The Young Turks - Funds & Games

Episode Date: March 1, 2023

Protests gather outside of SCOTUS to show support to uphold Biden’s student debt cancellation. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee says he will sign drag show ban bill into law, but photo has emerged of him dressing in drag. Private equity’s favorite Senator gets big payout. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! All right. Welcome to the Young Turks, Janky, Granite and Kasparin with you guys. Is the news wild and woolly today?

Sure, sure it is every day, right? And we have Trump versus Murdoch later in the program. That's going to be fun. Da-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na. Okay, but mainly, apparently, we're both in an interesting mood. You know what my dad says about that? Dangerous. Oh my God, tonight's show is so dangerous.

It was so dangerous. Dangerous. Okay, we're going to have nothing but fun. Wait until you get to see the fun videos of Margaret Taylor Green and Fox News and all that stuff. All right, so let's do it. Well, we begin with a serious story having to do with the possibility of the Supreme Court reversing Biden student loan debt relief program. Let's get to it. We are standing here because we are saying it's time to be student debt free at last.

student debt free at last. Thank God almighty, when we shall be student debt free and last. All proud to the people, all proud to the people, all proud to the people, all part to the people, all part to the people. God bless you. Students and activists have been protesting outside of the Supreme Court, as Supreme Court justices have been hearing oral arguments in regard to Biden's student loan debt relief program. There are two separate cases that are attempting to reverse Biden's debt relief program. We'll get to the details of that a little later. But before we do, I think it's worth looking into the funding behind the effort to reverse this effort,

this incredibly mild, moderate effort to provide some relief to student debt borrowers. And it turns out that the same billionaires that bribe our politicians, legally of course, thanks to Supreme Court rulings in past years, are funding this effort as well. So why don't we take a look at this fun video from More Perfect Union? The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that will decide the current fate of Biden's proposed student debt relief plan. One of those cases, Department of Education versus Brown, was ostensibly brought by a woman named Myra Brown from Texas. She argues that she's harmed by this debt relief plan because her privately funded student loans are not eligible to be eliminated. Ironically, she's already a beneficiary of debt cancellation.

The government forgave for $48,000 paycheck protection program business loan during the pandemic. But Myra Brown is just a patsy. The case was actually brought and funded by an extreme right-wing donor network, deceptively named the Job Creators Network. The group argues Biden's student loan cancellation plan should be struck down on the grounds that such relief represents government overreach and reckless government spending. Reckless government spending. So we're going to get to the details on the specific donors to this effort in just a moment.

But, Jank, it's just hilarious to hear billionaires complain about reckless spending or reckless fiscal behavior by lawmakers or the executive branch when the main thing that they lobby for is tax cuts, which robs the federal government and the American people of the tax revenue we need to fund the programs we rely on. Right. So look, honestly, if you just watch one George Carlin skit, you'll be way better off than if you watch all our mainstream media. Because why won't they talk about what's actually happening? So they make it appear like, oh, there's like legitimate debate between different ideologies and grassroots groups in America. Do they do they want student debt relief or do they not want student? Some people don't want. Now, if you look at the polling, it's clear the significant majority say, yeah, we want student debt relief. But that's not the sense you get when you turn on TV or just participate in the political process. It looks like the Supreme Court's making an earnest decision between these two ideological camps.

And golly, gee, you've got this young lady that's saying, well, hey, this has affected me adversely. No, no, no, no. Patsy is exactly right. All those very expensive lawsuits are funded by, you know, the wealthy and corporations. And why do they do that? Because, and this is really the depressing part, some of it is because of specific reasons, like, hey, I'm in the student debt business and I get money for fees and transactions. For servicing the loans. There's an entire industry that makes money off of servicing the loans.

Yes, but secondarily, groups like Americans for Tax Reform, et cetera, think, no, every dollar that goes to you guys is a dollar that could have gone to the rich instead. And so they don't want any increase in government spending unless it's tax cuts for the richer for corporations. So they view that as a constant battle, okay, and a zero sum game. So they're being, this is all funded by enormously wealthy people who want to screw over the students. That is an absolute, unquestionable fact. So let me put this in a context that's even easier to understand. And the unfairness of this system is easier to understand.

So for instance, if Biden is able to follow through with his debt forgiveness program, he would forgive about $400 billion in student loan debt. Now the millionaire, billionaire argument against this really is, well, that is irresponsible, irresponsible. $400 billion. I mean, look at our debt, look at our deficit. They'll pull out all of their, you know, one-trick pony arguments. But at the same time, they were fully on board for.

In fact, lobbied in favor of Trump's tax cuts for the rich, which robs the federal government of how much money again, Jank? $1.9 trillion. Trillion, $1.9 trillion. I did the math on it. I'm not a math genius, but it's not hard. $400 billion is 20% of $2 trillion. So they say, look, they're about to spend one-fifth of what we spent on the richest people in the country. Just to help students, just to help hundreds of thousands of students.

And by the way, that would then allow them to buy cars and other things and maybe even a house one day that would greatly stimulate the economy. But it wouldn't go directly into the pockets of billionaires. So they have to spend money fighting it. So one final thing that I'll mention is the pandemic made it abundantly clear, to me at least, that one of the tools that the rich use in order to basically have power over the masses is desperation, right? Make sure that workers, make sure ordinary Americans are desperate and thus feel coerced to go back to work or coerced to take jobs that they otherwise would have rejected in search for better opportunities. And so if you are saddled with all this debt, you're in a far more desperate financial

situation and it's far easier for corporations to take advantage of you. Let's just keep it real. Okay, so that's another element to this that I think is kind of left out of the debate in the conversation. With that said, let's get to some specifics. Who are some of these specific individuals behind funding this organization Job Creators Network? Let's watch. One big donor to the Job Creators Network, Philip Anshoulds, is a Colorado billionaire who backed the rise of Supreme court justice, Neil Gorsuch. Then there's the Federal Society, which has overseen the corporate takeover of our federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The Koch brothers and the small business entrepreneur Bernie Marcus are among the Federal Society's top donors. Supreme

Court justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh are openly chummy with the Federal Society and have earned major applause from speeches at its events. And now they'll be deciding on the Job Creators Network's student loan lawsuit, brought to them, by the same big donors that give to their pals of the Federalist Society. I mean, it is incredible how deeply the corruption is now baked into our system, all while we pretend as though we live in some democracy where the people get to decide how we're governed. But one other thing I want to just quickly mention in a tweet, more perfect union provide some more details in regard to who is funding this effort.

So they mention incredibly wealthy people, of course, like the coax, who are worth nearly $60 billion. Bernie Marcus, $8.3 billion. The Mercer is nearly $1 billion. Now the Mercer specifically have given over $1 million to the job creators network. Again, that is the group behind these lawsuits attempting to reverse Biden's debt relief program. The retail industry leaders association has also given $4.6 million to this group and so has the National Restaurants Association, which by the way, seems to be behind every terrible effort in this country having to do with workers and financial issues. They've given $100,000 as well.

Okay, so a couple of things here. National Restaurant Association, what a weird thing. Why do they care? I get why they want to fight higher minimum wage, right? That's cost of their employees. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I hate it. I fight against them on that issue. but I understand it. Why in this case? The only thing I can imagine is, well, if you're in so much debt, well, then your employer has leverage over you. And so if you complain about your job at Chili's or at Wendy's, well, you don't have a lot of options. I mean, it's amazing that they're spending money on that lawsuit that seems to have nothing to do with their core business at all other than to oppress workers so they could have extra leverage. 100%. Okay. So number two, this is hot in the news if you follow the news at all and you read you might have read a story or two about this. Have you seen in any mainstream media articles the explanation that this lawsuit

is being funded by billionaires so that this is an issue between the students and incredibly wealthy people in this country who don't want them to get a break and want to keep every stinking dollar in their goddamn pockets? Have you seen it? Okay, forget the adjectives I used And the editorial I use. But have you seen anywhere other than more perfect union in here that this is being funded by billionaires? It's weird that corporate media wouldn't cover the fact that corporate donors are behind this effort to further the economic inequality that we're all living under.

It's weird. Yeah, and one more thing. So the Trump tax cuts were $1.9 trillion. The Bush tax cuts were $5.6 trillion. By the way, they were made way way worse by Barack Obama and Joe Biden. who made them nearly permanent for about 90% of the recipients. That is a very, very wealthy, okay? And so they did that with Mitch McConnell when Obama was in office and go, oops,

did we make it permanent when Bush couldn't, but I'm going to leave that part out. Just the 5.6 and the 1.9 original costs, when you take the 400 billion, that is about 5% of the tax cuts for the rich. Did you get that sense from any of these articles? Because what I get when I watch mainstream media is, this is really expensive. I mean, the $400 billion. I mean, how are you going to pay for that?

How are you going to pay for that? Okay, meanwhile, the $7.5 trillion is already in their pockets. Nobody talks about. All right, well, why don't we move on to the oral arguments part of this? Because, well, it's very clear that the conservative justices are doing whatever they can, to reverse a Biden's debt relief program. So let's talk about it. that are attempting to overturn Biden's student debt relief program. Now, it is clear based on the line of questioning and some of the commentary coming from the

conservative Supreme Court justices that they are not buying Biden's argument when it comes to defending his decision to push for this program unilaterally through the executive branch. Remember, this happened through executive action. It did not happen through congressional legislation. With that said, the real question at heart with one of the cases has to do with something called major questions doctrine, okay? It's the requirement of congressional authority in cases with significant political or economic consequences.

And so this just means that Biden can't act unilaterally, okay? That's the argument that is brought in this case against Biden. In June, the court invoked the doctrine in a decision. that curtailed the environmental protection agency's power to address climate change. So the argument there was you don't have the authority to do this as part of the executive branch without congressional approval. So that kind of sets a precedent in regard to how these conservative Supreme Court justices are likely to rule on this issue. The court also ruled on similar grounds that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not authorized

to impose a moratorium on evictions, and that OSHA did not have the authority without congressional approval to tell large employers, or employers of large companies, I should say, that their workers must be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo frequent testing. Now let's go to the Biden administration. The Biden administration argues that the coronavirus pandemic was enough of an emergency to wipe out some of the student loan debt due to the financial. burdens that coronavirus has brought forth. As you know, tens of millions of people initially were laid off through no fault of their own. Many people suffered financial burdens as a result

of the pandemic. And Biden argued, well, because this was an emergency, I had the authority to act unilaterally to cancel some portion of the student debt. Now, going back to what I had mentioned earlier, the question about major questions doctrine, okay? The law, the administration relies on, the higher education relief opportunities for Students Act of 2003, usually called the Heroes Act, gives the Secretary of Education the power to waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision to protect borrowers affected by a war or other military operation, or this is the important part, national emergency. Now, are the conservative justices buying that? It doesn't appear to be the case. I'm going to give you some examples of what they're saying in just a

moment. But, Jank, I wanted to give you a chance to jump in. Yeah. So this is a really interesting case because a lot of times conservatives just, it's gobbledygook. They have no case at all. It's just nonsense. Like Trump goes into court and says, oh, there's stolen election. They go, okay, show me evidence. He's like, I don't know any evidence. This is not one of those. cases. This is an interesting close case potentially. But now let's give you context. That major questions doctrine that Anna referred to is made up. So this is what activist judges do. The Roberts court invented that. They were like, well, we don't like some regulations. So we'll just invent a new legal precedent that, hey, if we think the regulation is just too much, a little too

major, we'll say, we don't like it. It's now banned. And look at that. That winds up helping giant corporations every time because it deregulates every time. It's just another excuse to deregulate, just invented out of whole clause. What happened, conservatives? I thought you hated activist judges. That's not written in the law anywhere. They totally made it up. Yeah, so let me add to that. So for instance, when they said, when this highly conservative Supreme Court said that the federal government can't do this rent moratorium, who did it help? It helped landlords, right? In many cases, of course, corporate landlords.

which I'm sure were behind that effort. The other thing was OSHA wanting to ensure that employers of large companies have their workforce vaccinated. They don't want to have to deal with that. So the Supreme Court jumped in and said, no, sorry. These government agencies don't have the unilateral ability to do this. No, the major questions doctrine helps giant corporations nearly 100 out of 100 times. Maybe there's an odd case where it doesn't, but I've never seen it. And so, and by the way, Lewis Powell wrote a memo back in 1971, explaining how big business should take over the courts, and they should have, quote, activist judges that make up legal principles to give advantage, an unfair advantage, basically, he didn't say unfair in the memo, but an unfair advantage to big business. And that's exactly what they did. Okay, but even so, we're fair, I get what they're saying.

Yeah. Okay, like they're saying, look, you're finding a little provision in a. a in a bill, and you're saying you're going to get to make a $400 billion change based on that or another significant landmark change from the executive branch. What I'm not positive Congress meant that in that little clause, right? So I get the principle behind it. So you see how fair we are. And that's why this case could be a little bit closer than some of the other cases.

But the counter argument is also really good. Yes. So let's get to that. First, before we get to the counter argument, I do want to give. you some of the statements from the conservative court justices who seem to, again, want to reverse what Biden did here. So Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the administration had violated separation of powers principles by acting without sufficiently explicit congressional authorization to undertake one of the most ambitious and expensive executive

actions in the nation's history. The chief justice joined by other members, of the court's six-member conservative majority invoked, as I said earlier, the major questions doctrine, which requires the government initiatives with major political and economic consequences be clearly authorized by Congress. Now, Elena Kagan jumped in and said, no, what the Biden administration did is absolutely protected under the 2003 statute. Justice Elena Kagan said that language plainly authorized the administration to act in light of the pandemic, adding that the court routinely considered really confusing statutes, this is not one, or this one is not, she said. And the administration also argues, and they

wrote this in their brief, that the major question's doctrine, quote, does not justify overriding ordinary principles of statutory construction whenever an agency action can be described as consequential. Rather, the court has applied the doctrine only in extraordinary cases characterized by what the court has concluded is a gross mismatch between the agency's assertion of regulatory authority and the history and context of the supposed, or supposed congressional authorization. In fact, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Preloger, who's representing the administration here, said, it's plan fit. comfortably within the statutory language, noting that the Trump administration had also relied on the 2003 law.

So do you want me to give you an example of that? Sure. And I want to jump in why her case is excellent. Yes. So the one example would be how in March of 2020, President Donald Trump declared that the coronavirus pandemic was a national emergency and his administration invoked the Heroes Act to pause student loan repayment requirement. and to suspend the accrual of interest. Yeah. So guys, let me break it down even more in layman's terms. So the conservatives. So the conservatives on the court say,

This is outrageous to interpret this, heroes act in this way. Eleni Kagan says, well, first of all, plain reading, which is what conservatives are supposed to be in favor of. It says that the executive branch has complete authority to do that in the case of a national emergency. So boom, we're already done. But okay, let's keep going. Well, this has been declared an efficient national emergency? Yes, you want to know who declared that? Donald J. Trump.

So she's like, okay, wait, so your side declared it a national emergency. And then, by the way, paused interest payments on those long. loans, which is great. Give credit to Trump for that, by the way. And Biden continued that policy. Now, do you want to know how much that policy has cost so far? A hundred billion dollars. So then she asked, wait. So $100 billion that the government has already spent and that no one has any problems with in this exact field about this exact piece of legislation. And you say, but $400 billion, for some reason, doing the same exact thing is too much. Yeah. Based on what? Yeah. That's so arbitrary, right? And so. And so,

So should the billionaires suing to make sure students can't get debt relief win? No, they shouldn't win, right? Will they? Very likely. Because the conservatives here, they don't care. All the judicial philosophy is just nonsense. Never listen to any blabber mouth talking about judicial philosophy. None of them mean it.

They just vote for corporations almost every time. That's their only judicial philosophy. So one final thing, because all of this can get a little confusing, remember, there are two separate cases being presented before the Supreme Court challenging what Biden did with his student loan debt relief program, right? So one has to do with a lawsuit brought forward by the states. And so that includes Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina. The other also has to do with former debt borrowers, like former borrowers, basically, who paid off from. their loans or have loans outstanding, but they don't get to benefit from the debt relief program because they don't qualify for it. Remember, it's means tested and all of that. And

it has to be federal student loans. If you went to a private bank and you got a loan that way, you don't qualify. Okay. So the case brought by the two borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, also raised questions about standing. Brown is ineligible for relief under the plan because their loans are held by commercial entities rather than the government, while Taylor is eligible for $10,000 rather than the $20,000 because he did not receive a Pell grant, okay? Okay, so Brown has no standing at all. He has nothing to do with this case. It's actually embarrassing to put that person in this case.

That means you're desperate and you couldn't find any real students that are affected by this. The other one is like, well, I could have gotten 10,000 instead of 20,000, instead of 10,000, instead of 10,000, but you were helped by the action, executive action. Well, I didn't want to be helped by the executive action, but I wanted to be helped more, but I didn't want to be helped at all. My favorite part of this was Neil Gorsuch's statement while hearing these oral arguments. We have a quick clip of that. Let's watch. And then I'll give you the Biden administration's argument. What I think they argue that is missing is cost to other persons in terms of fairness,

for example, people who've paid their loans, people who don't have planned their lives around not seeking loans and people who are not eligible for loans in the first place. And that a half a trillion dollars is being diverted to one group of favored persons over others. I think that's the nature of their argument in addition to, as you point out, the cost of the fisc. I didn't see anything in the memorandum that dealt with those kinds of questions. That guy argued on behalf of a corporation that wanted its employee, an ice road trucker, to essentially continue driving in a winter storm and potentially die and freeze to death. Yeah, it's okay, you want to talk about fairness? That guy's talking about fairness.

This ain't about fairness. Let's just keep it real. But anyway, go ahead. Sorry, just quick correction there. The trucker had pulled over to the side of the road and he already couldn't feel one of his legs. So he almost certainly had frostbite and was about to freeze to death. And Gorsuch said, if the corporation orders you to stay on the side of the road, even though there's no help coming and freeze to death, that's what you have to do. Fairness. Okay. Fairness. Now, if you notice in that tiny little clip, there was a couple of amazing things in there. He's like, this is, I think, what they, the plaintiffs meant.

Yeah. In other words, they didn't even say it. This guy's like, here, here, idiots. Let me give you a better excuse. Yes, yes. Okay, because I'm going to rule for you anyway. I don't like actually judging the case as if I'm neutral. That's hilarious, okay?

And then he says fairness. Well, I think what's fair. Who cares what you think? Yeah, you don't. If we wanted to know what you thought was fair. we would have elected you to Congress or to the presidency. We don't, we already passed the law. We don't care what you think about the law.

The question is, what is the law? Yes. Not what do you think the law should be? That is the definition of an activist judge. Absolutely. Now finally, I think the Biden administration's argument in response to these, you know, these borrowers who are salty about the forgiveness program was perfect. The Biden administration argued that none of the challenge.

have standing. The states' asserted injuries were speculative or self-inflicted. The individual borrowers, the brief added, would be no better off if they prevailed. A ruling in their favor would not grant Brown and Taylor the additional debt relief they say they desire. Rather, it would mean that nobody gets any debt relief at all, the brief said. And that's exactly right. Guys, to give you a sense, again, layman's terminology here, so let's say somebody attacked you, broke your arm, you're suing, right? And you say, hey, the cast this much, the doctor's visit cost that much. And hey, in a civil lawsuit, I want my money, right? But in this case, they're saying my arm is broken, and I don't want anyone else treated for any health ailments.

Wait. Insane. Look, if you want compensation for your arm, okay, that's an interesting case. If you're saying no one's arms should be set and that no doctor should help other people with broken arms, it doesn't matter that that's a lunatic position, but you just don't belong in this case. This case has nothing to do with you. That's not a part. I mean, if they let that stand, it's insane.

So anybody can go into court and go, I'm not affected by it at all, but I don't want that guy getting the money. Right. Okay, that's crazy. That's the whole reason why the concept of standing exists in the first place. in court decisions so that randos can't walk in and go, I don't like it. Well, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll switch gears and talk a little bit about a Republican governor who dressed in drag and then turned around and said he was going to sign an anti-drag law in

his state. That and more coming right up. Back on TYOTJJ with you guys, but also Peter and Brenda. Peter Shone and Brenda look just signed up to be a TYT member by hitting the join button below the video. I like to do this like my dad, okay, so you know where it is. Or everybody else, tYT.com slash join, come be part of honest news and positive change forward. All right, well, the never-ending battle against the drag community and transgender people continues. Tennessee governor, Bill Lee, is poised to sign a new bill in his state that would criminalize some drag and adult cabaret performances if they are sexual in nature and are performed in public or in view of children.

Now, that's interesting considering he was once caught dressed as a woman. We'll get to that in just a moment. You're going to have to wait for that. But first, a few details about the legislation. Tennessee legislators passed a bill to restrict adult cabaret performances in public or in front of children. It defines adult cabaret performers as topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a purient interest or similar entertainers regardless of whether or not performed for consideration.

Now, the language of the bill itself is pretty specific, which makes it different from the don't say gay bill in Florida, just keeping it real. And in my view, what they did is incredibly redundant because those types of sex. charged performances like stripping, for instance, is already illegal in front of minors. But nonetheless, answering reporters questions Monday, Governor Lee, a Republican, of course, said that he would sign the, it's being referred to as a drag bill in addition to a separate piece of legislation that would prohibit gender affirming care for the state's minors. Now, before I get to the photo in question, the evidence of him dressing as a woman in the past,

Jenk, what are your thoughts on the legislation itself? Yeah, not buying it. So look, guys, if they wanted to just ban things that were sexual, that's relatively easy to do and straightforward. Once you start naming particular groups you want to ban, and I don't mean like plumbers and dentists, I mean, oh, people who dress this way, people who have this kind of gender identity, et cetera. Well, then you're kind of showing your hand.

We can see why you're going in that direction. So when you say purian interests, that's so vague. So I was in South Beach about a year ago while walking by Ocean Avenue. There's this great restaurant to have a drag show brunch. And it was I watched it for about five, ten minutes. It was so much fun. Everybody's having the time of their lives. Now one of the women were one of the people went up on what looks like a stripper pole, right?

And came back down. Was it period? Not really, I wouldn't have minded if my kids saw that. They don't even know that it's it's she's emulating a stripper pole. they've never heard of it, right? So, but if you're a regulator and you don't like people who go to drag shows or who are, but participate in drag shows, you go, oh, yeah, that's it. Everybody knows that's a stripper pole. Well, it's not actually, it's literally a pole in the middle of the restaurant, right? But, okay, I don't like the way they're dressed. By the way, they think people that are in drag shows, they think it's sexual by nature, right? They're like, I mean, look at them. I mean, they're not, they don't look like us at all. But why are they dressed like that? It's, and Partly because they're attracted to them. So they think, well, it's pure and it. No, look, come on, dude.

He dressed up as a woman before and he did it for a school gag. Sure you did, big guy. I've seen a thousand frat guys get dressed up as girls and hold each other's hands. A thousand, okay? And they're all, and said Stephen Crowder and all those guys, and they all do it for, oh, it's a gag, okay? And oh, I don't like people who dress and drag, if you say so. Okay, I'm going to say something that's probably going to upset a lot of people, but it's the truth. This is different from what they did in Florida for a lot of different reasons.

I don't want people to panic over this because I do see this as just redundant legislation that's meant to provide the illusion of governing and doing their jobs. They're just virtue signaling to the right wing voters, their base. But at the end of the day, look, this is different because in Florida, right, the so-called don't-say gay bill, weaponized ordinary people against the teachers, right? It would bring lawsuits against teachers who are providing a curriculum that whoever is bringing the lawsuit forward didn't like, okay? And that creates this, it just cripples the teacher's ability to do things and it makes them become like overly cautious, which is why there's so many book bans.

They don't want to take the chance of having a complaint or a lawsuit filed against them. This is different, right, where there, it doesn't provide, there's no provision there that says people can bring lawsuits against these individuals. It's if there's a violation, the first violation is a misdemeanor. If they do it again, it'll be a felony. I don't really think legislators are going to be running around Tennessee looking for drag queens. No, they are. They definitely are. So let's talk about it. So look, here's the parts I agree with you on.

It's obviously a distraction. So they already have a law in the books. They don't want to give you higher wages, health care, et cetera. This is like classic smokescreen. You guys think about it, the internet exists. Who cares that I was walking by on Ocean Avenue in South Beach? I could have just gone to my phone and one click away from people doing things of purient interests. Okay, all of this.

But that's very vague, Jenk. What do you mean exactly? Yeah, okay. They're gonna take your phone away, your entire phone. No, they would actually if they pass a law like that. No, no, hold on, hold on. Okay, go. So number one, we 100% agree that it's a distraction.

Okay, horse crap. Okay, number two, it is different that individuals can't sue. Anna's absolutely right about that. Okay, number three, already there's laws against bringing kids to sexual shows, et cetera. You can't bring a kid to a strip club? Okay. The laws already exist. Yeah, you can, hey, can you bring your 70-year-old?

No, they say, hey, are you 21 when you're entering a strip club, right? So, but why are they bothering to pass this other than the distraction? Yeah, because, goddamn right, they're going to crack down. And even if they don't crack down, you know what they, aren't. members are writing in their teachers in Florida. And you know what they're saying is, well, look, guys, I'm 60. I'm not yet retired. I can't afford to get fired. And so I can't take any risk. I can't take any risk. So I'm going to take away the books, et cetera, et cetera. Now, what's going to happen? If it's a crime, a crime, they're not going to go to, there are people who are going to go

to the drag show aren't going to go to the drag show. People who are going to participate in the drag show aren't going to go because they're worried that the brown shirts are going to come arrest them because they don't like who they are. And Anna, you agree that the only reason they're passing this is because they're saying, we don't like people that do drag shows. Come on, you know that. I don't know if that's what they, I think what they're doing is the right wing version of virtue signaling. And again, this is really important for people to understand. Legislators are lazy and useless. They don't want to do their jobs. They want to do their fundraising. They want to

to collect money from their corporate donors, but they want to do zero, nothing for you, okay? But they love to engage in the theater and the virtue signaling that makes it seem like they're real active, you know? They're really looking out for the best interest of their base. Really, it's nonsense. The reason why I think it's redundant is because when you read the language of the bill, it is specific in regard to what they're referring to. I listed what the legislation says, strippers, go go dancers, topless dancers. All of this stuff is already banned for minors in the state. Do you get what I'm saying?

No, I do with curing interest is the only one that's vague and it's the only one that applies to drag shows. So you say, well, they don't understand the difference between just a non-sexual drag performance and a sexual one, right? Except they do because the governor was confronted about the fact that he dressed as a woman when he was in high school, right? So let's take a look at the picture. This is what was uncovered, I guess.

Misdemeanor. Next time it's a felony, okay? So he's there. Can you tell me Republicans aren't turned on by that? It's inconceivable, that's it, pure in interest. So that was, okay, hold on. This is in 1977 when he was in high school, apparently it was homecoming week. Oh my God, Republicans are even more turned on now.

Okay, can you pause for a second and let me finish my thought? Because every time you do that, I lose my train of thought and I forget what I'm gonna say. Okay, so he gets confronted about that, okay? And let's see how he reacted to it. Josh. What a ridiculous, ridiculous question that is. Conflating something like that to sexualized entertainment in front of children, which is a very serious subject. Drag is not sexual.

Andy, what's you got? Do you remember it? Is this you? Is it okay if drag queens come to the school? Because this is you, this is you at a high school, governor. This right here is you at a high school. Is it only illegal when gay people do it? When gay people do it, governor?

Have you talked to your sister about the bill, governor? Now I want to go to Graphic 4, okay? While the event photographed in the yearbook would meet most definitions of drag, it would not necessarily be illegal under Tennessee's newly passed drag bill, which specifically bans male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest from performing in public or in front of children. Okay, do you want to bet $100? that they apply it to just random drag shows and claim that they were sexual in nature?

Sure, let's bet $100. Okay, deal, okay. They're definitely going to do it. Easiest $100 I've ever made. Why, Anna, because of the same reason you're saying, because they're going to use it to virtue signal. They're going to arrest drag queens. They're going to do a spectacular fashion. They're not going to arrest drag queens who aren't doing anything wrong.

The evil LGBT community, we hate them, and we showed you how. terrible they are. And by the way, look, if that's what your concern is, fine. It's fine to be concerned about that. But I also want you guys to be smart in understanding what the right wing is doing in trying to bait us into appearing as though we want little children watching hypersexualized programming. That is what this is also about, right? So it's the illusion of governance, which both right and left engage in it, but this is a right

wing example of it, right? And then there's the left taking the bait and panicking and freaking out about this without actually reading the legislation, the text of the legislation. So then they can turn around and say, would you look at that? Told you, told you, the left wants to sexualized children, right? Adding fuel to that crazy Q&N on fire. Yeah, Anna's 100% right about that part too. And so it's a trap that they said. So it's the same thing they do on flag burning. So they go, okay, we think you shouldn't be able to burn the flag, even though it's obviously a First Amendment issue, and they claim that they're a First Amendment absolutists, right?

They're total liars, but they say, and we can't help it and go, hey, the Constitution says you are allowed to burn a flag, and they go, ha ha, they hate America, right? So it's a political trick. So she's right, it's definitely a political trick. And so when we make, but why do I, why do we all defend folks, whether it's the don't say gay bill in Florida and critical racter and all that, so why do we fall for the trap because we want to defend people who are LGBTQ or citizens of any sort. We want to defend African Americans.

We want to defend all those people. So they think, these suckers, they're going to fall for it. They're going to defend these poor people. And when they fall into that trap, we'll demagogue and we'll get our base riled up to hate them. And then go, oh, you see that? And the sick thing is here, you know, you ever hear like those terrorists that hold up kids in front of them and use them as human shields? the Israeli defense forces do it sometimes when they go into Gaza Strip and West Bank. They'll pull Palestinian kids in front of them and have guns behind the kids, okay?

No, Hamas will do that. The argument from Israel is that Hamas will do that the children. No, I know, that's their argument. I've never seen it. I have seen Israeli defense forces do it. I've literally seen them. Okay, I have not. So now, that's what they're doing here.

They're like, oh, we can't just say we're a bigot. here grab a kid and they use the kid as a shield and then they go oh yeah you go drag queens oh we hate him I mean oh it's a kid I'm worried about the kid hey let's take the kid to Hooters after this okay and let's watch all sorts of TV where milfs are getting pummeled on cable etc and let's go watch the internet where donkeys are having sex etc but hey oh the kids the kids the kids boom boom boom boom they're just using the kids as shields they're sick sick people let's just be honest about it. All right, when we come back from the break, we're going to move on to more corruption because a retiring senator has found a new career path and it's exactly what you would

expect. So that and more coming up in the next segment of the show. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Anna, Jeremiah, and Jolly Jeff. They just became members and American heroes. Casper. We just give you a prime example of the revolving door in politics. Retiring Republican Senator Pat Toomey is joining a private equity firm after a long career of fighting to protect their interests. Now, of course, this is how politics works.

You have lawmakers who are lobbied by big business or Wall Street, and then once their political career is over, they have a nice, cushy landing at either a corporation or in this case, a private equity firm. On February 22nd, Apollo Group Management announced that Toomey, who retired from Senate in January, will serve on the firm's board of directors. Corporate board seats are particularly coveted because they pay well and typically require little work. In fact, he will be receiving about $600,000 in stock options, and that's in addition to his salary. In a statement about his recent position, he said, after 18 years in the public sector, I'm excited to bring my differentiated perspectives to the board of Apollo, a firm that plays an important role in generating retirement income for me.

millions of savers and providing capital for business growth. This is an unsurprising move, to be quite honest with you all. And I'll give you a sense of how he essentially helped him out in his position as a United States Senator in just a moment. Before I do, Jank, I know you love this topic. Yeah, of course. So Pat Toomey took $5 million from the same industry in campaign contributions when he was in office.

And so now he's going to take the $150,000 salary, the $600,000. $750,000 at a minimum per year every year, okay, and that goes straight into his pocket. So you get the campaign contributions so you can get into office and so you can do it as you're told like a good little boy by private equity. And afterwards you get the direct bribe so you can get rich of it. But do you know how much work it is to be on a board? Correct answer, almost none. Okay, so they meet once every three months. The board meetings usually depends, obviously, obviously varies on the company, but usually is about three hours. That's one hour a month of work.

Now, you could study at a time, and if you're a good member, you should, right? Maybe you put in another three hours, maybe a whole six other hours. Go nuts. So what are we talking about? Three hours a month? Max, max, three hours a month, $750,000. And do you know how much Pat Toomey knows about the financial industry? Nothing.

Nata. What the hell is he going to say on the board? board. He doesn't know anything. He knows a thing or two about the carried interest loophole. Yeah, that's for sure. I'll get to in just a moment. But no, Jane, I mean, we know we know exactly what his expertise is, right? He has connections to lawmakers. That is what his value is, right? He's going to help them bribe the current lawmakers. Exactly, exactly. So let's get to carried interest because that is where Pat Toomey really helped this industry out and they rewarded him with this position. In recent years, Toomey played a pivotal role in preserving the so-called carried

interest loophole, which allows ultra wealthy private equity managers, oh, what a coincidence, to pay the lower capital gains rate of 20% on large portions of their income, as opposed to the regular top income tax rate of 37%. An industry lobbyist told the Associated Press that Toomey had been an all-star in their fight to protect the carried interest loophole in the tax legislation. This is how it works. They get bribed when they're in positions of power in the halls of Congress. They take those bribes as orders to essentially help the financial industry in this specific case, right? And the ultra wealthy when it comes to the carried interest loophole.

And then once their political career comes to an end, they have a nice soft landing with an incredibly lucrative salary and stock options at a private equity firm or somewhere else on Wall Street. Now let me explain what the character interest loophole is, so you know what kind of an outrage it is. So if you're investing money, they say, well, we want you to do that. We want to incentivize you to do that. And of course, if you didn't get an special tax rate, you'd never invest any money, which is, of course, absurd. You know who says this absurd? Warren Buffett says it. He's like, no capitalists wouldn't invest because, oh my God, you're going to make a little less based on the taxes.

The question is, do you have a margin at all pre-taxes, right? So this is already clear. The idea that they should get an extra break, the capital gains tax, et cetera, is already absurd. But this is not that. These are guys who make money off of investing other people's money. The money they're getting is just a salary. It should be taxed at the top rate like everybody else. Look, if you're a doctor, you make a lot of money, you're a heart surgery, you work your ass off, you studied your ass off, et cetera.

You're getting the 37%. These guys are going, well, I'm investing other people's money. I just want a 20%. I don't, there's no rationalization for it at all. They're just like, I want the money, Lebowski, and they got corrupt people like Senator Toomey and tons of other corrupt senators. And it's not just Democrats, I'm sorry, not just Republicans, Chris's cinema is the biggest pleaser of their private equity industry.

She's fought tooth and nail to make sure that they keep that incredibly unjust tax cut. That's called a carrying interest loophole. And guys, it's cost all of it. of us, hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe even trillions, and because when they don't pay it, we have to pay it. And criminals like Toomey, or not criminals according to the law, but perfectly upstanding citizens and according to corporate media, okay, are the ones who transfer that money. So would you pay to me $750,000 to be your good servant if you were going to get billions in return? You'd be nuts not to. Of course you're going to give him $5 million in campaign

of course you're going to give him about a million bucks a year and you can give it to the next senator and the next senator because you're saving billions. Any rational businessman would do it. It's called corruption and we've legalized bribery and yet no one in power will talk about it. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we've got some bangers for you. Okay, Donald Trump is very, very upset with Rupert Murdoch, lots of drama there. It's going to be a great hour. You'd be, you'd regret missing it.

So come back. We'll see you then. Go. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at Apple. At Apple.com slash TYT. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you. soon.