Is JD Vance a Socialist?

0:00Well, ladies and gentlemen, you guessed it. The right is fighting again with each other because it's just what we love to do. And this time they're fighting once again over something JD Vance said, now, let me say something right off the bat. I like JD Vance. I do. I've had the opportunity to meet the vice president a couple of times. I've always found him to be highly intelligent, willing to answer tough questions and audiences where he might be a little bit concerned about how he answers it. But I've always found him to be forthright and honest, even when I disagree with him about something. But what we're seeing right now is the typical thing that happens on social media when the right is fighting as we go straight there. And we start to characterize each other, caricature caricature caricature each other. That's what we start to do. We start to suggest that, well, you know, you're supporting socialism or no, you just don't care about family using it. When in reality, if you actually talk to these people and a lot of the people that we're going to discuss today are people that I know and like very much, and I'm tired of my friends always fighting online, we're going to go and we're going to look. What did JD Vance say? What is the Trump policy that has conservatives divided?

1:03What does it actually do? And then we're going to look at the various arguments for and against. And Christian and I are going to have a very respectful dialogue on where we think some good points are being made and where we might think that people are missing the boat a little bit. So without further ado, let's actually talk just briefly about what has got everybody all in a kerfluffle. All right. So Trump plans to pay parents $9,000 to stay home with kids and this divides Republicans. And again, that, that sounds a little bit bizarre. What do you mean you're just paying people to stay home with kids? No, what this is, is this is taking an existing program, which we'll get into a little bit more detail later. And it's making funds available from this program to essentially stay at home parents. Right now, this has got some people upset both foreign against. Now let's go ahead and look at what Dana Loesch has to say again, Dana Loesch. Someone I like and respect and think is certainly a good conservative. She says, this is welfare. We tried this socialist program many times and it failed. It utterly and completely failed with Victor Orban tried something similar and hungry too.

2:05American families can't afford to pay for their kids and everyone else's kids too. And she's actually bringing up the point that, you know, she was also someone that had raised kids as a single parent. So she's not just looking at this from some ivory tower. She actually understands what the policy is seeking to achieve, but is suggesting that it won't actually achieve it because it's failed in other places. But then you look at Mark Levine and he says, we're told here by the DC class and its enablers that this entitlement program already exists. We can't get rid of it or we shouldn't get rid of it and just change it to apply to couples to help subsidize stay at home moms or dads. It won't cost us another penny plus it's good politics. And then he goes on to say, you wonder, you wonder why we're 40 trillion in the whole and digging faster. There it is. Hook more Americans and what is welfare. Of course, it'll grow and expand. It'll be abused onto the next new idea and change the entire psychology of parenthood to include a bigger role for government. How did prior generations manage to have children and work? As I said, Social Security and Medicare are going broke and soon according to

3:07the actuaries and trustees interest on the debt exceeds one trend a year and climbing in four and five years, the debt will be 50 trillion. This is unsustainable and utterly irresponsible and every family in the country will pay the price. So again, Mark Levine is like, nothing he said here is false. Nothing he said here is false. He's pointing out that there's there's role there's role problems with his overall program. Let's look at somebody that actually tends to agree with the program. Megan Basham again, great conservative. She goes and there it is. The establishment GOP is telling us that mom's prioritizing children and a home making is no longer a possibility and you just need to accept that mothers are going to have to be in the workforce from here on out. So as I said, this is chamber of commerce, get every warm body into the workforce thinking. And Megan went in and she talked about other problems of this too. She goes like, again, look, this is a program which already exists. Why shouldn't we make it available for other things that we actually agree with? Ben Shapiro, wait in, excuse me. Let's talk to somebody else that agrees with us. Let's talk about Andrew Colvet over with turning point USA goes policy is phenomenal. It's so good only the GOP establishment could oppose it.

4:09Let's finally put married couples with kids first. And again, you can see what he's referencing here with Eric Dottry. The Trump administration is reportedly drafting a plan pushed by JD advance to give federal child care funds to married couples with stay at home spouse while the other parent works. But again, Tommy Laren, she comes on and says, pay parents to stay home. So kind of like that COVID mailbox money that destroyed our workforce and supply chain or the at home care idea that turned into a giant fraud boondoggle, not get government out. But then you have someone less than Michael Lowell saying if establishment conservatives want to beat the accusation that all they wish to conserve is 90s liberalism, they might consider toning down their fury at the prospect of modestly reforming a liberal 90s welfare program. So right off the bat, right? You're seeing them kind of again, these are all people like a lot of these people. I know or or I at least have some level of relationship with or would even call friends and they're all over the place on this particular topic.

5:11So the first thing that we have to do is we have to talk specifically about what's going on here? What is actually going on? What is being proposed? And then what Christian are going to do is we're going to analyze the points being made by both sides of this argument to hopefully help you walk away with a good understanding of what it is and whether or not you think it's a good idea or a bad idea. All right, Christian. Let's go ahead and look at what all the hubbub is about here. So as I understand this and correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, New York Times reported on it. And I don't typically trust New York Times, but this was all verified. That the administration of the officials are drafting a health and human services regulation redefining eligibility for the child care and development fund. And that's roughly a $12 billion a year block grant created under Clinton. So that married couples under 85% of state meaning income could draw on it when one spouse stays home. The working spouse must be at least 35 hours a week unmarried couples excluded.

6:14No act of Congress required. Essentially what's happened is the White House is taking an existing program that is largely used for like daycare expenses as I understand it. And now it can be used or it can be used for other people, right? Now it can be used for the parent, like one of the parents to stay home with the kids. So we're going to help alleviate some of that burden. So you can get one parent back in the home with the kids instead of handing them off to daycare, right? Where the $9,000 number comes from, right, is it's the current average annual value of a CCDF. That's the child care development fund subsidy per child. Money that today goes to a licensed provider. So it's like the daycare side, right? The proposal does not create it. It makes a second category of family eligible to be able to claim it. So newsweek and several others have called this a tax credit. It's not a tax credit. It is a regulatory eligibility change. And if you, you know, so that that's what's actually going on here.

7:15That's what's actually going on here. Now under this current thing, the pot does not grow. So it doesn't expand the CCDF currently serves roughly about 870,000 families, about 80% of them headed by single working parents and MPR reported on 19 August three weeks before this leaked. The more than 400,000 children are already sitting on state wait lists for it. So again, this is fixed appropriations, same amount of money already being allocated wider eligibility, which would basically say, okay, moms and stuff like that would be able to say, home. Now what is separate is the working families tax cuts, which was already enacted. That's a child tax credit at $2,200 and now permanent and Trump accounts seating $1,000 per newborn from July 2026, which is a refundable adoption credit. Those went through Congress. This did not, all right. This did not. So again, you have one program. That's the child tax credit. You have this other program that was established in the 90s, the child care and development fund. And now what they're going to do is they're going to say we're not adding any more money to it.

8:16We're just expanding who is eligible. So all the money doesn't go to like child care. It can actually go to a parent that is staying home. Christian, what is your initial take on something like this? There was a tweet from one of these influencers that had a flow chart talking about this. And it was something like this. Do you have the, you know, should this program exist, right? You know, from a from a conservative or right wing perspective, right? Yes or no? If it was, if it was yes, it was like, okay, great. You know, let's just leave it alone. And if it was no, then the next question was, do you have the votes to eliminate the program currently? Right? And if it's yes, it's like, oh, that's great. Okay, let's schedule a vote right now. I want to eliminate this needless program. And then if the question was no, then it was, okay. So then you should be defaulting to the third point, which is, um, is there a way to reform the program so it does not needlessly punish the core conservative constituency and voting base, which should be, you know, American family

9:20spaces, right? It should be married couples with children. That, I mean, that's ultimately kind of one of not the reason, but it's one of the reasons that we engage in politics. I mean, we want, you know, strong and happy and healthy families, right? We want a thriving America. And so I look at this and it's funny because like today I've got your, uh, from our old studio, I thought your, your socialism mug with me. I thought it was kind of fitting. Um, we were clearing out the old studio. So I found that and picked it up. It's, one, it's some day I will deliver this to you in person. But, um, I look at this, uh, from the same perspective that somebody like Thomas Sol would probably look at this, which is that life, politics, economics, government, these are all about trade-offs. These are not about, can we get utopia? I think a lot of these critiques that you're seeing here, quite frankly are utopian arguments. They're, they're not wrong. They're not necessarily wrong. We are drowning in debt. We have way too large of a federal government. I mean, we're spending trillions and trillions of dollars.

10:21We're spending a trillion dollars on interest payments for growing out loud, right? Like there, there is no question that the size of the federal government today should be slashed, you know, by 50%. And by the way, the administration that some of these people are criticizing is the only administration in my lifetime that is delivered substantive declines, right? Decreases hundreds of thousands and the number of federal workers. I mean, the Trump administration has, we're talking over 300,000. I believe the current number is like close to 360,000 net, right? And it's not like they haven't hired additional people. Look at ICE, right? Like they've definitely hired additional people net decline of over 300,000 federal workers and contractors. So I mean, that is a larger decline in the federal workforce than what happened under any president since Calvin Coolidge to include Ronald Reagan, by the way. And so like to some degree, I feel like that Trump and Vance should earn just a little bit of like goodwill here from some of these people that are criticizing this.

11:24Well, what is gentleman now? We got to have something good, something the good conservatives can agree on. And that is the deliciousness of good ranchers because for beef, you can trust that supports American ranchers shop good ranchers. The number one company delivering 100% American meat straight to your door. They partner with over 100 local farmers and ranchers. Every cut is pasture raised with no antibiotics, no added hormones back by more than 25,000 five star reviews on trust pilot. As a subscriber myself, it has made getting a good dinner on the table so much easier. I can't tell you how wonderful it is. How wonderful it is to be like, what are we going to have for dinner? Good ranchers. That's what we're going to have. So go to goodrangers.com slash discount slash Nick and use code Nick to claim your free four pound Angus ground beef bundle with your first order. Plus free meat in every order when you start a plan and ladies and gentlemen, you want to know what's wonderful.

12:25They actually started to build your own box, right? You get your build your own box so you can go on there. You can pick and choose what you want. And when you start a plan, right? Not only is that code Nick is going to give you free four pounds of Angus ground beef with your first order, but you will get free meat in every order when you start a plan. So go to goodrangers.com slash discount slash Nick and use code Nick to take advantage of that. I'm telling you. And by the way, great people in good ranchers, great, wonderful people and a wonderful product. Go check them out. Yeah. Let me, let me push back. Let me push back. There's been a, there's been a number of times where JD Vance as a senator made comments that I know made people like me concerned that he wanted to expand the welfare state that, that and again, some of this is shaped by the fact that if you read his book, Hillbilly, Elegy and you read or Hillbilly, Elegy and how he grew up and everything else. You know, obviously he grew up in very, very different circumstances from the vast majority of people that rise to the rank of vice president of the United States. And I completely understand why he would say, well, look, if we're in power, we should

13:29be using the re, we're using all of our resources to help people all over the world. We should be doing more to help our people here at home. And that's something that makes sense to people by the same token. I look at it and I said, well, wait a second. Part of the problem with this helping people all over the world is we can actually demonstrate how in many cases that's actually exacerbated the problems. And it's not like we're not helping people at home. Caleb Hammer, if you've never seen his show where he's giving like financial advice to couples and stuff like that. And a lot of it is couples that have just made horrible decisions. And it's usually a lot of its leftists, its liberals. And this one lady was going, I'm about like, we got money for bombs, we don't have money for school lunches. And it goes, you're on crack. The vast majority of the federal budget are a series of entitlement and redistribution programs. And entitlement is one that you pay into and then you can receive a benefit out of. But even those, we give money to people that have not paid into it or not paid into the degree of what they're taking out, which shifts it from entitlement to welfare.

14:30And then we have massive government programs at the federal and state level in order to help people get money for food or get money for education or whatever else it is. So I reject this entire notion that we're not doing anything. Obviously we do a lot. And I think a lot of it is counterproductive and destructive. Now where I am sympathetic and I want to go back to, so that's where I'm sympathetic like Ben Shapiro's argument or Mark Levine's argument where he's saying, here's what you're actually going to do. You're taking a welfare program and then you're expanding who's eligible for the welfare program. Well, whenever you do that, what you create is long term dependency from new constituencies. And one of the goals of all left wing public policy is how do we get more people involved in our programs to where you can't take it away? Like FDR, when they were first talking about social security, there was this idea of, well, we're just going to make it for a certain portion of the population that literally would die without it. And FDR is like, nope, everybody's getting it and everybody's paying into it because

15:32if you do that, you will never, you will never get rid of it. That's how we make sure this program lasts. He was right. Within a generation, Republicans were talking about how to save social security, even though we all understood the government running the retirement, it's a horrible idea. So Mark Levine is not incorrect here. Like he's bringing up a very, very valid point. But then when you look at some of the comments from like Megan Basham, part of what she argues here, and I want to look at some of her other arguments because I think they were, they were good here. She references Josh Dawes, another good guy. He goes, everything to the right of that line takes moms out of the home. Corporate family was a productive household, which is the ideal scenario in my opinion. So this is someone where Tiana Lowe was saying, guys, the single income middle class household is a historical anomaly that basically only existed between the productivity boom of the late industrialization and the global demand explosion for American industry. Women have brought an income for most of human history. But what is not understood there is that a lot of that industry was what you would call

16:35cottage industry or it was agriculture. Prior to the, prior to what I think the 1900s or prior to the 1800s, I want to say it was like 75% of the occupations were generally associated in one way, shape a form with agriculture. And then you had a lot of cottage industry. So for instance, the sharecropper would go out there and he would farm the fields while mom and the kids were in the house and maybe they were sewing clothes or maybe they were getting things together. Like if you read Proverbs 31 where it talks about the woman, you know, buying flags and making things and being entrepreneurial, this idea of the woman bringing in an income, it's true that that's a large part of how history operated, but it operated very, very differently from kind of the modern industrialized era where people are essentially leaving the home to go to work and then come back. And so this idea that this is just some sort of anomaly through history only tells half the tale. And what Josh is pointing out here is that we'll wait a second.

17:36All this stuff right here is pushing kids or is taking moms out of the home. Corporate family was a productive household and Megan Bashin points is actually because Josh is right here. They're pretending that the corporate household mom and dad jointly contribute to the family income streams, but mom largely does so to participate in husband's labor. And the same as mom has her own separate career and goes off of the office for nine hours while baby is daycare. That isn't what's that is not what the historical record was. And then she and again, a lot of this is breaking down into establishment class. Megan Bashin goes on to explain for those asking for my definition of the establishment class, it is this the Chamber of Commerce GOP for whom GDP rather than healthy stable families is the highest good. I want strong GDP, but not at the expense of rightly ordered family life. So again, what Megan is arguing here and what Michael Noles was arguing when you looked at his argument as well was this idea of look guys, this already exists.

18:37And the Christian points earlier, you are not getting rid of it. So if you're not getting rid of it, why wouldn't you at least a reform it to make it more family friendly? And one of the arguments that is also brought up, I think it was Megan Bashin that brought this up, she goes, how many of you guys like the idea of school choice or dollars following the students? Right? And I've fought for that. And she goes, what is that program? What you're saying is we're already collecting taxes for education. The differences is right now we're collecting it for government administered education, government run and min-education. When dollars following students would do is it would say, okay, the government is going to be involved in the subsidization of education, but instead of the government being solely responsible for providing that education, it's going to take those funds, it's going to say parents, you go find the education that works best for your child, right? And then you are going to get to recoup the taxes that you, some of the taxes that you pay and the education system for this purpose.

19:38She goes, if you think that is a good idea, this is essentially following the same logic. Now I will point out that I had a lot like HSLDA, the Home School Legal Defense Association. They opposed dollars following students precisely because they believed it would allow government to get a foothold into homeschooling and private education to such a jury that over time they would take it over, manipulate it and ruin it. And again, it's not a bad argument. So this is the part where we have to ask the question, okay, who's right, who's wrong? And the answer is yes. This is one of those issues within the conservative movement where you kind of get into this battle between, and I don't mean this pejoratively, you could call it philosophical purity or you could just call it intellectual consistency.

20:38And then on the other side, you get conservatives they're saying, look, there's other issues here. This is not just about, for instance, this is not just about expanding a welfare program. This is about reorienting a program which is in their opinion doing damage by what it promotes, which is get your kids out of the house and into a daycare and is at least reordering it to a point where moms can stay home. And so in so far as the program is going to exist and you can't get rid of it, when it be better to reform it in a positive way. Christian, who's right and who's wrong on this one in your opinion? And you could argue that that's practical conservatism. And one of the reasons I'm saying this is in my opinion, this whole idea that JD Vance or Trump administration is socialist, I don't think that's a fair critique at all. They're not calling for, again, I think we should be precise in our language. This is not socialist. I think there is a reasonable and good conservative critique of what they're trying to do.

21:40But I also think there is a relevant, maybe it's not as strong, but there's a relevant critique for why this is going to be problematic and ultimately just expand the welfare state and the constituencies of government programs. Christian, who's right and who's wrong? I mean, I definitely lean more on the side of Michael Knowles and JD Vance here to just be totally honest. I mean, if you would ask me this question five years ago, I probably would be on board with Dana and a few of these other people like Donnie Ferguson here and the replies to Michael Knowles has a kind of fun equip of King George is going to tax us and take our muskets. So let's pass, so let's pass stamp acts that benefit us. Well, Donnie, when we staged the revolution and founded this country, we did pass stamp acts that benefited us. It was called the whiskey tax that George Washington marched an army out into the field in order to keep collecting because there was a rebellion against it. Like this idea that we staged a revolution and then we established an anarcho-capitalist

22:45society with zero government and zero taxation and zero public expenditure is like that's insane. That is not what America was from the start. And yet there is this element of the right that is, no, we are never allowed to spend a single cent that might conceivably be used for conservative or right wing ends because then that's no different from socialism. I'm just so far past these like theoretical utopian idealist arguments at this point. We are going bankrupt not because of programs to try to encourage women to stay at home and raise children. We're going bankrupt because we're spending trillions of dollars on entitlement and welfare programs for largely. I want to push back, right, like respectfully. And what Mark Levine would say, right, what Mark Levine would say and he said right here was, yeah, exactly Christian. And guess what? Those programs that were set up initially were programs that were saying old people should not die alone because they can't afford to feed themselves.

23:47Poor people should not go without medical care because they can't afford it. And so what we're going to do is we're going to establish these programs that are just going to provide a safety net, right? And because after all, we have the values in this country that we want to take care of our own citizens. And so that's what we're doing. We're taking care of our own citizens. And so Mark Levine would say, well, yeah, see all of that might have sounded nice on some level or appropriate or just trying to, you know, take care of people. And yet we know what a nightmare it has become. So how is this different? How would you respond to it? Because this program's not going to become a $2 trillion program. Like even think about the most pro-natalist governments that have ever existed, right? Like in the modern era, probably South Korea and Hungary, which are two failed cases, by the way, this is an argument in favor of Mark Levine's point. They are not spending a majority of their tax revenue trying to encourage family formation.

24:47They're spending a majority of their tax revenue on largely entitlement programs for retired people, pensions, right? There are state versions of social security. That's what's bankrupting the country. It's an unpopular thing to say, but the math is object like, I've got the chart pulled up here. Let me show it to you. I mean, I don't think the average person does not, the average person typically does not get to see this chart. They look at the discretionary spending and they're like, we're spending too much on the military. That's because it's discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is the overwhelming majority of federal spending. So this is a chart showing all total federal spending from last year. Social welfare, which is that is that social security, right? That social security Medicare and Medicaid alone is almost half of all federal spending. When you add an interest, which we don't get, I mean, unless we're going to default, which is that would be a disaster. We're not going to do that. We will print the money before we default on it, right?

25:48Is 10%, almost 10%. This shows that at 9%, I guarantee you it's closer to 10% now because interest rates keep going up. I mean, between the two of those, your over half of all federal spending is on interest and entitlement programs to retired people or to healthcare programs to retired people or to healthcare programs for people that are like what below the poverty threshold, right? So social security Medicare and Medicaid are the three things that are bankrupting this country. All of these other like minor programs that you've heard, you know, with a million different acronyms attached to them and oh, there's like a billion dollar, you know, pool for this particular fund. And like this program that we're talking about was, um, was a, what, it's like a $12 billion fund or something like that. It's, yeah, it's $12 million. But, but, but Christian, you know, it's compared to the, I get that it is. I get that it is. But if we add up all the $12 billion programs that we have, that actually, that actually equals some real money. I'm like, what's the, what's the famous thing?

26:48A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. You're talking real money. Yeah. Yeah. And so I'm not going to discount it. But like again, in terms of what is actually like to, to Mark Levin's point, because here's the thing, like I'm criticizing him. But here, let me hide this that way. We can pull up Mark Levin's, um, uh, tweet again. Okay. So, so to, to Mark Levin's point, it's, there's a lot here that I agree with him on. Like I'm not discounting the debt problem. I'm not discounting the deficit spending. I think he spot on with those things. But it's important to understand what is the driving cause of this? It's social security, which is, that's the third rail in American politics. Nobody wants to touch this. The current people that are withdrawing money from social security, like this is a very unpopular fact. But the current people, they're withdrawing money from social security, did not pay the equivalent into it that they're drawing out. They are drawing out more than they paid into it that current retirees that are, that

27:51are collecting social security checks today paid less into the program when they were my age or your age than they're withdrawing today. Inflation adjusted by the way. So this is a totally unsustainable program. We have a massive welfare system. I'm acknowledging that. I'm acknowledging that. But Levin's point is not every system, which is causing the debt is, is, you know, again, he can see that he's conceding the point. He's conceding the point that social security Medicare Medicaid, that's the, that's the big thing that's destroying us. What he's saying is that I don't accept the argument that because, you know, we're, we're, this one is less that therefore it's, it's not relevant. It's, his problem is is that we have to get people into the mindset of reduced scene government dependency, not increasing it. And his argument is that you can say all day long that you're not going to increase the number, but the moment you increase eligibility, it will be inevitable that you will increase

28:56the size of the program because what happens when you increase eligibility, but you don't have an increase to the budget. More people go on waiting lists. You know what people really don't like? They don't like being on waiting lists for something that they think that they're owed. That makes a mad, that makes them call up their, their Congress people. And because they're not going to kick off all the other people that are on it, maybe something shouldn't be on it. That means they're going to have to expand it in order to get to the people that they want. Because again, look at the report that came out on this. What was it? It was something like 80% of the people that are currently on it are single parents. I think it's what it said. 80% okay, where you go? Married couples under, okay, let me see. Child, a care development fund, a roughly 12 million year, a block grant created under Clinton so that married couples under 85% of state-owned can draw on it when one spouse stays home. That's what they changed. I thought there was something in there was talking about the number of people that actually use it. Maybe I read that wrong.

29:57Oh no, here it is. It serves roughly 870,000 families, about 80% of them headed by single working parents. So of 80% of the 870,000 families currently doing this, right, are single working families. And you have places where there are tens of thousands of people on wait lists. And then you expand eligibility to a different group of people that are two parents. A lot of people are going to fit into that category. How do you not end up inevitably, rapidly expanding this program? I mean, part of me just wants to be like, I'm not concerned about that because we're drowning in debt. And I would rather the money go towards causes that I'm more supportive of. Look, if we're in a scenario, I ask a simple question, would boomers consent to cutting social security checks right now? I think the answer is obviously no. No.

30:57How dare people tell, say, working families, you're not allowed to have a government program that might actually be beneficial for you in order to maintain your marriage and keep the wife at home with the children. But we're not going to touch this third rail and American politics because it's too politically inconvenient to do so. Like again, if you're like in your 20s, 30s, 40s, and you're eligible for this program under the new proposed rules that Vance is putting forward, you're going to be kind of furious, right? Because you're looking around like, okay, this sacred cow that conservatives love to talk about but never touch. That's allowed to keep going forward. We're allowed to keep using, you know, basically what is the phrase that the guy said was, I can't remember the magazine. It was a conservative magazine that had this article about a year ago titled Total Luxury Boomer Communism. And it was talking about basically social security.

31:59It was like we've constructed, like we have created a system now that is funneling money from largely poor younger people that are working to richer, and to richer older retired people. So like the boomer phrase in there is a loaded term because then you're going to get a bunch of people that are like, why are you hating on this particular generation so much? That's totally a fair point. That's totally a fair point. And part because 30 years from now, if nothing changes, that same system will now become the Total Luxury Gen X Communism, right? The point is that we have this system in place that is absolutely without question, financing the consumption of rich retired people who did not pay into the equivalent that they're pulling out. Like the math is abundantly clear on this. But people with drawing from social security did not pay in their fair share of what they're drawing out today. And there's fewer workers today do support retirees compared to when the program was created.

33:01Now for conservatives to rail against this and not do anything about it, which they have not done my entire life, they haven't haven't touched social security once. And then turn around and be like, sorry, we can't reform a program to expand the eligibility to actually promote the type of thing that we give a lot of credit, a lot of rhetoric towards, which is we want monogamous married couples raising children and pursuing the American dream. Again, if you're a 20 something, 30 something year old married family, what is the point of voting Republican? They talk a great game about this, but they're not willing to touch the entitlement program that's actually bankrupting the country. They're not willing to reform an existing program when they have the opportunity to do so to actually, I don't know, maybe promote the thing that they say that they want to promote. Let me ask you a question, though. How many working families, how many, let's say, let's say married couples in their 20s and early 30s? How many of them are hot to try on massive social security reform?

34:05Oh, I think if you told them how much money they would be saving if we were formed social security, I think almost all of them would be in favor of it. So give you an idea, too, just so everyone understands something. Social security started in like, I think it was 1937, 38. But then in 1940, let's just go from there, 1940, here's what you were looking at. There was 159 workers per beneficiary in 1940. By 1945, that number dropped to 42. By 1950 was 16.5. By 1960 was 5.1. By 1975, 3.2. In 2025, it's 2.6. So we have 2.6 people working for every beneficiary. So a program that started off with at least dozens of people working to support one beneficiary were now down to 2.6. And those numbers are going to get even worse because we don't have above replacement birth rates in this country. This is part of the reason why this is part of the reason why they call for immigration.

35:08It's also why I want to bring up this other thing from Megan Basham that I thought was a good point. Let me find it here again. Here it is. She goes, my husband just made a great point. Part of the reason that we are having so many of these painful in-house debates is because we are trying to figure out why for so many years we lost even when we won elections. And there are some people who are very invested in not allowing that conversation to happen. Even still, even this many years into the Trump era, they are still hoping to roll it back and not have an accountability discussion. Thankfully, it's too late and we're going to continue to have it. We are not going back to what was before Trump, where even when our guy was in the White House and we held both houses of Congress, we still got mass migration and more welfare for people who hate us. I think that sentiment is incredibly widespread. And I do see this, even with this nature of the debate. And again, keep in mind, I am saying that Mark Levine, Ben Shapiro, Dana Loach,

36:11these guys, I do not agree that those guys fall into the category of what Megan Basham is talking here. I don't think they're afraid of having the internal fights, but there are certainly some people that are. That's where you get the automatic caricaturing of each side. But there is zero question. Zero question. That conservatives got sick of what, you know, the book refers to as the beautiful losers. The people that want to make very grandiose and maybe very intellectually consistent, esoteric arguments, but they never actually want to use power when they have it, when they've been given it by the people to achieve the things that those people want. Now, there's a fair argument to be made. Well, look, wielding power is a tricky thing. And the goal of conservatives has never been to expand government power. It's been to limit government power so that we can keep more decisions in the hands of the individuals. But the problem that we have here is again, do you have the votes to reduce the size of government

37:13to the degree that you want? And the answer is no, you don't. You can't even get the save act passed, right? Again, photo ID has as 70 to 80% approval rating with Americans. You can't even get it passed. Why? Because of the filibuster. And some more conservatives are saying, look, we want something that we want wins. And so the debate is now taking place with what actually constitutes a win. Speaking of wanting to expand, you know, the birth rates and family are good friends at live action are reaching millions of people with some of the most effective pro-life content out there, putting in front of people the exact moment it matters. One of the biggest fights right now is Planned Parenthood exposing with taxpayer dollars actually fun and pushing lawmakers to finally end that funding. So defunding alone doesn't change the culture. And that's why live action also reaches women who are actively considering abortion online, right when they're searching for answers about one in five women who see that content change

38:18their minds and it costs about $50 to reach one woman and help save that child's life. And I'm telling you right now, I love the way that live action does this because the sort of content that they do actually engages with people where they're at and it causes them to think. And gosh, when you talk about one out of five women, see that content and make a different decision. You were, that equates to tens of thousands of baby saved. So if you want to help text Nick to 70723 or go to liveaction.org slash donate slash Nick, the slash Nick, let's know we sent you and support their work today. That's text Nick in ICK to 70723 or liveaction.org slash donate slash Nick go help an organization that is saving babies. Now, I want to, I want to bring up something else here that I think is important because this is a video we did. This is a video we did on the Y minutes. So, so bear with us for a little bit because one of the things that we were trying to discuss is why governments can't raise birth rates. And we talked about this a year ago. So this is not

39:23something new that we put out in response to all this a year ago. We were saying, you know, we're noticing this trend where a lot of governments are trying to solve this problem of, of reduced birth rates and they're trying all kinds of things. Okay, how's it working? So let's go ahead and take a look at this video that we did to be intellectually honest. The four minutes long, let's take a look. Why are birth rates dropping the developed world and why can't any government in that same world seem to do anything about it? I mean, this may sound like an exaggeration, but it's a question every developed country is currently grappling with. Governments have thrown everything they can at this problem from cash incentives, subsidized daycare, even tax cuts for families. And yet, none of it seems to be working. Take Japan, for example. Back in the 1990s, the Japanese government saw the countries rapidly declining birth rate and responded with policies that should have worked at least in theory. Childcare leave, cash allowances, paternity leave for fathers,

40:23any cultural push for men to share the household burden. But none of it made a difference. In fact, things have only gotten worse, which Japan's birth rate plummeting even further to a dismal, 1.2 children per woman. So why are these efforts failing? Maybe it's because governments are treating it as a whole problem. But it turns out having kids isn't purely an economic decision. In fact, it's more of a spiritual and a psychological one. People don't decide to have children based on tax credits or subsidies. Children aren't an expression of something deeper. I mean, yes, children can certainly be expensive, but a quick look at demographics and we see that it's not like rich people are the ones having more kids. Maybe that's because the desire to have kids is rooted in things like love, community, meaning, things that can't be simply reduced to dollars and cents. And every time the government tries to solve this issue by adding another financial incentive, they're missing the point. They can't create the conditions that make people want to bring life

41:27into the world. In fact, many of the conditions created by the government are doing the opposite for a lot of people. Government spending and inflation have actually contributed not only to the poor economic conditions that those same politicians are trying to address with even more government spending, but the apparent inability or unwillingness to deal with issues like crime are creating the very conditions that cause people to think twice about bringing up a child in this kind of world. The fact is, politicians seem to believe that their great at solving problems provided they can measure the problems. But when it comes to creating the emotional and spiritual conditions that lead to new life, they seem to be far better at doing the opposite. In fact, as we've seen time and again, the more the state intervenes, the more the problem seems to get worse. The reality is, governments seem to be great at reducing the birth rate. We've seen this in China with the one child policy. And in Japan, post-World War II, when contraception and abortion were legalized

42:30in order to reduce population growth. But when it comes to raising it, that's a whole different matter. You can't just simply legislate love. And you can incentivize the kind of sacrifice and joy that comes with raising children by adding another tax credit. In the end, politicians may argue that policies like paid parental leave or child tax credits can help those who already have kids or want them. But the problem is, is they won't change the fundamental reasons why people aren't having them in the first place. So I know it probably sounds crazy to a politician who is on a mission to solve this issue. But maybe the solution is less government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Maybe what people need is for the government to stop helping in the form of tax schemes or more programs or more interference. And instead, just focus on the very few things they could actually do to help, like keeping our streets safe or letting people keep more of their own money. Turns out the more freedom people have to plan their own lives without wondering what a

43:31politician is going to do next, the happier and more secure they feel in order to bring children into the world. All right, Christian, were we wrong a year ago or were we wrong now? No, we were we were largely right a year ago and we're right now. I mean, I conceded the point at the beginning. I don't I think the biggest critique, you know, it's so frustrating about this is that most of these critiques that I'm seeing of JD events, I think are uncharitable. And in some cases, just disingenuous. And it really gets back to what Megan Basham was saying in that tweet of like, we have an entire class of people on the right in the conservative movement in the Republican Party that quite frankly don't want to have a conversation about why have we gotten 30 years of progressivism, including times when we've won elections, right? Like, like, why has conservatism failed to conserve anything basically? And there's there's a huge chunk of people on the right that quite frankly have just almost like a business

44:34interest in we want open borders mass migration and lower corporate taxes and income taxes and, you know, to hell with everything else. I don't care about anything else. And that style of conservatism is just it has to go. It has to go. It's going to it's going to eventually dissolve this country if it keeps going any further. So, well, okay, let me let me let me push back though. Everybody that is critiquing this program from Daniloche to Ben Shapiro to Mark Levin, all of them have been just as vocal about shutting down the border, about drastically curtailing immigration, about, you know, reducing the negative thing, like fighting the progressive era. Nobody gets to claim that those guys have not been in the fight. You know, from, you know, again, Ben Shapiro was in instance, he was like 16, right? Nobody gets to claim that they're not in the fight for those things. And so, that what I want to push back on as this character, that, well, these guys are just, I agree with you when it comes to like some of the Chamber of Commerce GOP guys where they're like,

45:37you know, GDP go up is the only thing I really care about. But that's not Ben Shapiro. That's not Mark Levin. That's not Daniloche. That's not some of these other people that are bringing up what I would consider to be legitimate critiques. So, I think what they're saying is is, no, no, I don't want this. But I also don't want to reinforce the idea from the right that expansion of government welfare programs, but just to different people is the way that we actually strengthen the family. What exactly is the game plan here, guys? Seriously, like, like, let me get this across and then you can tear it to shreds, Nick. What I'm hearing is, no, we can't do this because this is right-wing socialism. Okay, can we cut social security? No. So then we're not allowed to change any program. We're not allowed to change any program unless we have the votes to abolish it as what I'm hearing. So the system will just keep going as it currently exists, which is overwhelmingly weighted towards benefiting the left. I mean, I think we should all be on the same page on that,

46:42right? And because we don't have the votes to abolish it, which is the only principled option that we've got, the system as it's currently constructed, not just this program, all of them, right? The entire federal budget, basically, is just going to keep going on autopilot, defaulting to left-wing progressivism until eventually we get some sort of like sovereign debt crisis, dollar milkshake, collapse of the currency, whatever it is, right? It doesn't matter, you know, what it is, until we get to financial or monetary, you know, got her down wrong, right? You know, Armageddon. Then, you know, we're just going to keep modeling along. But, you know, what, we're going to be very principled in our rhetoric. Like, that's what I'm hearing. There is no plan to win. There is no plan to, I don't know, maybe stop funding our enemies. Notice if that's why I disagree, that's why I disagree. So, first of all, they, again, all of these people were totally on board with doge. They were frustrated. The doge didn't go farther. They wanted to get, because those programs are very specifically funding our enemies along ideological lines. Yeah, USAid and all of that.

47:45Yes. Okay. So, you got to put USAid and say, so security in two different categories. I think so security is the far more pernicious program because it's the one that's actually going to cause, you know, generational problems and it already is, right? That's the one that's going to bankrupt us. So, I think it's more pernicious in that sense, but it's not the same, like, ideologically driven program as, like, taking your money and giving it to trans operas in Colombia, right? That's, so we understand the difference between those two things. The other thing that I would say is that, again, their point would be, no, it's not that we don't have a plan to get rid of Social Security. And it wasn't that long ago where there actually were plans. Like, the Bush administration actually talked about trying to provide a private option with respect to Social Security. And what happened was, can we admit that he was right, by the way, and hindsight, like, I know, it's super popular to bash the Bush administration. And don't get me wrong. There's plenty of things you can, you know, you could attack him for 2008. Yeah, because of the same war, but here's the deal. At the same time that he was doing that, he was expanding like Medicaid part D, right? Like, he was,

48:47so there was some inconsistency in there that really frustrated conservatives. But yeah, no, he was right. If we would have gone to a more Singapore style model, it would have been excellent for the economy. And all of our retirees would be significantly richer than they are. And you would be drawing out of the system. I mean, it goes back to what I was bringing up earlier, that you'd be drawing out what you actually paid in because what you paid in would have allowed it to compound, right? Through market growth, rather than it sitting in a treasury account. Christian, stop. I don't want to go in a whole thing on this, right? Like, we're not going to go in another whole thing. We're just going to say that, yeah, that was better. This would have been good. But the point that I'm making is that no, there were plans to do these things. But the the decision, so I don't think, again, I don't think it's fair to claim like a Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin or these guys have no plan or never advocated for ways that you can fight within the system or do they have the practical argument back to them would be like, okay, but they were not successful. And we've gone to the point now where it almost seems impossible to talk about it,

49:51to which I think they would say, okay, but then go look at what Ron DeSantis did in Florida. Ron DeSantis went after sacred cows in Florida and one, he didn't do it by, by once again, trying to cozy up or trying to create a different type of conservative approach to welfare. He went it by taking on things. And so maybe that's what we should be doing. Now, I'm going to flip, right? Because again, my job here is to try to see this from, from both sides of the debate. I've always been a fan of dollars following students. And I remember I would, I would, and I was a homeschooler. And my argument was I want a system that allows for dollars to follow students, but I also want a system that allows for parents to completely exit the system altogether and not have to subject themselves to government interference. And what I meant by that was is like there should be an exemption where you as a parent can say, I get it. I'm going to have to pay taxes. You're going to use some of those taxes on education or whatever else. But you were going to leave me alone when it comes to educating my kids because I'm not taking, I'm not

50:54taking any of your money. You know, if you want to do a tax credit, that's different. Now, I get my money back to do something. And that's what HSLDA always preferred. HSLDA was like, you can do tax credits all day long, provided that people are getting their own money to educate their own kids. But the moment you let the government have the foothold, they will take it over. And again, they have a long stretch of examples to be able to demonstrate that this is just generally true, if not universally true. And so their argument is what we should be doing is we should be saying how do we reduce this program? The solution to not funding, and again, I'm not talking about enemies in this particular case, but the solution to not funding our enemies is not expanding funding and then also including our allies. And I think that's the debate that's going on right now with the conservative movement because some conservatives are saying, look, this can't be a situation where they get to, when they're in power, they get to fund their enemies. And when we're in power, maybe we defund part of our enemies, but we never fund our own. And again, the traditional conservative argument, which is relevant, which has merit, is saying, okay, but once you give in,

52:01once you give in to that is the paradigm. It is all about whoever controls the government is deciding where the money goes. Once you give into that, just understand you've abandoned something that's core to our fundamental argument. And now at what point, at what point do you ever get it back? And the argument that I made to that with respect to school choice is like, can you show me, so this goes back to your point, can you show me a logical pathway to getting toward the government not subsidizing education? Can you show me how we accomplish that? And within 50 years, can you show me how? And the answer was always, well, I don't know, like, okay, so here's what I want to do. I don't want to increase funding. I want to say we're going to reorganize the way the government subsidizes it in order to create a marketplace for something as opposed to government control of something. And that still means that the government's going to interfere. I grant that argument.

53:01But I think the best way you could actually get to a point where people recognize the danger of government controlling something is if you afforded them more opportunities to learn about different ways of thinking about it. And I think that the dollars following students could achieve that. It's a gamble. It's a trade-off. That's the big thing that I think we need to understand here. And that's one of the reasons why I wish there would be more, that's why I wish there would be more grace for each other in these arguments is that both sides are accepting a trade-off. It's just that sometimes one side acts like they're not. And so that's why I look at a program like this and I can see all the potential danger with it. I can. But then I also ask the question, are they going to get rid of it? No. Okay, so if Democrats get into power, what are they going to do? Are they going to get rid of it? So now if we're actually helping mom stay home and theoretically,

54:01more people choose that option, not billions, but more people choose that option. But is that more likely to be an improvement on our current situation? Let's say it is. Is it more likely to create a situation where people become overly dependent upon that program or is it more likely to create situations where we actually have the opportunity to raise kids in more of a nuclear family setting that produces better results? I don't know. I don't know. But I do know if you're not going to get rid of it. And the Democrats are going to expand it. One of the ways that you potentially prevent them from expanding it further is you include people they don't want to help. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Blaze TV is now the home of making the argument. It's where this show lives and subscribing is the best way to support what we're doing here. You will get unlimited access to our show. Plus every other Blaze host you already trust. That's Josh Howardton, John Doyle, Alibat Stucky, Glenn Beck, Jason Whitlock, Liz Wheeler,

55:02so many more. One subscription backs the entire Blaze roster. So head over to blazetv.com slash Nick use promo code Nick because that's going to get you 20 bucks off, right? That's blazetv.com slash Nick promo code Nick. One subscription with a whole lineup. Let's go save America. Yeah. I mean, Nick on that point, like I know that one of the critiques here, there's a couple of things I want to get across. The first is that I know that one of the critiques here is that some of these people are saying, oh, this isn't going to raise the birth rate. Well, I'll tell you what's definitely not going to raise the birth rate. Because you're probably right. Again, you can look at Japan, South Korea, Hungary. There have been countries that have tried basically financial incentives, pronodalist policies from the state, in order to try to encourage people to get married and have families. And so far, it's largely failed. So maybe this would not raise the birth rate.

56:08I don't know, but I can definitely tell you what would most certainly help crater the birth rate. And that would be financially penalizing, working families in order to shore up the social security trust fund. That would absolutely tank the birth rate. This, by the way, came across yesterday, this Wall Street Journal article as social security fund runs dry. Some Republicans say it's time to raise taxes. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Well, it's once again, you are, you are favoring older voters who you believe vote for you in larger numbers over younger voters who you believe vote for your opposition. And you're going to, and you're going to, and you're going to tax the people struggling. You're going to tax the people struggling to help a demographic that's statistically speaking is not. And again, I'm not, this isn't a criticism of like Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin. But like there are Republicans in Congress,

57:09who quite frankly, they've just made the decision that nope, infinite money to retired pensioners, infinite money to the point of actively, basically killing the golden goose, basically. Right? Like, I mean, we're going to financially punish 20 something, 30 something, 40 something, your old workers. Right? What should be the backbone of the Republican party to shore up infinite money for boomers? And I mean, Ron DeSantis, God bless him. I mean, he had a take on this that was like Congress, Fritter has Fritterway massive surplus as in payroll tax revenue. It collected over many decades. Now Congress wants to impose massive tax hikes on individuals and businesses to bail out, to bail it out for some prolificacy. Yeah. He spot on like I, I, I, it just blows my mind that we're having this conversation of like whether or not we should reform an existing $12 billion program in order to allow married couples to participate in it if the woman is staying at home.

58:13At the same time that Republicans in Congress want to raise the payroll tax to bail out the Social Security Trust Fund, how about we shrink the Social Security payments in order to, I don't know, lift the boot off of the worker that is paying into the system that they're never going to receive the benefits for it anyway. Like again, we have these like automatic stabilizers in place, that way when inflation kicks in, normally the way that this would work is financial repression, right? The government has a budget that is running too hot in terms of there's, there's too much that's being spent versus what's being collected. And Milton Friedman has pointed out that inflation is always and ever where a monetary phenomenon, right? And so the release valve on this is through the currency, right? The government is running massive deficits. It can't fund it anymore through traditional methods like taxation or borrowing. So it's basically you're going to be inflating away a portion of the debt. Well, that would mean theoretically that the inflation rate would be higher than the spend rate from the government. So let's say that the inflation rate was 5% for a few

59:19number of years. And then the increases in spending are 2 to 3%. Well, over time, right? The inflation would eat away at kind of like the budget deficit. But it doesn't work that way because we built automatic stabilizers in their social security, Medicaid and Medicare, right? And so it's like as the inflation rates 5%, well, guess what? You get a cost of living bonus to your social security check to the equivalent of 5%. Well, then that just feeds into more inflation, right? There's no release valve. The release valve is the American worker basically, right? They're the ones that get the brunt of the financial repression. So like this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Like it's just it's like, I'm just sitting here like, what are we doing here? And but I said there were two points I wanted to give across. So that's the first one. The second one is um, the problem that I see circling back around to the program itself, the problem that I see here is you brought up Rhonda Santis first, which got me on this trail about his comments with social

1:00:19security. Rhonda Santis did another thing in Florida that is in some ways reminiscent of what JD Vance is trying to do with this program. Did he abolish the state university system? Did he completely privatize higher education and grade school, K through 12? Did he get rid of the Florida Department of Education and the floor? No, he didn't. You know what he did? He went into a university. I can't remember the name of the university. You might remember, but he went into a university and he fired the entire board and he put what Chris Rufo in charge of the university basically, right? He was like, okay, guess what we're going to do? We're going to have right wing universities in Florida, right? Because guess what? If I try to abolish it, Democrats are going to attack me, right? If I if I if I try to 100% privatize all education in Florida, uh, my party's going to pay a political price. So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take over the university system, fire all the woke progressives and I'm going to put right wing people into it. And we're going to bring back classical education in the university system. See how much they like that.

1:01:20You know what? And if you do that long enough, maybe the Democrats will be the ones arguing for school choice. So that's the point. That's that's the final point I want to I kind of want to end on this with is that I think I think it's I think we should look at another strategy here. And by the way, I really want to congratulate this discussion between um, um, Loish and uh, Megan Basham. Because if you actually take a look at this discussion that they have where they're going back and forth and they're they're actually debating a lot of the points that we're debating right now. And they're both bringing up good points in part because both sides are operating from the the understanding that these are trade-offs here and imperfect solutions. That in fact, you even see them on one point going, I agree with you on that. However, the reality is we can't do that right now. So when it'd be better to do this. Now I I'm always cautious about this idea that well, we're going to use the government in a certain way and then the Democrats will realize that they shouldn't use government

1:02:21that way. We need to be cautious about that because it is it is a tactic. But to your point, Ron DeSantis said, fine, you want to keep all this stuff. I will staff it with people you hate. And one of two things is going to happen. Either enough of you are going to leave to work. Now we can actually create a critical mass to do what we want. Or you'll just be stuck paying taxes to fund conservative objectives. Now again, it's not quite that simple because there is such a thing as ideological capture of these organizations. But when you have somebody like Ron DeSantis who's aware of that and who is operating in a particular way, the question is, is it better than the alternative? And I think the question that let's say Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin or people that I like admire and I think are are are right on so many things and are making relevant points here. I think the thing that they need to be able to fundamentally address at this point is the strategy, the theory,

1:03:23the philosophy I think is correct. And whenever I see a correct philosophy, that's what I want to get to. The question that we're going to ask is, is the road there a straight line? Or is it a potentially curvy one that is going to include us having to think outside the box with respect to the policies that we implement? And for me, it's kind of hard to argue with what Ron DeSantis did in Florida. Because I feel like it is I feel like it's overwhelmingly true that he had net positive results, not because he got everything he wanted, but he exercised power in such a way as to move both the needle and the over 10 window in his direction. And the only way you get to the point where you can actually have an honest conversation about so security bankrupting us and us going to have to do something drastic to alter it. Not save it alter it from what it currently is, is if you move the over 10 window, what we have been doing did not move the over 10 window. This is what Megan's

1:04:29saying. This is what Megan's husband was pointing out. For years, we can win all the elections, we can have the majorities and we still going to get what we wanted. So we're going to have to discuss different strategies. And at least when I look at Florida, or Idaho, or Tennessee, I am starting to see these strategies take place where maybe it's not a perfect reflection of the in state of what conservatives would want, but it sure looks like it's getting closer. And it's achieving two things. One, it's creating an environment where it's easier to raise an educate conservatives. And two, it's creating an environment that leftists want to leave. And they can't script your state if they're not there. I mean, they can't from the federal side, but you know what I mean. So I this is the part where here's what I would suggest. I think we need to, I think we need to keep in mind the very relevant concerns that a Dana Loish and a Mark Levin that eventually pair are making. They're making good arguments. I think we also need to consider the political realities for where we're at. We need to understand our operational environment as we

1:05:33said repeatedly in the military. And we need to try to look at, we don't keep our eye off the goal. We don't keep our eye off the goal. That's important because one of these things, one of the things these guys are concerned about is you start doing this and all of a sudden this becomes the goal instead of what the goal should be. That is a very legitimate concern. But that's what you need. You need to shift the over 10 window. And if what we have been doing and the ideas we have been discussing have not been sufficient to shift it, then we need to talk about what ideas could potentially shift it with an eye with a mindset to how do we we haven't changed what we want to end up. But is there can we discuss potentially different ways to get there if the thing that we're currently using hasn't been working effectively? And I think that's a conversation that needs to take place. And so I congratulate the various people that have talked about this and talked about it civilly. I think this this exchange between Dana and Megan is a good one. It's this this this sort of thing. I want to see this is the sort of thing I want to see. I want to see like-minded people who respect one another discussing the various trade-offs, the various concerns, the long-term goals and and

1:06:38figuring out how we get there without crucifying each other on social media. And so that's what I'd like to see more of. I hope you found this conversation to be interesting. I hope I hope you found it to be helpful. I hope this this actually provided some insight that maybe you weren't getting from kind of the Twitter exchange that takes place where one person says something and then you got to go somewhere else and they say something. Instead when we're doing it this way what you're getting is you're getting the back and forth. You're getting the questions that you want answered right away instead of how to seek out different answers. That's part of what we want to do with this program is help to kind of adjudicate this internal fight within the right so that we can get on the same sheet of music and so that we can be effective. So if that is something that you've enjoyed and you think that we're accomplishing, please like subscribe share. Let us know that you like what we're doing. Once again, thank you very much Christian. Thank you for your insight on this for your work on this. I think this was productive. Once again, thank you very much for joining us and we'll see you next episode.