The Young Turks - No Truss No Fuss

Episode Date: October 21, 2022

Liz Truss resigned in light of her free market economic plan. The grocery chains Kroger and Albertson's potential merger would create a grocery giant. A taxpayer's group has asked the Supreme Court to block President Biden’s student debt relief. Nancy Mace’s opponent, Annie Andrews destroys her during their debate. 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. I'm sorry for the people that I hurt. I cause hurt and confusion. And I'm sorry for the families of the people that had nothing to do with the trauma that I had been through. Fight me. We're going to be able to be.

All right, well, the young church, Janky, Granite Kasparian with you guys. We have a banana show, as always, Trump slapped down by a very unexpected person, very unexpected. Just happened, we're gonna get to it in a little bit. And then a prominent progressive is attacked. To which we say, of course. All right, let's get started.

We begin with a bit of a controversy. A bit of a controversy in the Department of Aluminium. I'm just kidding. It has nothing to do with aluminum. So without further ado, let's do it. I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party. I have therefore spoken to His Majesty the King to notify him that I have. I am resigning as leader of the conservative party.

UK's prime minister, Liz Trust, has resigned after only six weeks in office, which breaks a record, so congratulations. Her free market economic plan, which included tax cuts, severely hurt the economy. And that led to the reversal of key components of her economic plan, and then just a complete reversal eventually. And eventually she realized I just can't fulfill the mandate that I was elected to fulfill. And she explains more in the next clip. I came into office at a time of great economic and international instability. Families and businesses were worried about how to pay their bills. Putin's illegal war in Ukraine threatens the security of our whole continent.

And our country has been held back for too long by low economic growth. I was elected by the Conservative Party with a mandate to change this. We delivered on energy bills and on cutting national insurance. And we set out a vision for a low-tax, high-growth economy that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit. I recognise, though, given the situation, I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party. I have therefore spoken to His Majesty the King to notify him that I am resigning as leader of the Conservative Party.

Now, as I mentioned, she has served the shortest stint as Prime Minister before stepping down, only six weeks. Trust announced her decision to leave just 45 days into her tenure. George Canning previously held the record for the shortest term in Downing Street, having served for 119 days back in 1827. Just a bit of trivia worth knowing. Now, just days ago, not days ago, actually, just yesterday, Truss refused to resign after the calls to do so had increased considerably. Let's watch. Today, Trust faced a chorus of jeers and booze as she entered the House of Commons. She apologized for her botched economic plan.

it rattled the markets and sent the pound into his tailspend. But trust insists she's not stepping down. Mr. Speaker, I am a fighter and not a quitter. I have made mistakes. But the right thing to do in those circumstances is to make changes, which I've made, and to get on with the job and deliver for the British people. Now, I want to emphasize again, this has to do with the fallout following her economic policies. The announcement brings to an end a catastrophic tenure in Downing Street, which appeared doomed ever since Truss's flagship economic agenda sent markets into panic and led to a fall in the value of the pound.

One more thing I think is worth mentioning. She had her sights set on austerity toward the nation's or the UK's health care. system, which is a single payer healthcare system. It's incredibly popular with voters, with people in the UK. In fact, even Boris Johnson understood that and declared that he would not cut the health care program in the UK, and that helped him get elected. But as we all know, while he was just completely overwhelmed with scandals and controversies of his own, he had stepped down as prime minister just last year. So I've got a lot more to get to on this story, but, Jank, I want to know what you think. Yes. So one of our members, Bohemian Dragon Tiger

Lily 48, reminded me to say this. Ladies and gentlemen, we got them. Down goes trust. Down goes trust. Okay, is that a thing we're supposed to get excited about? I don't know. She's a conservative, so I guess God bless that she's gone down. She had a plan to lower taxes for the rich and cut health care for the people of the UK. So God bless that she went down. Very happy about that. Got more substantive comments about that because there's a twist in who brought her down.

That's very interesting. We'll get to that in a second. But first, more goofy comments. Can't get enough with the English accent. I know. I know. But it's a bit of a controversy in the garage. And the parliament is the greatest thing in the world.

Boom, sick did I get a sit out. I love it, right? I know. It's kind of fantastic. Yeah, the only thing that's missing is a thrown shoe. Don't throw shoes. Okay, but we love it overall. I think it's super healthy for their democracy that they got rid of her in 45 to 46 days.

I want to come back to that as well. But I like her thing of, no, yesterday. I will never surrender. I'm a fighter. A fire, okay. We shall fight on the heads. We shall fight and the beaches. And then today shit, wait a minute, it's beach is rather lovely.

I don't go to stay here. I would stay on beach. She's not fighting anymore. Okay. So that's nothing but fun. But really interesting reasons why she went down. So back to him. Yes, yes.

So I'll get to the substance and we'll go back to Jank and his accent. Just a moment. So, you know, you mentioned that this is good for their democracy. And I agree to some extent, but it's also important to be realistic about what this means. There are some pretty undemocratic components to, you know, the UK's electoral system that you should know about. So for instance, since she's a member of the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party gets to decide who replaces her. They don't have like some general election where the people get to decide who her replacement will be. And that has certainly frustrated many in the UK, including the head of the Labor Party, who is.

by all intents and purposes, a neoliberal. So there's also the same issue here in the United States where we're constantly confronted with a false choice, either incredibly incompetent, terrible, austerity-obsessed conservatives, or austerity-obsessed neoliberals. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah. So they're dealing with a similar situation. With that said though, Kier Starrmer, who is of course the head of the Labor Party says, Britain can't afford the Tories chaos. My labor government will provide the stability and leadership needed for our economy, for growth, for working people, general election now.

So he's calling for a general election, and I agree with that. But again, it's important to take a good hard look at where the Labor Party currently is, the leadership of the Labor Party, and just really understand that this is not some pro-worker genuine labor party. In fact, once they have a candidate who is actually pretty fantastic and would look out for workers and wouldn't push for austerity, the Labor Party will crush him. That has happened in recent history. Indeed. So look, she made a mistake here.

And it wasn't just her package. Her package was awful and no one liked it. But there's two interesting bedfellows that came together to drive her out. But she should not have apologized. Why? Why? Because it confirms everything that people were saying. If I was her, just politically speaking, not on policy. Why are you helping her out? No, no, no. It doesn't matter. She's gone. Yeah. Okay. So apparently in Liz, we don't trust. I'm here all week. She's gone, but I'm here all week. Okay. So anyways, but to that point, because her was you picked her, right?

Tories, you picked her. So if I was her, I would have said, wait, did you not know my plan? I told you my plan and you made me leader. So you can take me down. And if you do, you're basically saying you were wrong. And I'm okay with that. But I'm not changing my mind. This is my plan. Because once you say kill your own plan, which she did a couple of days ago, right?

She fired her a really good friend who was a finance minister who was executing her plan, put in a finance minister who was 100% opposed to her plan and completely repealed it. Then there's no point in having her there. Right? So she undermined herself politically as well as policy-wise. And so I would have just put it back on the party. And that goes to the point that labor is making, which is, wait a minute, this is your policy. Cut taxes for the rich and cut services for the average person in the UK.

The conservatives can't pretend to be surprised. Right, 100%. 100%. And that is the reason why they chose her, you know, the Tories chose her. because of her love for austerity, her love for tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. It's very similar to conservatives here in the United States if you want an easy way to kind of think about it and have a comparison. But yeah, I mean, I don't know whether there is a great path forward right now.

Because the way the electoral system is set up, the same incompetent conservatives get to choose who replaces her. And these are individuals who tend to be incredibly wealthy. They are not a diverse set of individuals either, mostly white, wealthy individuals. And so constantly replacing resigning conservative prime ministers with others who literally have the same ideas isn't going to bode well for the people in the UK. Yes, but there is still a silver lining there. So in Liz, they trusted, now they in Liz they don't trust. And one of the things that guys that might make a comeback is Boris Johnson.

It's insane. So what are we doing? What is what this crazy mayor go around, right? Right. Well, look, the silver lining is this. At least they have a system that is somewhat responsive to the facts, the things that are happening on the ground, to popular opinion, et cetera. Here in America, our politicians are enormously unpopular, and they just sit on their ass for years and years, decades and decades, and no one ever does anything about it. Look at how old all of our politicians are.

Because we can't ever remove them. Right. So the elites in America have found a way to cordon off the politicians from popular opinion completely. That is why we're consistently voting on the two least popular politicians in the country. Biden and Trump right now are the least popular. Earlier, Trump and Hillary Clinton were the least popular, right? But yet those are our only choices. At least here they're circulating through some options.

Now, again, it's a fraud because all the Tories agree. So it's just, and by the way, a lot of the neoliberals in labor, also agree. Yep. Right? So whenever there's an actual challenge to the system, and it could be as odious and incorrect as the challenge that Trump did, or correct like Bernie Sanders or somewhere in the middle with like Jeremy Corbin, right? Immediately, establishment media, both in the UK and US, and establishment politicians, both on the so-called left and right, attack, attack. There's a virus. There's an outsider. They will not do as they're told. Now we finally get to the strange bad fellows. In this case, she's driven out by a popular opinion to some.

some degree to a decent size degree, right? But she was also driven out by the bond markets. So it's, it's a popular and completely elitist revolution at the same time. And the bond markets, and this is what's really interesting, we're concerned that her plan would add too much to UK's crushing deficit. But remember, it's adding it by giving more tax cuts to the rich and a giant loophole to oil companies. So for the first time in my memory, and I've been around a while, that is the markets, capitalist markets saying, no, you're giving too much to the rich. This will ruin your country.

I've never seen that before. That's an interesting perspective. Yeah. So, and it's like that oil loophole. She's like, oh, I'm trying to save prices on gas. Oh, the international gas prices, both here, UK, everywhere, set by international markets. She was just giving a giant handout to incredibly profitable corporations, and the markets didn't like that. Never seen it before. So that was really interesting. Maybe that is what Ben Shapiro is referring to. So let's get to that part of the story.

I don't know, because he's not being specific here. So I don't know what he's referring to. So let me reset for that part of the story. And it's a whopper. Okay, so. UK's Prime Minister Liz Truss has stepped down after her economic policies have weakened the pound and she has experienced a rebellion from her own party. Now, Ben Shapiro has weighed in on the matter. And while there's a lack of specificity here in regard to the spending he's referring to, I think it's worth trying to, I guess, decipher what

he's talking about. So he has read it in this way. Liz Truss's minuscule stint as prime minister should teach all of us one very important thing. Systemic economic problems created by out of control spending over the course of decades are going to claim a lot of scalps and create a lot of volatility across the West in coming years. Now, I think it's important to note that he's saying spending over the course of decades, but again, there's no specificity. And in regard to Liz trusts specifically and the policy she implemented, there was austerity and tax cuts for the wealthy, which does go along with the type of economic policies that people like Ben Shapiro typically love and support. Now with that said, I don't want to just tell you that. I want to

provide actual evidence to that point. And so we go to a journalist from the UK who explains who Lij Trust is, what she supported in terms of economic policy, and how incredibly unpopular and disastrous it would be. Let's watch. The policies that she's been putting forward, which she seems to have some enthusiasm for are extreme neoliberal policies, cutting the state, cutting taxes for the rich, even more austerity, even more privatization if she can, just at the time when we need the complete opposite policies. She's adamantly opposed to organized labor. She hates trade unions. She wants to shut down their capacity to strike and to take other forms of collective action. She also has strongly hinted that she wants to tear down the regulations

protecting workers, protecting them from being forced to overwork, protecting their terms and conditions, their wages. So that's a great threat to people, especially at a time of, well, we're facing a serious economic recession. Now that was an interview, with a UK journalist George Manabo and he was explaining to democracy now where Liz trust stands on these economic issues a month ago. And his predictions ended up being accurate and it did hurt the economy in the UK. Yeah. So this is a rare situation where a conservative pundit is partly true, saying something that's partly true. I'll give it only three out of four Pinocios. So I'll tell you the one Pinocchio he got right and the three got wrong.

Okay. So the part that's correct is the bond markets reacted very poorly to this. And they reacted poorly because of the effect that it was going to have on their their deficit and their debt. Okay. And that is totally out of control. And it got to the point where their credit rating got to about Greece and Italy's level, which for the UK is disastrous. And so the part about the government expanding and spending too much, et cetera, over the course of decades is relatively correct. Okay. Also, it looks like Shapiro's right. No, no. Now the parts that he left out are critical, okay? So trust did not come in and go, oh my God, this deficit is so bad. It's my number one priority we're going to bring it out. No, she said the opposite.

I'm going to give more tax cuts for the rich, which conservatives like Ben Shapiro love. She said, I'm going to hit labor. I'm going to hit the employees. Now, the people of the UK didn't like that. They didn't like the austerity. I'm going to cut from health care. They didn't like that, right? But Ben Shapiro loves those things.

Yeah, cut from health care. Make sure the wages are lower, right? But the tax cuts for the rich is his favorite prize, obsessed with it. In fact, it's the only thing that Republicans ever care about. And same is true of Tories. In fact, the Tories picked her because she's going to do tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest of the citizens. Now they have buyers' remorse, not just because there's an open revolt from the public, but because there's a revolt from the bonds market. So the bond market's basically told them, hey, you're going too far.

You're going to throw the economy out of whack because you're helping the rich too goddamn much. How much can you cut their taxes? They're cutting the taxes is what's blowing up the debt. It's not that you're giving too much to the people. It's that you're giving too much to the rich. In this case, there was also an oil loophole. Again, it doesn't affect the prices they pay in the UK at all, because it's an international market for oil.

What she would have done would have not have affected prices at all for the people in UK. But what it would have affected is multinational corporations that love conservatives in the UK, US, and everywhere else, and fund them and have lobbyists, et cetera. So she had the perfect right-wing position. I guarantee you that if you asked Ben Shapiro before she launched it, he would be like, it's perfect. It's flawless. It gives oil companies, the rich, everything, and it punishes those stupid common people that

I hate so much, right? Now that it's failed, he's turned around deficits. Yeah, that's the main thing. No, but the tax cuts led to the deficit. Same here. Trump did a $2 trillion tax cut. Bush did a $5.8 trillion tax cut, way more than even Trump's. Reagan did giant tax cuts.

that is what's causing the debt and the deficit, both short term and long term. So it's him being right on a portion of it is rather ironic because he's for all of the wrong positions. He knows that. That's why he buries what she did in the short term and refers to decades old policies. See, Ben is smart enough to know how to lie to people, right? A lot of the other Hirsch Walker would have been like, oh, my God. Me, no like trust, but me like her a lot. my chair's badge. Shapiro's more sophisticated. He's like, man, I loved her policies and people. I hated it. So let me bury those policies. And I think that's true about 40 years ago.

Right. Yeah, exactly. His wording was careful. But I will. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone,

and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout.

Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Say, just based on the reaction to that tweet alone, no one's buying it. Because it is, I mean, we see, especially over the last decade, the austerity that has taken place in the UK, You can't deny that, the neoliberal policies that have taken hold, not just in the UK, but obviously here in the United States as well, she's also a big fan of free trade, which crushes certain industries within the UK. So these are all things to keep in mind. This isn't just about overspending, it's about overspend, it's about losing revenue thanks

to the programs you've implemented that give massive tax breaks to the rich. Yeah, and let me be super clear about that. Her plan did not overspent. Right. That's a misleading, if not a flat out lie. It overcut taxes, okay? That's why they lost the revenue. That's why debt was going to be a problem.

If you ask Ben Shapiro about every individual policy that she favored, I'd love to get them on the record. Are you against those policies? Because those are Republican 101 policies here in America. If you are, let us know, let your audience know. Oh, taxes for the rich suck. Loopholes for the oil companies suck. Cutting your health care sucks.

Let him know. Let him know. No, you're not going to do that because you're lying. and you know you're lying. So that's why if he's challenged on it, he has no answer. When we come back from the break, we will switch gears and talk a little bit about corporate greed here in the United States where there is a proposed mega merger between grocery brands, grocery stores, I should say.

So stick around. We've got that story and more. All right, back on TYT, Jank, Anna, and Mark Mediate are here. Mark, thanks for joining. We appreciate it. He hit the join button below the video on YouTube. You all can do it at t-y-t.com slash join. Perfect time to do it.

We're giving away $100 gift cards like crazy, like their hotcakes, but kind of literally, because it's blue apron gift cards. A hundred of them go out to members every single week. You got to watch the live show, answer this trivia question on Friday. Casper. Well, a story that deserves a lot more attention and could potentially be disastrous when it comes to the cost of food, a mega merger when it comes to grocery stores. Kroger, the massive grocery store chain, has announced that they intend on acquiring Albertsons

for the small price of just $24.6 billion. Now, this merger, if it were to go through, would have disastrous impacts on the cost of food for hundreds of millions of Americans across the country. But first, it's important to understand and note that Kroger and Albertsons already have many subsidiary brands. So Kroger brands include Ralphs, Dillon's, Food for Less, Fred Meyer, Harris Teeter, King's Supers, Mariano's, and several more. Albertsons boasted by a 2015 merger with Safeway, or boosted, I should say, with a 2015 merger with Safeway, has that chain in its stable along with Acme, Hagen, Jewel Osko, Shaw's, Pavilions, Vons, and many more. So there are already these major grocery conglomerates, right? Grocery stores or grocery chains, I should say, eating up smaller grocery chains,

And that does what? It leads to a lack of competition. It creates a monopoly. And this potential merger would make things even worse. Now, congressional testimony this January from the National Grocers Association indicates that over 60% of all American grocery sales are concentrated in just five companies. Amazon, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, and Ahold Del Hayes, a Dutch grocer that owns several brands like giant food line and stop and shop.

Now, if Kroger and Albertsons were to merge, that merged company would control 16% of the national market, okay? In some local markets, the merged company and Walmart combined would control upwards of 90% of the market. So it depends on where you are in the country. And that's really bad because if there's a monopoly in regard to these grocery stores, that means that they can charge whatever they want for the products they carry. And you're not going to have very many options because even though there might be the illusion of options, you know, different branding when it comes to the store itself, it's really under the same umbrella, the same company in reality. Now, just look at how the leadership at Kroger and Albertsons talk about

inflation. This is an important part of the story, I would argue, the most important, because this is what their whole objective is. Last summer, Kroger's CEO, Rodney McMullen, said that a little bit of inflation is always good in our business, because customers don't overly react to increases in prices. That's a really interesting take, because people are definitely reacting to the inflation, especially when it comes to putting food on the table for themselves and their families. But the thing is, people feel incredibly powerless because we have really not a two-party system, but a one-party pro-corporate system in America that protects the price gouging that's currently taking place right now. Kroger's CFO, Gary Miller Chip, told

shareholders in October, quote, we've been very comfortable with our ability to pass on the increases we've seen at this point. And we would expect that to continue to be the case, end quote. That's devastating. Yep. Okay, so there's two different issues here. One is monopoly power, and two is the corruption in our system related to inflation, okay? So, and this is just a textbook case of it. So he's telling you, we're very comfortable passing on everything to you guys. Literally, that's exactly what he said.

Now, what did they pass on to you guys? So egg prices are up 30.5%. That's gigantic. Yep. Okay. Chicken's up 17.2% coffee's up 50%. 15.7% and the list goes on and on. So now, Republicans and Democrats will tell you different things. Actually, Republicans are progressive. Democrats generally agree with Republicans. So

Republicans and neoliberal Democrats say, oh, there's nothing the businesses can do. The poor businesses, they're the ones that are suffering. It's economic forces and your wages are too high. And that's what's causing inflation. Now, that could be true, by the way. Of course, sometimes the price of supplies go up. And then at that point, you might not make a profit anymore. So is that the case in this situation? Nope. Both for Kroger's and Albertsons, and by the way, almost all of the industries, none of them are showing losses. They're all showing not only profits, record profits. But wait, if inflation was causing it, they'd be in dire straits. And they'd be like, we don't have a choice. I have to increase the

price. Otherwise, I'm losing money. And if I lose enough money, I'll go bankrupt. But that's not the situation at all. Correct. They're making record profits and they're bragging openly saying, yeah, the people will take the price increase. Why? Why are the people going to take the price increase? Number one, they have an oligopoly. Yeah, they have no choice. They have no choice at all on two fronts. One, in a place like LA, for example, almost every store, supermarket is Rouse and Vons and Pavilions. So first of all, these, they would merge and you would have a monopoly and not an oligopoly. You would have no choice at all. But right now, you basically they have only two choices is these companies that work together all the time. They set very

similar prices so that you have the illusion of choice without actually having. Why didn't they acquire all those companies that Anna mentioned? Why didn't they change their names? Because they like the illusion of choice. Yes, the illusion of choice is really important to like grasp when it comes to capitalism. Because what we usually hear about when it comes to, let's say, a communist system like in Cuba, one of my favorite memes that goes around by right wingers is a grocery store aisle in Cuba. I forget what the product is, but there's one brand. You have no other choice, one brand.

But you look at the major corporations that basically have all these brands within their umbrella. They might have like different branding for the same product, but it's the same company making the product. You get what I'm saying? Yes. So like we have the illusion of choice here in the United States, whereas, you know, in Cuba, But it's like, or in a communist country where there's one brand, it's like, no, this is, this is the reality of the situation.

You got one brand. But either way, either way it's bad. The prices are the same. Yeah. Right? So now, in terms of, again, there's a second factor in why you have no choice. One is, it's an oligopoly. Two is the government.

The government is never held accountable because moneyed interests have completely seized the government, including, most importantly, it's not people, it's not people of a particular race or ethnicity. No, it is corporations. They have completely controlled our government. So that's why their CEOs brazenly go out on calls and go, we have them under complete control. There's nothing they could do. We're passing on the prices to them. We're super comfortable.

Their representatives are our servants, right? They didn't mention that part, but it's super obvious. And so there's no way they could ever fight back. They brag. Now, last thing about inflation, so when they merge, one of the CEOs has to go. One of them will stay and run the company. But it turns out it's- I've got those numbers. Yes. So Anna, read the numbers and then I'm going to make a comment about it. That golden parachute is real sweet, real sweet. So the merger would hurt average Americans and obviously make the ultra wealthy even richer. Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen would take over as CEO of

the combined company if the merger goes through. But Albertson's, CEO, Vivek Sankaran stands to gain a $50 million golden parachute in the deal. Meanwhile, Albertson's parent company, Private Equity Giant Cerebrus Capital Management, will earn a windfall to perhaps as much as $7 billion. So if the inflation was actually causing the price hikes, you'd never be able to extract $7 billion from grocery stores. So grocery stores would be the most affected. They'd be most on the razor's edge of sustainability, right?

This is just business 101. They're not anywhere near the razor's edge. They're taking $7 billion out in bounty because they're like good, inflation. We get to charge more and there's nothing they can do about it, right? And the only one, of course, fighting on this is Bernie Sanders saying, it's the prize gouging. And everybody, of course, the world is collapsing in on him because almost all the media is owned by corporations.

Not just the corporate hacks like CNN. Fox News, what do you think they are? They're a giant corporation. They're part of the same propaganda. They're like, don't listen to Bernie Sanders. Infoices are really bad, but it's not the companies. It's your fault. The wages are too high.

They're liars. Finally, on the $50 million, at least on this portion of the story, guys, if they were hurting and they had to pass on the price increases to you, do you think they'd have $50 million lying around to give someone who's leaving? They don't have to give them anything. They're choosing to give him $50 million gift on his way out because they're like nice job basically totally exploiting the customers.

And so allowing this would be mental. You cannot let them merge. There's good news on that front though. Yeah, the good news is, and this was actually a shocking statistic to me for me. because of how pro-corporate this country really is. But it turns out that somewhere between 70 to 90% of proposed mergers actually fail. So the antitrust division of our government apparently is doing an okay job. But when you take a step back and you look at some of the biggest mergers over the last few decades,

they've been pretty devastating in terms of prices and inflation for the American people. So I can't imagine how many proposed mergers they're dealing with on a regular basis to get a percentage that high. But it's really important for this particular merger to fail. Yeah, so there's a lot of nuance there real quick. A lot of the smaller ones fail. The giant corporations basically own the government, except for the FTC under Biden. So we often criticize Biden. I don't think he does enough.

But man, he picked someone great for the FTC. It's Lena Khan. And she's against monopolies. She's said that so many monopolies that are dangerous and overly large should be blocked. And she's very likely to block this one. Unfortunately, there's always a bad turn, right? She's not the final voice. She's the penultimate voice.

The final voice is the courts. And so the courts, of course, are completely controlled by corporations. Again, corporate media never told you that. I write all about it in my upcoming book, Justice Coming Book. com about how they captured the courts. And so the courts keep going, no, I don't see any monopolies. You got anybody see a monopoly? They own 60% of the market, I don't see it, we're good.

Almost all the people on the courts were selected because they were in favor of giant corporations. They were picked by corrupt Republicans and oftentimes corrupt Democrats to do just that. So Lena Khan will definitely strike this down, then it'll go to the courts. This one is so egregious that even the courts might say, no, no, you can't do this one. But you got to cross your fingers on that one. The courts are so pro-corporate. And it might go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the most pro-corporate. And a couple of the Supreme Court just to remember were picked

because they allowed corporations. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus. IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca.a. Killer employees. Literally. Literally. Okay. And so if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, they might be like, oh, I love it. Why can't they get 100% of the market? So the jury's still out on this overall. Well, believe it or not, we actually have A great decision by a conservative Supreme Court justice coming right up after the break.

Don't miss it. It's unbelievable. All right back on TYT, Jank Anna, an American hero, Chris Bank. Chris, I just signed up, obviously. Hit the join button below the video on YouTube, you're awesome. t.yt.com slash join everywhere else forward. Chris Bankhead sounds like he's gonna be the next head of the Federal Reserve. Doesn't he?

He's like, oh, and our new CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase, Chris Bankhead. Little on the nose, but got it. Yeah, all right, let's get to the next story. We've got shockingly good news coming out of the United States Supreme Court, which of course is dominated with conservative Supreme Court justices. This time, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, of all people, basically rejected a call from a conservative group representing taxpayers to essentially do away with Joe Biden's executive action on student loan debt relief. Now, here it is. Reuters reports that Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined to block President Biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt in a challenge to the policy's legal. by a Wisconsin taxpayer's organization represented by a conservative legal group.

Now, this is good news, but there is a little bit of a twist at the end. So stay tuned for that. First, let me give you a little bit of context on what's transpiring with this conservative group and why they got slapped down by a federal judge and now by Justice A.B. Cody Barrett. Now, she declined to even provide an explanation for it. And I think that the lower courts did a good job actually explaining why they have no legal ground to block Biden's order here.

Now, two days after the Biden administration began accepting online applications for the debt relief program, this Wisconsin organization asked the Supreme Court to halt its implementation. The Brown County Taxpayers Association argued in the request for emergency relief that Biden's program would cost taxpayers more than get a load of this. trillion dollars. Now, student loan debt overall is about 1.7 trillion right now, and federal student loan debt is 1.4 trillion. The idea that this would cost taxpayers a trillion dollars is just a straight out lie, especially when you look at how modest the debt relief is by Joe Biden. But let me continue. And that it circumvents Congress, which controls federal

spending. So there are a whole argument is it's unacceptable that this was done through executive action, it should be Congress. And I love when they say that because they know that ain't nothing getting through Congress. That's, they know it, okay? And that's why we have to rely on executive action, which has flaws, okay? And I'll get to those flaws in a moment. Now, here's their argument. They argued, the blow to the United States Treasury and taxpayers will be staggering, perhaps costing more than one trillion dollars. If this program goes forward as planned on Sunday, then the president will unilaterally spend roughly 4% of the nation's GDP gross domestic product, the emergency application said, which is also ridiculous.

And I'll explain why in a moment. Now here's what's concerning about their tactic. And I'm glad that it didn't work. But I was concerned that they did this emergency application that was addressed specifically to Amy Coney Barrett. Amy Coney Barrett is not a friend to students who are struggling with student loan debt. And she's very much, yes, a conservative justice, but also a pro-corporate justice. So when it comes to crushing ordinary people economically speaking, she's got no issue with that.

So I don't know what motivated her to basically reject the call to block Biden's executive action, but I'm glad she did it. With that said, I think it's important to go back to what a federal court had ruled on this issue because even though that federal judge had, you know, blocked this effort and said, no, we're going to allow Biden to implement this executive order. He specifically said, since it's an executive order, it is very likely that once Biden is out of office and once a Republican is in office, the Republican can easily reverse it with no problem. So that is something that is possibly coming up. And so while there are, are certainly major flaws within the Biden administration and the corporate Democratic Party.

Fact of the matter is a Republican president would have no issue reversing this modest student debt relief. In fact, we've already experienced that under the leadership of Amy DeVos, who was the education secretary during the Trump administration. What did I call her? Amy. Oh, I'm sorry, Betsy. Because you've got Amy Coney Barron in your mind. My bad. So guys, you know what that means.

get your checks. Okay, so as soon as they allow it, make sure that you apply if you're in those categories. Because if Trump or another Republican comes in, they're going to say, oh, hell no, you're a regular person. We hate regular people. You're not at all rich. So I'm not going to give you any money. Trump, on the other hand, gave $2 trillion to the rich. All right. So now, there's a couple of super interesting things in the story. Number one, it's always shocking when conservative Supreme Court justices apply the law correctly. So there was like a whoa, she didn't cheat moment here today. Yeah, and that's great, great news, okay?

I know it's a super low bar, but these days we'll take it. So why is her position clearly correct? So there's something in law called standing. And so in order to sue someone, you have to have standing. That means if you have no standing, it's the court basically saying, who are you, bro? Why are you here? Okay, why are you the one suing? Okay, you got punched in the face, you have standing.

because you were the one who was hurt. You're aggrieved, yes. Yeah, you're aggrieved. But if you saw the guy getting punched in the face, who are you, bro? Why are you here? You can't sue, right? So the court has been super clear that you cannot sue the government just because you're a taxpayer. Okay, I'm a taxpayer.

I don't like the defense bill. I want them to stop giving money to all the defense contractors. I do that, right? And the court says, who are you, bro? No, you can't sue as a taxpayer, okay? So in this case, here's a group of taxpayers. In fact, it's a group that wants to lower taxes for the rich, saying, hey, we want our money, Lobowski.

Okay, and this is the Supreme Court going, it doesn't work that way. Yeah, okay. But I want to come back to them in a second. Okay, so hold that thought, because I think it's kind of important to understand what really motivates them, right? Because understand, this is just debt forgiveness. So it's not like the action of relieving some portion of student loan debt for some of these borrowers.

Remember, it's a means tested program, doesn't mean that that's going to raise taxes automatically. However, what they're concerned about, and this is important, the interest that's paid by student loan borrowers is a source of revenue for the federal government to the tune of $22.4 billion in 2019 alone. And I think there's a fear that as you do away with some of this regressive taxation, and that's the way, I like to look at it, then there's going to be more calls to increase taxes on individuals who are not paying their fair share in taxes, the wealthiest individuals who pay a far smaller percentage of their income to taxes, federal taxes, compared to lower income individuals. Right. Or as the kids would say, this is a mask off moment, okay? They're telling on themselves. So why do you care about this issue? It doesn't have any to do with taxes. No, this is rich folks.

saying, I don't forget taxes, I don't want the average man ever getting a break from the government. Because if they get a break from the government, they might tax me later. So I'm not just interested in taxes because I want to grow the economy. Remember, that's the excuse they use every time. Oh, it isn't to help the rich at all. It's to grow the economy. But wait a minute, this would definitely grow the economy. It puts money back in to the economy and it allows to circulate faster and would actually help create more jobs, et cetera, et cetera. But you're against it anyway. Why are you against it?

Because you think if you ever help them, the lower classes, that means you might take from me the upper class. So in a sense, they kind of told on themselves by filing the lawsuit. Remember, we don't want any average American getting a dime, backed by six Republican states. These are conservatives, right wingers, Republicans saying we hate the average guy. We want to make sure that we preserve all the money for tax cuts for the rich. Now, I want to juxtapose their insane overreaction to a little bit of debt relief for student loan borrowers here in the United States to their complete lack of reaction to what just broke in the news today. U.S. lawmakers discussed passing a 50, this is an additional, 50 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine by the end of January.

That was reported by NBC today. I bring that up not to engage in a debate about whether or not we should help Ukraine, but more importantly, to discuss how whenever it comes to military aid, whenever it comes to enriching defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, there's never a debate. There's never an emergency call to the United States Supreme Court to block it. No, none of that. And there's barely even a debate within Congress on that issue, which I find just fascinating. whenever it comes to helping our fellow Americans, providing a little bit of relief so they can go about their lives, start families, get married, possibly even buy a home. Unacceptable, we can't have it.

We got to fight it in the courts. The federal courts reject our efforts. We got to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They get real fired up about it. Whenever it comes to our fellow Americans, it's a big middle finger. When it comes to lining the pockets of defense manufacturers, no problem. So what Anna is saying is indisputable. Look, look at the numbers, right?

$22 billion in interest. But wait a minute, we're just giving away $50 billion. That's more than two years of interest. So why are you not concerned about that? Again, we're perfectly unbiased in this case because I'm on Ukraine side. I want us to help Ukraine. I think the imperialism of Russia is disastrous, right? But I don't know that that's the right number.

And I definitely know that tons of money is getting funneled to defense contractors. that isn't going to Ukraine, and it's just, it's a total pork barrel project. But when it goes through corporations, nobody ever gets sued. Oh, you're sending it to my friends at Raytheon and North of Grumman? No way I'm going to sue you on that. Notice a couple of bills that had Biden passed, infrastructure bill, the semiconductor bill. Those are two of the largest bills that he passed. The money goes straight to corporations and maybe it trickles down on you.

And it probably does in the infrastructure bill, and the semiconductor bill has some upsides. But overall, when it goes to corporations, no one ever gets sued. Everybody's like, hey, okay, give it to the top, okay? Corporate Democrats agree, Republicans agree, the courts agree, all the right-wing groups agree, right? Whenever it goes directly to the average American, oh, the student debt relief, that's going straight to Jane and John Doe? I hate it, sue it, kill it, destroy it. That's who the right wing is in this country. They hate the average guy.

And that's why, as Anna has said a million times, that's why they do the culture wars to pretend to be on yours. Don't you hate trans people like we do? Yeah, okay. Rob the bank. You take closest crime. They're distracted. Rob the bank, rob the bank. That's what Fox News is.

That's what the Republican Party is. All right. One more story in the first hour. And this is, I don't know, there's something in the water that Democrats are drinking lately because we've been wanting this for such a long time and we're seeing more and of it in the debates. So let's take a look at how Annie Andrews performed on the debate stage recently. I support the Second Amendment if you are a law-abiding citizen, I have no interest in your guns.

I have an interest in a conversation about how we can get fewer kids and fewer citizens with bullet holes in them. Things got real spicy during the debate for a seat in South Carolina's first congressional district. Now the topic of gun control came up and it was fascinating to see the Democratic candidate here, Annie Andrews, fight back against a narrative we hear from from the right wing quite often when a mass shooting takes place. Now the Republican incumbent is Nancy Mace and she of course pretended to care about mental health and how we need to really do something about it to prevent the prevalence of mass shootings in this country.

But Annie Andrews, the Democratic opponent, wasn't having it. Let's watch. We've got to make sure that our schools are funded with SROs, the school resource officers throughout the state of South Carolina, something I supported and voted for. We've got to address mental health. We've got to address suicides in this country that have gone up exponentially for adults and our youth over the last two years. Thank you, Representative Mayes. So why did you vote no on the Mental Health and Schools Act?

Dr. Andrews, if you would like to rebutt, you certainly can for 30 seconds. Thank you. Every shooting, we hear it's mental health. It's not the guns, it's mental health. First, I want to say I support the Second Amendment. If you are a law abiding citizen, I have no interest in your guns. I have an interest in a conversation about how we can get fewer kids and fewer citizens with bullet holes in them. If it's mental health, why did you vote against the Mental Health in Schools Act?

And again, why did you refuse to vote on the bipartisan gun safety bill that Lindsay Graham supported? Every woman in this district would like to know why you don't care about our children's safety in schools. I'm a mom of two kids. I understand that. I understand that. I don't care about kids. That is repulsive and disgusting. Children's safety in schools, Nancy.

You know what is not safe? Is supporting sex change surgery on kids? That's not safe. Great pivot there. pivot there because she got caught in the lie. And I'm so glad that Annie Andrews was smart enough to look at Nancy Mace's voting record. And it's right there in plain sight. You can check the record for yourself. She absolutely voted against HR 7780. And that was titled the Mental Health Matters Act. And I was actually fascinated to see, you know, considering

how the GOP purports to care so much about mental health in this country, after. a mass shooting and only after a mass shooting, how many Republicans voted in favor of that legislation? So let's take a look at the graphic here. And as you can tell, wow, one, one Republican voted in favor of it. 205 voted against, six abstained from voting. And as you can see, not a single Democrat voted against this in the House. Okay, so there's a super interesting phenomenon that you're seeing in this debate that I want to tell you. But I think that's a bigger your story here. But let's pause on on this bill first. Every time you see a Republican tell you, it's not the guns, it's mental health. Remember this bill. They all voted against it.

Except for one. Except for one. 205 out of 206, we're like, oh yeah, we're just lying. We're all liars. We don't care about mental health at all. No, no. That goes to the average American. I hate it. That didn't even go through a corporation. I hate it. No way, right? They're all God damn liars. If there was an honest press in this country, they would tell you that. Instead, I can't tell. I mean, that's why there's a New York Times pitch bot. Making fun of the New York Times

for calling everything even. This is not even. They're liars. They don't care about mental health at all. It's just an excuse to protect gun manufacturers. Okay, now, and you know that she had voted no on it, but she's like, all right, well, didn't you vote now? Trans, gay.

Kids, sex change operation. Wait, we were talking about that. Did you vote yes or no? So it's super obvious that she's a giant hypocrite. Can I just, I have to also just point out one other part of Nancy Mace's argument there. Because it's amazing how often the right wing will be proven wrong in their solutions to these school shootings. And they still keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been debunked over and over again. The first thing she mentioned was SRO, so school resource officers.

You want to talk about Yuvalde? I mean, so did we need like maybe a hundred more cops there on the scene before that guy started shooting up kids for, you know, that shooting to be prevented? I mean, it makes no sense. Makes no sense. The mass shooting that happened at the Topps grocery store in Buffalo, New York, there was an armed guard there. And obviously, that wasn't enough to stop the mass shooter from gunning down.

shoppers at that Topps grocery store. So like the idea that all you need is one man with the gun. You just need one good guy with a gun to prevent this from happening is crazy. And to be sure, I mean, I think I think Annie Andrews did a really good job. Just in my opinion expressing what the majority of the Democrats and the left feel about gun legislation. I don't want to ban guns. I don't. But we need common sense gun regulation to ensure that when guns are sold, they're not being sold to the wrong people who pose a threat to public safety. That's not that difficult to do. And I think her line, bullet holes in them, it paints a picture of what happens to children

all across this country, to people all across this country, because of our laxed gun laws. Yeah, I mean, so of course, Anna's right about the absurdity of the argument. We just needed a couple more cops. You had 400 cops at Yuvaldi, 400. And that didn't do the job. And your solution is more cops, more guns. Hey, do you have gun manufacturers that give you money through the NRA, et cetera? I bet you do.

Almost all the Republicans do. So, and then that disingenuous line of, I'm a mom, I can't believe you. I don't give a damn what you are, right? So, I mean, look at all the sellouts they have from the different races and backgrounds, et cetera, that are all over the Republican Party. Herschel Walker, I'm black, well, let me tell you, black culture is all wrong. Okay, so I'm a mom. Oh, yeah, it's okay.

Shoot the kids. Hey, did I get the check? Did the check clear? check cleared. Shoot other people's kids. My kids are in the line of danger. Did the check clear? Good, we're good. But now the more important issue. The Democrats are fighting back. What the hell? That does it happen in decades? So you got Tim Ryan, you got this person over here doing it. You've got obviously Federman doing it. And it's popping up in more and more places. We noticed it when at least Slotnick did it. She's a conservative Democrat. And she fought back super hard against abortion on the floor.

the house. I was like, wait a minute, the memo's out. Then the dark Brandon memes about Biden. And Biden fighting back a little bit. Why? It's always the money. But in this case, there's good news. They're raising a lot more money from grassroots donors when they fight back. So they smell the money. I'm talking about the Democrats. Oh, do people like it when you are opposed to your opponent? Oh, all the consultants told us, don't be opposed to your opponent. Go to the debates and kissed Republican ass. But now I'm raising money when I don't when I actually fight them. Thank you, knuckleheads. Of course, of course. It was the donors that was that were stopping them from fighting. Now back to Tim Ryan for a second. Tim's a good example because he's kind of

a conservative somewhat establishment Democrat, right? But now he's like the fiercest fighter. Why is he doing it? He explained it the other day. The Democratic party is giving him nothing. okay but he's got about he claims about 350,000 donors so he's funding what is now a badass campaign from you guys and as long as he's getting the money from you guys all of a sudden he's a giant fighter for the people right and by the way the Democratic Party what a bunch of incompetent corrupt feckless losers you're going to spend 30 40 million dollars on extremist Republicans and primaries and you're giving Tim Ryan against J.D. Vance, J.D. Vance, who's loathsome and probably believes in a dictatorship,

you're giving Tim Ryan no help in Ohio? Democratic leadership is the worst. Like, this was a very, very winnable election, all of these. And they're trying to find a way to lose it. But luckily, the candidates have had enough, and they're now seeing, yes, your voters want you to fight Republicans. It's about damn time. People love strength.

All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we'll give you an update on a federal judge's ruling on the election fraud incident or situation that includes Donald Trump, his former lawyer, that John Eastman lunatic. It's a great story. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks.

Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jan Huger, and I'll see you soon.