise. Just wanted to make sure you knew about my podcast with Kyle Kalinsky. It's called Crystal, Kyle, and Friends, where we do long-form interviews with people like Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Glenn Greenwald. You can listen on any podcast platform, or you can subscribe over on Substack to get the video a day early. We're going to stop bugging you now. Enjoy. Crystal, what are you looking at today? Well, relevant to this conversation, the New York Times being called out by experts for spreading COVID misinformation thanks to a fear-mongering article about kids and so-called long COVID.

So here you can take a look at that piece. The headline says, this is really scary. Kids struggle with long COVID. In that, the Times profiles several teenagers who have struggled with a range of physical and emotional symptoms after contracting coronavirus. Those symptoms include everything from mental health issues to dizziness to vomiting, fatigue, brain fog. Now, outside of these anecdotes, experiences which have no doubt been stressful and scary for the teens and for their families, the piece offers very little data or hard science about the prevalence of such symptoms and no data whatsoever about the prevalence of the type of severe symptoms that are described in the piece. It also offers no insight into how a respiratory virus

might end up, for example, noticeably impacting your brain, as is alleged in the piece. So as doctor researcher and Harvard Med School assistant professor Adam Gaffney put in an important thread on Twitter, quote, I support dramatic public health interventions in hard hit areas to slow COVID and buy time to vaccinate everyone possible. But I strongly dislike this irresponsible mode of reporting, which will scare the shit out of every parent with a kid with a cold. The hypothesis that a mild upper respiratory tract infection, even if caused by a new virus, causes a chronic dementing illness in children is a sweeping, massive, frightening claim. It is

unlikely to my mind, given what we know about mild upper respiratory tract infections. But like all things, it's possible, yet it is an extraordinary claim and requires robust evidence, which is thus far lacking. Our mantra, that correlation does not equal causation, goes out the window on this particular topic. Indeed, honestly, how is this article any different from some right-wing propagandist cherry-picking a few instances of a bad vaccine reaction to attempt to prove that vaccines are, in fact, dangerous? It is literally the exact same tactic. Find a few scary cases, presume a direct causal link that you don't know about, say the studies aren't clear, paint a worst-case scenario, tailor-made, by the way, to play into your audience's particular biases and cultural

predilections. But when it's done by the New York Times, it's actually a lot worse than some Facebook meme, because you're spreading misinformation under the imprimatur of the most powerful and prestigious newspaper in the whole world. Conveniently left out of the Times' scaremongering story is the fact that one comprehensive survey, which actually tested the blood of those who were claiming long-haul COVID symptoms, it actually found no difference in symptoms between those who actually had COVID antibodies and those who did not. So in other words, a lot of people thought that they'd had COVID, but they didn't actually have COVID. And just as many of those people who never actually had COVID reported long-haul COVID symptoms as the people who did actually have COVID. And it makes sense if you think about it, because there are a lot of reasons

that someone might suffer the wide-ranging symptoms being described by the catch-all phrase long-haul COVID. That doesn't mean long-haul COVID is definitely fake or debunked or anything like that, just that it is a very long way from the proven condition that the New York Times is painting it as here. Now, you might say, okay, but what's the harm really? Those right-wing propagandists, they are putting people at dramatic risk by persuading them to not get vaccinated. The Times, on the other hand, they're erring on the side of caution, which isn't a bad thing during a pandemic with a virus that we are still learning a lot about. Inherent in this argument is the idea that such caution is always a good thing, that it doesn't do any harm. That is just simply not the case. It's just that the burdens

of an abundance of caution tend to fall on the least well-off and not, say, the Times' very well-off reader base, for example. In fact, the Times should be well aware of the cost of an overabundance of caution because they just published stunning new data on what a disaster virtual school was for millions of kids. Specifically, they found that more than a million children expected to enroll in public schools just never showed up. The plurality of those missing kids were kindergartners who, for whatever reason, were never enrolled and never, ever showed up to school. They found that in the 33 states where comprehensive data is available, 10,000 public schools lost at least 20% of their incoming kindergarten class. One can only imagine the lifelong calamity that might ensue from this lost year among our most vulnerable kids. Predictably, of course, schools in poor neighborhoods experience the greatest loss of students. So pushing terror on parents

that could lead to school closures is not, in fact, a victimless crime. It's just that the victims come from families unlikely to pay for a New York Times subscription. And this is how class politics works, folks. If you're the Times affluent audience, another year of virtual school, it's gonna be a pain in the ass, but your kids are gonna be okay. You can afford to err on the side of preposterously cautious.

Not so for kids in households where time, money, and internet access are incredibly scarce. A year of virtual school turns into a year of no school at all, which turns into a lifetime of struggle. And by the way, if you're worried about death, being poor in America means you will die around 14 years sooner on average than the wealthy. Look, closing schools and other extreme precautions were understandable in the early days of the pandemic when we truly did not know how at risk children were of serious illness. But now we know, and thank God, the risk of serious illness for children, even with the Delta variant, continues to be relatively small.

The social, education, and psychological costs of shuttering schools, however, were not small. Please, for the love of God, be responsible in your reporting on COVID. The stakes are high and the material benefits of the additional clicks from your scaremongering are very, very low. And Kyle, I know this is something you've been tracking closely with the vaccine. There's a big jobs report number that dropped last week, last Friday. Almost a million new jobs created that bested a lot of expectations. We wanted to bring in one of my favorite economic analysts, Professor Richard Wolf, to talk about all of that. He is host of Economic Update, professor of economics emeritus

at UMass Amherst. He's visiting professor at the New School, founder of Democracy at Work, and many, many more things in addition to those. Great to see you, sir. Nice to be here. Thank you. Of course. So just give us top line. What did you think of that jobs report and what it says about where we are in terms of the economic picture? Well, I think my reactions were like most Americans. I was glad that there were people getting jobs because it's obviously better that people have jobs than that they don't, especially in this society, especially at this time. But the minute you look at what those numbers cover, that is you look a little bit below the

surface, you begin to see things that ought to make any reasonable person worried. And let me give you the single most important. A huge proportion of the improved job situation is public sector jobs, jobs working for the government, not for the private sector. but wonderful or exciting. Because what it shows, and this is perhaps the key insight of these numbers, is that this is an economy more dependent on life support from the government than it has ever been. I mean, we live at a time where corporations are in debt to the government more than ever before, where the government is in debt to both other governments and corporations and people more than ever before, and where households are living on more debt than ever before. This creates an economy held up in the end by the Federal Reserve, kept alive by the government, which ironically, the private sector likes to bash,

but upon which that sector now depends. That's fascinating, Professor. Do you fear inflation with all these various spending packages, or do you think the fears of inflation are overblown? Well, you know, you may be surprised. Yes, I'm worried about inflation. And yes, the fears of inflation are overblown. We shouldn't be upset at being able to answer those questions that way. But let me try to be clear about it. Inflation is a major economic event. It never has one cause or one key cause. Lots of things have to come together, and that has happened historically, and it can happen again to produce an inflation. And we are a society now so dependent on credit that we are flooding the economy with the money

to sustain credit, and that money could move and become something chasing goods and services and produce an inflation. On the other hand, we have been pumping money into the economy for 10 years now. We've never stopped doing that since the so-called Great Recession of 2008 and 9. And we haven't had an inflation all those 10 years. So you can see other factors have to be at work. And mostly the people who yell inflation have something else in mind that they either want or don't want to happen. And the scary thing to threaten folks with is inflation. So it gets inflated, if you pardon the pun, but it is not,

in fact, the kind of thing that you worry about every day. You have to see quite a few things coming together before you really think a sustained inflation is underway. And one last point. Nobody can predict the future. I can't. You can't. Nobody can. And therefore, these arguments that are often couched as we will have inflation next year or we will not, don't take this stuff seriously. Those are wishful thinking at best. So I want to dig in more on what you were saying about private sector job creation versus government job creation. We actually have a news article from NBC that laid this out. So in the midst of this gigantic jobs number, they're pointing out, as you were, private companies added 330,000 jobs in July, and that was way below the estimate of 653,000.

So where do things go from here? I mean, do those government jobs just continue to be created and prop up the job market? I'm also seeing these numbers about how all there are record-breaking numbers of job openings right now. So there's, you know, the idea there is there plenty of work for people who want to go and find a job anywhere. Where do these sort of things, where do these things go from here as we pull back some of the pandemic supports that we've had in place for the past year? Well, I couldn't really honestly answer where they're going to go without violating what I just told you about predicting the future. Let me tell you where some things are pointing, but without getting to the notion that I can tell you what's going to happen. We are a society that was unable to respond to the

COVID disaster because fundamentally the powers of our economic system did not want the kind of lockdown, the kind of really closing up tight, no business as usual, that was done in New Zealand, that was done in the People's Republic of China, and many, many other countries. We didn't want it. We did the minimum we felt we had to once we got overwhelmed by COVID. Then we were over quick in opening up again, and now we're confronting with the Delta variant a reason to worry that we may be closing down. One of the signs of the private sector not doing what was expected, as you just pointed out, was because more and more employers are discovering that there are high risks at this point when we don't know how bad this current surge of COVID cases is going to get. And we have something which I think in the long run is even more

important. We have something close to, and I don't mean to use hyperbole, but I will. We have a real rethinking by the working class of the United States of what they're willing as a class to accept. Are they really willing? This COVID interruption of a year and a half has made people not only lose many jobs, but rethink their jobs. And it's made the employers do that. One of the things that many workers are discovering is the job they thought they were coming back to isn't that job. It's that job in an office where five people used to work, but the employer only brought back four. Yeah, he's going to give them the same wage, but he's going to demand much more.

And they know that kind of thing was already going underway, but the break has made it somehow questionable. The quit rate, the government statistics of people leaving their job angry or bitter or disgusted and wanting to look for something better is at a rate we've never seen before in American history. Workers are saying we are not ready to be forced into a life of a precarious job, a hit or miss job, cobbling together two or three jobs, what's becoming normal for the working class. They are now wondering in this country, and that is at the beginning, and that's shaking up kind of everything, and I suspect is going to shape what we see in the

future to an even greater degree. Professor, final question from me. I'm curious what you think of this new reconciliation package, and just to run through some of the stuff for the listeners, it has child tax benefit, universal pre-K, paid family and medical leave, tuition-free community college, lower prescription drug costs, housing, home care, major climate money, lower Medicare age, Obamacare expansion. The list goes on and on of the stuff that's in there. If this were to pass as is, which is a big if, but if it were to pass as is, would it be the biggest fundamental transformation of the American economy since the New Deal? Yes, it would be since the New Deal. But that's the crucial caveat that you've given there. We are in a crisis that is much worse in ways I'll mention in a minute than the New Deal. But we're proposing something which is the best since the New Deal, but is modest compared to the New Deal, if you understand the scope.

In the New Deal, we fundamentally changed the economy. We created social security, unemployment compensation, the first minimum wage, a federal jobs program employing millions. That was a staggering transformation. Compared to that, this one, which is the biggest since then, is still relative to the economy, modest. And that's the problem. Because in the Great Depression, we didn't have simultaneously the worst public health disaster in the country's history. This time we do. We have the convergence of a breakdown of the economic system, capitalism, and of our public health system. And those two together mean that however dramatic Bernie Sanders is about this program, and he has every right to be, it is still not the fundamental change that many of us think

this economy, having lived 100 years in this old way, now needs. I think that is very well said, and that context is incredibly important. Professor, it's always great to have you. Thank you for your insights. Thank you. And thank you all for watching. We appreciate you so much. Kyle and I will be back on Thursday. Thank you. video an hour early. You get exclusive content that is not available to others, including long form interviews with some of our favorite guests. So thank you guys so much. We love you. We'll see you back here on Thursday. Thanks for listening to the show, guys. We really appreciate it.

To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people find the show. As always, a special thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to crystalandsager.com. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance.

Wait a minute, John, who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame

one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself

outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.