The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | 8/25/25

Episode Date: August 25, 2025

President Trump announced that after Washington, D.C., he may implement his crime-decreasing tactics of federalizing the police in cities across the country, like Chicago. Glenn examines the constitutionality of Trump's power in federalizing another city's police force. Should there be a constitutional amendment that bans gerrymandering throughout the country? Glenn and Stu debate President Trump's latest deal with Intel and whether it's a good or questionable move. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. On today's podcast, Trump is cleaning up D.C. and it is working. Now, should he apply it to Chicago, New York City, L.A., or the rest of the country? Can he?

Also, gerrymandering. What's the best way to fix this? this problem because we're in the thick of it now and the Chips Act. Is this the precedent we want to give the government? Getting in and actually owning 10% of companies. Is this not a public-private partnership deal just under a different name? We talk about all those things on today's podcast. Let me talk to you about Chase Medical. Picture of this. You're on a family vacation, beautiful little town. Kids are having a blast. You're relaxing. Then somebody spikes a fever. You head to the local clinic. The doctor says, you know, they're out of the antibiotic you need it, or worse yet,

it's in the middle of night. You know, it starts at 9 o'clock at night, and it's on a weekend, and you can't get a hold of anybody. You know what has to be done. Maybe you call the doctor, but you can't get to the CVS until, you know, the next morning. And maybe they do have the antibiotic. But now, you know, you've had this nightmare night, and you're driving all around trying to find that antibiotic. Is there an open store? You can have it. You'd have it. Jace Medical provides everything that you would need. It's a solution called the Jace case. It's a compact kit of doctor-prescribed antibiotics designed to cover the most common and potentially life-threatening infections. So it's not about panic or paranoia. It's about being prepared for your family. I want you to go to jace.com.

That's Jase.j.j.J.A.com. Enter the promo code back at checkout for a discount on your order. That's jace.com. Hello, America. You know we've been fighting every single day. We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media. that they're trying to feed you. We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it. But to keep this fight going, we need you. Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast? Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through

big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth. This isn't a podcast. This is a movement. And you're part of it, a big part of it. So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up. Help us push this podcast to the top. Rate, review, share. Together, we'll make a difference.

And thanks for standing with us. Now let's get to work. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. There's got to be a way to do, you know, a constitutional amendment where we get rid of gerrymandering. I, you know, I don't think the people in Washington will do it. And the party certainly won't do. It has to be led by the people.

But just cut everything in squares. cut everything in squares or even if you just did four straight lines I have any shape four straight lines go for it four straight lines you want to try to gerrymander that you can you can do little parallelograms that will

have a funky shape and you can slice through and do it a little bit I don't think so I don't think so I think it should be squares I think it should be based on the numbers I don't know what the number needs to be in each tent but you have a square

and in that square, let's just say, for, you know, purposes, it would not be this number. But let's just say there's 100 people, okay, in that square. And when that square hits 101, you cut it in half. And now there's two squares. And when either one of those squares inside that square hit 101, you cut it in half again. So there's always less than 100 in each square. But you just keep making new districts in those squares. Don't they have to be the same size?

So you couldn't have a bunch of 100-seat districts and then a bunch of 50s. Well, it would grow into 50. Or it would grow into 100. I mean, I don't know. Maybe when it hits 200, you cut it. So it's 100. But again, then you're having 150. I don't know, but I just know, I want, I want the people closest around me to be in my voting district.

Because we're talking about the same things. We're living under the same conditions. And most likely we know each other. And so we'll pick somebody who's from our group. I don't want somebody that, you know, is from, you know, miles and miles and miles away because there's a snake that runs across. the state. What do you know about my neighborhood? What do you know about my area? And if you're forced to be in that box, however that box is, how big that box is, you might be miles away in that box, but you at least have a better idea because you haven't been selected by the,

by one party or the other just to say the party things and to get the party in. You know what I mean? Sure. And I mean, I think those are the two directions, right? Like, in theory, we could go to squares and straight lines and fairly drawn districts and people that live around you, which is quite clearly what the founders wanted, right? That type of thing. Or you could go the other direction, which is basically all out war. And I think, you know, oddly you necessarily come back and you say, okay, well, we don't want all out war. That's not the right way to go. In this case, it probably is. It's probably the only pragmatic way to go. Because if you stay with what we have now, which is Democrats heavily redistricting their states to their benefit, not to mention getting incredible benefits out of the most recent census that they should not have had, which is a whole other problem that we really do need to address. But you have those two things going on. Well, I mean, Republicans are actually. pretty well positioned in an all-out war to do some positive damage on, you know, for the balance. I mean, I think that... Because they're pretty much maxed out in those other states.

They're maxed out. Like, as you point out, could you figure out a way to get rid of the one in Maryland? Probably. They'll find improvements, but every red state will find them as well. I think the New York Times had a story last week basically warning Democrats, you know, of course, they weren't looking at it from a news perspective. They were looking at it from a, hey, watch out Democrats. If you go all out here, Republicans are likely to add about seven seats. So they don't want that. Of course, I would prefer it. And you go into an election here.

And I think this is a little bit off the beaten path of this particular story, but it's an interesting study in the way Trump version one and Trump version two are acting. Trump version one, we talked about this at the 2020 election, there are lots of things, lots of signs, lots of rule changes, lots of important things that happened before the 2020 election occurred that the Trump administration did not act on. I mean, Pennsylvania is a good example of it. They basically changed the rules in a way that was not constitutional. And Trump didn't sue until after he lost. He wasn't out in front of those changes. He wasn't saying, hey, I see what you're doing and we're going to.

stop it. Trump 2.0, realizing that most sitting presidents lose the midterm elections in the House, usually they lose control, is out in front of this in advance and saying, number one, you guys kind of screwed us in this last census, but number two, we can do something about this now. Where can we go? We can go to Texas. We can get five seats there. We can go to Indiana. We get a couple seats there. Let's do our best to improve our chances going forward. Now, I know a lot of people don't like those tactics. But when you're talking about strategy and pure politics here, it's not an afterthought. It's not after we lose what do we do. It's, hey, let's prevent the loss in the first place. And that is a massive change. This is not changing the system. This is just

using the system the way it has been for almost 200 years. You just use the system. We, you know, we've never, I mean, we've used it in some places, but not like the Democrats have used it. No. And so can we get better at it? Yeah. But you're already playing that game. You're already playing that game. Yeah.

So you're not compromising morally. You're just playing the game that you're already playing better. Yeah. I was thinking about it in that in relation to the way our legal system works. Right. Like you watch a defense attorney go up and he's defending this murderer. And you know he's a murderer. Everyone knows he's a murderer.

He's on film. murdering. There's a lot of, he's writing online about all the murders he wants to commit. There's a lot of murder going on in this guy's life. And everyone knows he's a murderer. And yet, our system still says, give this guy an attorney and give him the best possible defense, even though, you know, probably the attorney himself knows this guy is a murdering murderer. And we can kind of go, you know, we can go to this. The system we have now is like, well, why don't we just let the defense attorneys be honest about what they know, right? And like, let's have them kind of come out and admit that, yeah, their guy probably did murder,

but, you know, let's, let's be nice to him or whatever. That's kind of the way that, you know, the system kind of works now, where everyone acts as if they're not being partisan when they're redistricting. You know, maybe the best system is everyone goes as hard as they can on either side, and we see what happens at the end, which is kind of. what our legal system does. It is. It is.

I'm not sure that that would be the best thing for us to do because we're a little, a little shaky right now. You know, it's not the best thing, Glenn, but I think it might be the second best thing. It's, it might be better than what we have. That, I think, is the issue. Yeah, it might be. Yeah, I think so. I don't love it.

You know, it doesn't make me feel like I don't want to necessarily walk out and, you know, sing the sour spangled banner and expect fireworks to go off. because of this process. It's an ugly political process. But at the end of the day, we can't sit here and just get rolled over. It's within the law. The Supreme Court has ruled on this.

You can use politics to redistrict. It's within, you know, the rules of the game. And sometimes you just have to push those rules to the limit to get fairness, which is a weird thing to say, but I think it is true in this case. All right. Let me go to Carl in North Carolina. Hi, Carl. I like your proposal for redistricting, and, well, in fact, I'd like nine-tenths of what you say most of the time.

Here's one that thousands of people are getting pretty enthusiastic about, and that is that we need to, we need 27 more state legislatures to finish ratifying what was originally supposed to be our First Amendment, and that's one representative for every 50,000 citizens. And George Washington, haven't been a president, during that whole four months. month's constitutional convention, he was reluctant to speak up about anything. But on the next to last day, he stood to speak passionately. He said he couldn't restrain himself anymore. And that was one rep for 50,000. And that's going to solve a lot of problems. We'd have a lot of representatives. Yes, over 1,600. And they'll live in our small districts rather than up in the district of corruption. I like that. I like that instead of building something at break

up the, that breaks up all of the, you know, the groups that are up trying to convince everybody with money and dinners and everything else that their way is the right way to vote. Yeah, special interests. They won't be as tempted to be bribed. There's just a half a dozen tremendous benefits that will result from that. It was a pretty big movement in the nerd circles on this one. You know, and it seems like, Carl, you might be part of that circle. But it is, I think, an interesting thing.

All right, Carl, I think I am too. Yeah, it's like, we look at it and we're like, oh, there's 435 now. 1,600 sounds like a lot. But does 1,600 representatives sound like a lot for 330 million people? Doesn't really to me. I mean, and, you know. And as long as you keep them at home, I really like that. I really like that.

Because everything can be done from home. It cuts down on so. much, so much. You know, you're not in the halls of Congress. You're closer to the people that, you know, voted for you and they can see when you're going wrong quickly. I really like that. That's my favorite part of it.

Because I think you could take, if you did 50,000 people, you know, per district, you can cut them in, you know, four straight lines. And it's kind of the tent idea and your idea. But the best part of it is it keeps them all at home. I like that. Like that a lot. Let me tell you about my Patriot Supply. Everyone has that friend who thinks, you know, the apocalypse looks like, you know, zombies pouring down Main Street.

I don't think that's what it's going to be like. Although, did I tell you about the zombie spiders I read about today? I don't know what those are, but I don't want to know what those are. You know, I don't know if we're all going to need bunkers and, you know, crossbows, learning how to tan leather by hand. I don't know. But I know there are going to be lots of things that are going to be a lot boring than that, power outages. supply chain breakdowns, grocery stores cleaned out before you even get there, that kind of stuff.

You don't have to be that guy to be ready. You don't have to live in a bunker or start a farm, although I wouldn't pass on that if you have the opportunity. You should do one simple thing. Get food from my Patriot Supply. The emergency food kits are built for real people, real situations, and a 25-year shelf life. Packed to last, easy to store, and you don't need to wear camouflage to enjoy them. although that also helps. Right now, My Patriot Supply is given away four weeks of emergency food kit. Just go to MyPatriotsupply.com. Find out how to claim your free four-week food supply and join millions of Americans who are preparing with MyPatriot Supply.

That's a four-week emergency food supply that you can claim right now at Mypatriotsupply.com slash Glenn. Mypatriotsupply.com slash Glenn. Now back to the podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Let me start with Vice President Vance over the weekend on crime. Let's go cut one. Just to echo something the president said about crime in Washington, D.C. This is the national capital of the greatest nation in the world, and we had murder rates just a few weeks ago that rivaled some of the worst third world anywhere, even in very, very poor regions of the world.

Why did we accept that? Why do we allow it to happen? We allowed it to happen because we had broken leadership in Washington. DC and unfortunately sitting behind the resolute desk. What we have shown in just under two weeks of taking law enforcement seriously is that the American people can have their streets back if their leadership is willing to put in the time and the resources. Mr. President, you've shown to Washington, D.C. that we can have safe streets again. We've just got to have the political willpower to focus on the bad guys and to give the American people back their communities. We are focused on doing that.

Thanks to the president's leadership. Okay, now that is really important. There is one phrase in there that is so critical, and I just want you to file it away, and that is we just need to take law enforcement seriously. Law enforcement seriously. Just file that away. I'm going to come back to it here in just a second.

Now, here's what Donald Trump said about other cities. Listen. And after we do this, we'll go to another location, and we'll make it safe also. We're going to make our country very safe. going to make our cities very, very safe. Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent.

And we'll straighten that one out probably next. That'll be our next one after this. And it won't even be tough. And the people in Chicago, Mr. Vice President, are screaming for us to come. They're wearing red hats, just like this one. But they're wearing red hats. African-American ladies, beautiful ladies,

are saying, please, President Trump come to Chicago. please. I did great with the black vote, as you know, and they want something to happen. So I think Chicago will be our next, and then we'll help with New York, and we're going to help with. And I think really, I think a lot of, and a lot of these people that you see on television, they're including the people in this audience. They'll say bad things about me, and then they'll say, thank God he's here. Okay. So now the next after D.C. is going to be Chicago. All right. I'm going to get to that here in just a second. Now let me play the Chicago mayor and what the Chicago mayor said when he heard this from Donald Trump. Here is the incompetent Chicago mayor cut 13. And so, you know, look, we're going to remain firm. We'll take legal action. But the people in this city are a.

custom to rising up against tyranny. And if that's necessary, I believe that the people of Chicago will stand firm alongside of me as I work every single day to protect the people of this city. Okay. I just want to ask you some questions. What is tyranny? What is our Constitution? What does our Constitution mean?

Are there breaking points? Are there exceptions? Do the ends justify the means? do you want safer streets? At what cost do you want those safer streets? Let me start with a warning here, at least on the surface. The president does not have a clear constitutional path to federalize police in Chicago or any other city outside of Washington, D.C.

It just doesn't. Now, remember, I said a clear path. go back and think about what I was saying about J.D. Vance, what did he say? He said, they just have to take law enforcement seriously. I'm going to come back to this. But Washington, D.C. is not a state. It's a district. It's a federal territory. It is completely different than anything else in America. And the founders designed it that way. They didn't want the nation's capital dependent or held hostage by some state. So this means that the president does, have direct authority to bring federal law enforcement in to D.C., even the military, to patrol the streets for 30 days. Then it requires Congress to act and pass a bill that says he can continue to do that. And crime has gone down dramatically. In 10 days, there hasn't been a single murder in Washington, D.C. That's almost a parting of the Red Seas. Okay? So let's catalog this. Washington, D.C. is different. He has the right to do it, and it's worked marvelously.

Now let's go to the Constitution for a second. The Constitution is very clear. Policing is a state power. It's a 10th Amendment right. Okay. The federal government cannot police our streets. Now, the President has some tools. One, the Insurrection Act of 1807. What is that? I think this is what the president is thinking. That law allows the commander-in-chief to send troops into a state without the governor's permission

if there's an actual insurrection. Now, what does an insurrection mean? That means, now hear me clearly, if laws are being openly defied on a mass scale, or if constitutional rights are being stripped away. Okay. Constitutional rights being stripped away, that takes us to Johnson, the civil rights era, takes us to Kennedy,

the Los Angeles riots in 1992. That's how George W. Bush did it. Civil rights. But these were extraordinary events, right? Gang murders, do they meet this case? constitutional threshold. I'm not sure. Here's why. Aren't laws being openly defied on a mass scale in our cities, especially sanctuary cities? Aren't our laws being openly defied on a mass scale? Now, this is something a court is going to decide, because believe me, it's going to go to court.

but I think that's where the president is landing. Now, my responsibility is to tell you the truth, not to make you feel better, not to be on somebody's side, but to tell you what I think the truth is. You may disagree with my opinion, but my opinion means nothing if I don't tell you what I believe is the right thing, what I believe is the wrong thing,

and what I believe the truth is. We go a little deeper into the Constitution. We have Posse Cometatus. That's the act of 1878. And it was written precisely to keep the government, federal government, from sending in the army or the military to become a domestic police force. It can't. Why? Because even by the late, you know, or mid-1800s, the country still remembered the red-coats.

they also still remembered during the civil war and people were tired of having the government in their cities by this time. So Posse Cometatis came around. Our founders fought a revolution to rid themselves of a government that used soldiers to enforce its will on its own people. They weren't using the police. They were using soldiers. That's why Alexander Hamilton, who actually believed in a very strong government,

still warned of the dangers of a standing army. That's why up until World War II, we didn't have a standing army. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, all of them, terrified of a standing army. Because once you give the president a precedence to send troops into one city for crime, where does it end? Now you could say, well, it ends with this president. He's going to do it the right way. Yes.

But the reason we have laws is not for the exception of the good guy. We have it for all the bad guys that will follow. You might think that it's okay for Donald Trump because I don't think Donald Trump is a fascist. I don't think Donald Trump will abuse this. I think he will quash crime. However, what's going to stop the next president that's not your guy from doing something where you're like, wait a minute, wait a minute, you can't send in the troops to do that? Well, yeah, you can because you already made the exception. He sends somebody into your neighborhood next time or to a protest or to a school board meeting that gets out of hand.

What do you do if you don't have the Constitution to rely on? this is what tyranny is and this is a slope to tyranny. That doesn't mean that Donald Trump is a tyrant. It means these are the things. These are the tools that allow tyrants to grab hold. So we know what works. What works? Enforcing the laws.

That's what works. Now, are they going to do it? No, Chicago's not going to do it. You know, going after a small group of repeat offenders who drive most of the shootings, hot spot policing, putting resources in the most dangerous blocks instead of blanketing whole neighborhoods, those are the things that work,

actually, actually going in and arresting and then sentencing to a real term in jail for real crimes. That works. you know, if you want to model for the president, Chicago has already done this once, and the federal government did send in feds. Chicago has always been a tough city, because it's always been crime-ridden in the city halls.

It's always been dirty. So what happened? Well, during Prohibition, there was a lot of people making an awful lot of money, and they had money to spread around for every politician. Everybody would just keep their mouths shut. And the guy who was doing it was Al Capone. Well, they didn't send in the Army.

They could have, I guess. You could have said, well, they're not enforcing the law in Chicago. Look at what's happening. Everybody's been bribed. The president at the time didn't send in the military. You're streaming the best of the Glenn Beck program, and you can find full episodes wherever you download podcasts. All right, so, Stu, I'd love to openly embrace.

You know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel. And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah, that's the way we should do business. It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic, but then again, so did the Patriot Act. So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion, money already set aside by the chips and instead of handing it to Intel as a grant,

he bought stock in Intel. Now, that sounds really smart, right? Sounds like what a businessman would do, really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money. We'll invest, and that way we get some profits when they succeed. So we now own 10% of the company, non-voting shares. We got a discount, and we have $2 billion. million dollars now worth of paper gains. I love that, right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we

running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways, taxpayers or investors, and we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah, it's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. we stabilize the economy without running it. We reassure the markets and attract other private investors on paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient.

It's savvy. Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never, the government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise. But again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there, haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and losers now forever? Haven't they been wasting your money? I'd rather, instead of a grant, I'd rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win, you know, we all win. But that's actually the model of, state capitalism in China. It's not the free market in the United States.

Intel is vital, absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that's going to happen for national security and our economy, but we cannot get into the habit of, of, we can't normalize in any way, Washington, D.C., buying stock in struggling companies. You know, because what's next? Ford, Boeing. How about your grocery stores? I mean, that's Mom Donnie. isn't it? And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it.

Now, what happens after we own a piece of that? So in 2008, I had a big sponsor. It was a sponsor that Premier Radio Networks had worked 20 years to get. We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them. It was General Motors. and then the government bailed them out in 2008. And they promised it was temporary, and I said, great, call me back once you've paid them off. I don't like this. The government should not be involved. And they said, well, they're not going to be involved. But they were because the first thing they did was they canceled the hydrogen car,

something they really believed in right before the election. I know because I was talking to them about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM is like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them. And the precedent was set and I was out. I was out. I canceled General Motors.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it. And that's how you slip from capitalism to corporatism.

You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers. You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins? Come on. Not a hard question answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins.

if the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we're going to make a lot of money. You're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay, all right, okay. It's not the taxpayers aren't the one. The company, the politicians, who really wins?

What happens when an administration leans on its own company? For political purposes, you know what? I think you're going to get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what? I think you're going to get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it. Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year, lays off 20,000 workers, chokehold of Taiwan, South Korea on semiconductors. He wants America protected. He wants taxpayers to share on the upside. He doesn't want just to bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right? It's really. really tempting. But is it what we are supposed to do?

Is it the right thing? I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes, cutting red tape, letting capital flow to strong ideas, making sure national security is secured through policy, but not ownership of these things. Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI?

Or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10%. Oh, they need another bailout. We're going to just own 20%. Oh, I need another bailout. Okay, we're going to own 40% of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department?

The Deep State, the president? Who are you? I ain't getting all the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one? Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're going to give people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

Well, first of all, can we step up back, step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here in the first place was the Chips Act? The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place. And that's not the president and the current president's fault. But he has to live under that law. And he's trying to improve it. But like that was a disaster in the first place and should not have been something that we did. It's certainly in the way that we did it. With buying into this, I mean, look, I understand it is better to have some of this money that, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway, right?

Like these are these are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have that we're spending on something that it's good that potentially would have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well, right? where we would go and we would do all this and we would take control of some of these banks and companies and they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back. Yes, it did. With interest.

Yeah, exactly. And so why not? Why don't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally it's been in extreme circumstances, right? When there's an emergency going on. And I will acknowledge. And I think you were on this as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. but they were things that the government did at the time in what they saw as a time of financial crisis and reached in and took ownership of a bunch of these companies. I would say we went further than not being for them. I would agree with that analysis. And the reason for that is very much against them. Very much against them. The reason for that is we don't want the government involved in, you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies. Now, they'll say they have voting rights.

They'll say all sorts of things. But we now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I don't know that that's... It screams. It's bad idea. It's a bad idea. And once the government becomes your partner in business, they're always your partner. Always.

And I understand where the president's coming from because at some level, it really is important to acknowledge he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing. Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips and he does care about these industries being here in the United States. That is something that actually is legitimately important. I'm not denying that. But, right, he also cares about America doing well financially. Yep. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

But on that point, because I get what he's saying there, it would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make $10 billion off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion. Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion a debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this, nothing.

We're going to waste that. Like, we could just instead be, we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have and just cut a few things around the corner and easily save $10 billion. The only way that this makes any impact, and this is what makes me nervous, is if you do it at scale, if you start doing this in every single company you can think of that is having problems or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America, then you start getting to a place where the government is in bed with lots of businesses

and maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too. But haven't we already accepted it when America embraced public-private partnerships? I haven't accepted that. I don't, I'm, I'm dead set against public, but isn't this a public private partnership that the left is already, I mean, this is what they were pushing. Well, and this is the concern, right? Who is, who is cheering this on? Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders put that he actually had this idea as an amendment in the Chips Act. This was his proposal. He's cheering it on right now. I, that doesn't mean that every, you know, everything a Democrat, brings up is the wrong idea. Maybe this is a good one. I mean, you could make that argument. Is he a Democrat or is he a socialist? He's a socialist. Yeah. So everything a socialist brings up probably good bad. Yeah. Yeah. Again, this is, it's just a, it's a road. We should really, really be careful going down. I would argue we shouldn't go down it because it does lead to bad

things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president's long gone. Right. It's not just, It's not just him, but, you know, what, I know we say this all the time, what are Democrats going to do with this newfound ability to invest in companies? And by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this, right? This is, the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this. And, you know, I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up a really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these companies money because of the Chips Act.

Why not make the situation better? And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable in 25 different ways. Let's partner with them. I get it on both sides. It doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one-time thing, it's probably not going to be that big of a deal. If this is a precedent that goes on, it can be. It will be. Once you start this, once you start this. And, you know, we have, how long, my whole life I've said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything and go, how can we, you know, save money. Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that, although we're spending more money. And he's here, here he's like, well, let's just offset. Let's, you know, let's get. Yeah. And he might pick the winner.

I don't know if he will or not, but he might pick the way. But tell me the last president that we had that ever said anything about industry, they're like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No. I mean, he'd be the guy. He'd be the one that you would trust on such things. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure, maybe the lifetime of the country. We're going to say, in the phone, there,

All the world can be a guy of the finance. Not a big world in art, to play to golf, or to be a pro of the crypto. Not even, you have always done with a lot of and the apply

negotiates-titred T-D you add to renewing with your instinct of negotiation. With the support 24-hour-pard per-jour, no amount of minimum, nor fray-mensual. You're made for negotiate,

and the apply-nogistit-tit-T-D is made for you aid. Telecharge it right now. Thank you.