House Bill Breakdown and Inflation Update | ZFS 89

Three things on the table today. The Road to Housing Act, the jobs numbers, and Trump enriching himself from office.

I walk through the housing bill section by section and give you my honest take on what is actually good, what is a grant nobody will fund, and what is missing entirely. The corporate ownership cap has no divestment clause. That is a problem. The manufactured home chassis requirement removal is one of the best ideas in the whole bill. I break it all down.

On jobs, they expected 110,000 new jobs this month. We got closer to 50,000. April and May were revised down again. Gen Z graduates are entering the worst entry level job market in four decades. One in three junior roles has already been replaced by AI. And Caroline Levitt went on Fox News and said it is because they do not love America enough.

Then we get into Trump's crypto holdings, his meme coin dinner with top holders, and Nancy Pelosi's trading record. And we close on the most viral tweet of 2026 so far, Eric Adams telling New Yorkers to set their AC to 78 degrees and Dave Portnoy calling it communism.

Ads, as always, are off for the first 24 hrs. 

Finance & Corruption tied together with Current Events

Source List:
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DZ5WmQihV9H/

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2071699320512942201

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2071681457542541763

https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/2026-05/hai-q1-2026-first-time-homebuyer-affordability-2026-05-05.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6644?__cf_chl_f_tk=R7NQczEjxcLoyBC19eo608.IG8H2GfFWlPQZ.bhLJ38-1783087824-1.0.1.1-Stc02gJFfgm3JljonZqHMOw98LwQUz.H76AfGS4kHqE

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/issue-brief/inside-the-deal-whats-in-the-final-21st-century-road-to-housing-act/

https://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/mortgages/article/median-home-price-by-state-151223005.html?

https://jbrec.com/insights/charting-a-22-year-roller-coaster-of-investor-activity/

https://assets.informz.net/cmbs/data/images/CREFC_HR6644_Sec1001_Member_Summary%20(06.16.26).pdf

https://www.instagram.com/p/DEVbYZrykZy/

https://x.com/ZacharyLoft/status/2073035689499709702

https://memeburn.com/gen-z-faces-the-toughest-entry-level-job-market-in-decades-in-2026/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12032194

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm#

https://x.com/byHeatherLong/status/2072660940663697690/photo/1

https://x.com/atrupar/status/2072795363090567172

https://x.com/i/trending/2073034950178210209

https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Nancy%20Pelosi-P000197

https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/2072380124649988486/photo/1

https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2072708969479450878

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm

https://x.com/nycmayor/status/2072411003170472359?s=46

Short Form Stuff:

tiktok.com/@zacharyloft
instagram.com/zachary.loft

Support our mission:           
                    
zachary-loft-shop.fourthwall.com

patreon.com/cw/ZacharyFoust?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:00

Welcome on in. We have three topics to cover today. We have the job market, a new housing bill that is being proposed and held at ransom by our president, as well as the potential of our president enriching himself by his position? Insider trading? What do we have to ask here? Well, for one, let's start with housing. If we were to get a housing bill, would it actually make housing affordable again? Who would it make housing affordable for again? Because many people are screaming about high rental costs, high first-time home buyer price points, mortgage rates. Would any of these be fixed, alleviated, softened, improved by said bill called the Road to Housing Bill? And will Donald Trump sign it? And why isn't he? Second, jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been giving us job reports every month. And this month, we did not meet expectations. This is actually the third month in a row. Expectations have not been met as the past months of April and May have been brought back down from their original numbers. It's pretty common. We get the number that says, hey, we got 120,000 jobs. And then two months later, like, actually, it was only 62,000. But don't worry about it. Just remember the headline from a couple months ago. So with the new job market data, is the job market improving at all for the young individual getting out of college, trying to get in on the American dream, trying to buy a house? Is the job market improving at all? And number three, insider trading. This has been a common topic amongst congressmen. We know folks like the Nancy Pelosi's, the OG traders of the world in the Congress and congressional world, that are enriching themselves. Just call it what it is. We're going to bring up a document later on that shows how much she's enriching herself. But how much has our president enriched himself from his position? Should he be allowed to do that? And is there proof that it's actually happening? So we're going to walk through some of that because that's been going around on the Twitter. And I'm also going to finish with probably the most viral tweet I've seen, at least in 2026. If there's a more viral tweet in 2026, you let me know. But I think two days ago was the most viral tweet, at least so far this year. We're going to review it because I think it's kind of silly. Let's get started with this housing bill, shall we? We want to get started with this housing bill, starting with a video uh with Fox Business, basically just giving some perspective on how the young individual in America should be feeling about housing at this moment. I want you to listen in and tell me how this makes you feel. Let's get started.

SPEAKER_01 2:34

Your parents' house is no longer a rite of passage for millions of young Americans. It is becoming a luxury. They're calling it the boomerang generation. A record, 25 million Americans under the age of 35 were living with their parents last year, the highest number ever recorded. One in three Americans under 35 is now still residing at home. This post-divorce.

SPEAKER_00 3:01

I don't question the statistics that are being cited here. I do think more people are living home, but I do question um the reasons that they're citing for motivation of this. So the expert from RealTechs.com, the economist, said what's holding them back isn't a lack of qualifications, but rather, at least in part, a lack of housing they can actually afford. And I wonder about that. Is it housing you could actually afford? Because there is something out there that everybody can basically uh afford if they're gainfully employed and and whatever might not be where you want it to be. It might not be the caliber construction that you want it to be.

SPEAKER_03 3:37

Pause this, pause this. I love the beginning of this. A we start by uh giving a little joke of is this pre- or post-divorce? All right. So we're assuming all the under 35-year-olds are getting divorced. I, without looking at the stats, would imagine 40 plus is probably where the majority of divorces are being held. Sure, we could fact check that, but I would imagine under 35. And then did you hear what she said there, Sean? Did you hear what she said when she said the realtor economists have said, well, there might not be affordable housing available to these individuals. And then she says, but I have my doubts. Right. The so the commentator, the news anchor, should be taken with more authority on economic signals rather than an economist.

SPEAKER_07 4:22

Yeah, just to comment like, oh, there's there's something out there for everyone. It might not be what you like. It might be a trash can, but it's something.

SPEAKER_03 4:29

Let's listen to the news anchor as to whether or not you can afford the regular everyday life or a home instead of the economist. Instead of the economist, which by the way, for many, many years now, it seems like political whatever, just uh grandstanding promises, usually outweigh that of which economists say may be the right thing to do. I think we've seen that quite a few times where economists will say, That's not smart, and politicians will be like, we're doing it anyway. Let's keep playing this video.

SPEAKER_00 4:59

With free laundry and meal making, like home does. Um, so I wonder if this is not a generation that is looking at their parents' homes and the perks that they get there and saying, you know what? I'm not gonna go and live in the five-floor walk-up with mice when I can live at home, continue to sponge off mom and dad, and then spend my money, Brian, on avocado toast and fancy.

SPEAKER_02 5:21

Oh, there it is. Bingo! I need an avocado toast for boomer bingo.

SPEAKER_03 5:29

This is becoming space in the middle for that one. I didn't even need all five. Avocado toast mentioned on Fox News. That's that has to happen at least once a day, right? Has to happen at least once a day.

SPEAKER_07 5:42

That's a great way to put a bingo card for what Fox said.

SPEAKER_03 5:46

We could just sit and watch Fox all day. I don't know why we do that, but just with a bingo card of we know that these things are gonna be said. Oh man. So, okay, Sean, quick intro of you for those who've never listened to the show. You are the young man, the Gen Z that is being called out in a clip like this as somebody who is choosing to live at home with free laundry and food rather than go out and buy a home. Now you're in the middle, you're renting. Can you give your take on that?

SPEAKER_07 6:15

Hmm. Well, I will say not everybody living with their parents lives for free. A lot of parents, at least mine, would. I don't I'm not gonna call them out, but if you're over 18, they might actually charge you to live with them. Sure. So that's something that's not always I mean, a lot, maybe a lot of parents don't, but either way, that's something. Um but the the the being able to get a home, saving up, it's still not like we've done the math so many times now where it's like drilled in our head. No matter how much you can save right now, it's still not gonna be enough to get a home, especially not including employment. Like, where are you working? What's the ladder like? There isn't really a ladder right now. It's just kind of like, hey, you might get a job, you might not with your bachelor's degree. We'll see.

SPEAKER_03 6:52

And I love the idea of if you were to stay at home, hey, look, we got some chores around here. We old. Like, you're gonna earn your keep. Right. You know, you're gonna be in the basement on the couch. We're keeping the other bedroom to use as a yoga studio because we thought you were leaving. Like, that's cool, cool.

SPEAKER_07 7:08

And also like the stigma. Like, I feel like why is there a stigma with living with your parents anyway? Like if you love your parents, like if you love your family. Exactly. If you love your family, why is that the stigma? Right. So it's like it sucks that people have to do that, especially if you don't like your parents. Like, I don't know what's going on. But if you love your parents and you want to like help out, take care of them, like you're gonna be able to do it.

SPEAKER_03 7:26

And they rock with it too. Great, and they see this wild to come. Where are they supposed, like, first of all, we're gonna walk through this housing bill and we're gonna show some proof of where the homes are available and what prices they are at because we've gone through this enough times to not have to break down this clip as to why it is a bunch of hogwash. We're talking about avocado toast in a world where median income is 40k less than the median income needed to buy the median home in America. This just numbers, just facts. There's not enough affordable housing for the next generation. So there is a new bipartisan bill that has been presented to save housing. Now, just to be clear, here's Trump's take on housing from just a few weeks ago.

SPEAKER_10 8:11

There's so much talk about oh, we're gonna drive housing prices down. I don't want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up.

SPEAKER_06 8:18

Let's run that back real quick. A little louder. A little louder.

SPEAKER_03 8:26

Okay. So right there, we have very clear reasoning of I want to drive housing prices up, not down. Now, why would he want to do that? Well, just plain and simple. The only times we've seen housing prices decline are normally during economic crises, when the job market is really struggling, when inflation is out of control. There's a lot of problems that normally culminate prior to home prices dropping. So the logic here is I don't want home prices dropping because if they did, boomers aren't going to be happy. All the Gen Xers that own 17 properties aren't going to be too exaspered or excited by that, right? They're not going to be pumped up to hear their home is worth less. So why would he do that? Well, because there's a lot of people who can't afford housing right now that are looking for an opportunity in. Here was yesterday, a take from Donald Trump, actually an evening or so ago, on whether or not this new housing bill, which was passed bipartisan through the House, through the Senate. There was one change made by the Senate. We'll talk about that in a second. Here's Donald Trump's take on what he should do about this bill.

SPEAKER_13 9:39

What are your plans for the housing bill, Mr. President?

SPEAKER_10 9:41

Are you still I don't know? I think it's so unimportant by compared to by compared to the Save America Act. I think the the Save America elections.

SPEAKER_13 9:52

What are your plans for the housing bill, Mr. President? Are you I don't know?

SPEAKER_03 9:57

I don't know. I don't know. Why are you asking me? He seems so annoyed by the question. Which, by the way, there's a lot of bills that he has to keep his eye on. So maybe he is annoyed by the question. But in the statement, he also says the Save America bill is more important. The Save America bill is voter ID. That is voter ID. They want to have proper voting ID so there's no fraud in elections. So maybe equally important, but he's not going to sign this bill over here until the Save America Act is passed. Now, the point of being is with this housing bill, for me, is would it actually create more affordable housing? Would rent prices drop? Would you get more affordable homes on the market? What do you want in the housing market? Do you do you want do you want more apartments? Do you want more availability for smaller single-family homes? Do you want the opportunity to rent at a more affordable rate in your area? Do you want the opportunity to invest in what do you want out of the real estate market? Okay. Majority of younger individuals in America, simply put, want a more affordable housing market, whether that be by them having an increase in their wages or seeing a decrease in the cost of purchase of housing. Would either of those things happen if this bill were to be passed? Because it is being talked about by both parties as an awesome opportunity to drop home prices, to improve the housing market. And many people are calling out Donald Trump right now for not having signed it already. Now, just to be clear, it's probably still going to pass, whether or not he wants to or not, because it does have bipartisan support. But has Donald Trump at this moment begun the process of dropping home prices? Like, are we already seeing momentum toward home prices dropping? Because here's let me just be fair. If we were already seeing home prices dropping, I could absolutely see him not caring about this bill. If we were already seeing some softening in the rental markets, if we were already starting to see a lowering of the cost per month of having a mortgage, I could honestly see how this could be a snore fest of a bill. Well, let's bring up this NAR data, this National Association of Realtor data to see if that's really happening. So if we look at that from 2025 to 2026, we have here, we have the median price of an existing single-family home. As of May, the median price of a existing single-family home is $434,300. That's up in 2026 from where we started at $398,000. And that $398,000 had dipped from uh the peak from the prior, what is that, June? Yeah, June of $438, so we're headed back up. So home prices are going back up. All while, if we go to over to the right, we'll see the median income required to buy that home. The qualifying income, it's actually the one right over. There we are. Nailed it. The median income to qualify for the home that we just mentioned is $105,648. Now, Sean, real quick, can we go back real fast? Can we go back to the original? No, just uh back on this tab. On this tab, hit the back arrow. Go back to our last page. Okay. And then let's scroll back down to the quarterly index. Let's hit the first time home buyer. So this is a first-time buyer. So the starter home prices dipped slightly in quarter one. We'll see if that peaks back up in quarter two, like we just saw from the other report. But if we look here, we'll see that the qualifying income, even for a first-time home buyer in America, is $93,264. That is significantly above the median income of anybody under the age of 35, which is predominantly the first-time homebuyer. Okay, so we have a big issue here in terms of wages versus cost. Wages versus cost. We can talk about supply. That is a problem. We have a lack of affordable housing supply. And you may say, Zach, we don't actually have an affordable supply crisis. All the big investors have just bought them all up. Yes, 100%. But that means they're not available. It means they're not on the market. Well, Zach, all we have to do is build more homes and we'd be able to solve this problem. Well, we are building homes, and right now, new construction isn't selling. Why? Well, because they're building McMansions. They're building four-bedroom homes, five-bedroom homes, seven hundred thousand dollar houses. So they're not building the types of housing that we need. We're not fixing the wage problem. And home prices continue to go up nationally. Of course, they're dropping in some minute areas, Southwest Florida, Austin, Texas, Nashville, a little bit in Denver, California. But across the Midwest and the Atlantic, home prices are increasing. Still, even in this high-rate environment. Even in this high-rate environment. So what is this bill exactly? So the bill that we're talking about is the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, Housing Bill 6644, presented by Representative Hill J. French, representative out of Arizona. This was originally presented uh in December and last met on the 29th, presented to the president. Go into this next page real fast. I want to take you through a quick breakdown of what this bill would include and what I think would be beneficial versus non-benicial. So let's scroll up real quick to 104. So we're gonna scroll through this. I do have all of these links in the bio. So if you want to read through all of this, you can. We're not gonna go through every detail. We're gonna go through the most important parts. So let's get to section 104 real quick. So I want to point out I think I got 10 real quickly that I think are important in this very large bill. So first is this section 104 database of publicly owned land requires all community development block grants uh recipients to publish a searchable, publicly accessible online database of undeveloped land parcels owned by the grantee. So essentially they're trying to build a larger database of available land that could be utilized if we knew it existed. Why are we finding out in 2026 still what land exists and we haven't figured that out? Not 100% sure, uh, but this is going to increase the amount of knowledge we have in our database of available land. I think this could be beneficial. 105. Section 105 says it's going to allow HUD to establish a pilot program to expand access to mortgages under 100,000 that are backed by the FHA. Now, to go from one that I think is rather important to one that I think is just actually kind of stupid. Nobody's getting a mortgage for under $100,000. Joe, have you seen a home in Delaware recently that was under $100,000? Yes. Yeah? Yeah. What home is that?

SPEAKER_15 17:04

All of the uh mobile homes that have $1,000 to $1,500 a month in lot rate attached to them.

SPEAKER_03 17:10

All the homes we're supposed to pay $1,500 for the dirt that it sits on. Right. There aren't. There aren't. There just aren't. Um, do we still have our loft team? We didn't. We took that away. We looked up and saw the amount of homes that were in Delaware. Oh, yeah, let's see that real quick. $100,000. $100,000 properties. Let's scroll down real quick. So these are all the properties in Delaware available for under $100,000. For my boomer adjacent watchers who are thinking to themselves, C-Zach, look at all of that opportunity. You're near the beach in Delaware. You can hear all the kids laughing on the beach. The breeze is blowing through your hair. You can get yourself a little go-kart and drive around the neighborhood. Let's click on one of these, Sean. Just click on any of them. Click one. There we go. What do we got here? This is 35254 Breaker Street in Long Neck, Delaware. So you're living in the boonies. There's your porch. There's your there it is. There's your single wide configured with some nice blue cabinets.

SPEAKER_06 18:15

Not a big fan of the bed spread. Not a big fan of the bed spread.

SPEAKER_03 18:20

Let's go to the ins uh information on this listing real fast. So if this is for anybody listening that is looking for a home that wants to find out the true value of certain things and where things are a little bit too good to be true. If you scroll down on the key details of this property, you'll see land lease frequency. It says monthly. What does land lease frequency mean? It means that when you buy this property for $99,000, which by the way, land leases don't allow for mortgages. So you wouldn't even be able to get that FHA mortgage. Once you did somehow get that FHA mortgage, you would then have to pay a land lease of $988. Or scroll up real quick. It's up there, it's right there. Uh fourth from the bottom on the right. Right up. Threw it up. Yeah. $988 a month just to keep the dirt. Just to keep ownership over your soil. You will be paying $1,000 a month for this property. This is any property that's under $100K in Delaware, by the way. Let's go back to our document showcasing the sections. Let's go to section 201. Section 201. Increase housing in opportunity zones. I like this. Uh opportunity zones are something that was created uh recently in the last decade or so as basically tax favorable zones for corporations and investors to get big tax breaks to come in and build property, build infrastructure, build commercial retail. This is going to prioritize projects, primarily serving communities in these opportunity zones. Are opportunity zones just a big circus for investors to make more money? Yes. Will those investors wanting to make more money maybe build more housing that's affordable? Possible. So I do like that it's involved. Let's go to 202. This is possibly my favorite part for homeowners. Okay, you're gonna hear me say this a couple times. This is my favorite part for homeowners. It says there's gonna be a home repair act. It says it will create a pilot program which will provide grants and forgivable loans to owners and landlords for home repairs and modifications. That's awesome. Creating a grant that allows people that are living in homes they can't afford to repair, they want to keep, they want to keep sustainable, they want to keep the value moving. A whole house repair act. I I I think that's solid. I don't know the details of it. We don't have them yet, but I think there could be something decent from that. 207 and 208. We have grants. So this is a grant for planning and implementation associated with affordable housing. Here's what it says. Now, this is going straight to the state or the county. It says planning agencies will implement planning and community development activities. These activities include updating regulatory processes, increasing capacity to conduct inspections, and coordinating housing development with transportation planning. The next is an innovation fund. It says it'll create $200 million in annual competitive grant programs for local governments and tribes that demonstrate measurable increases in housing supply, incentivizing reforms such as streamlined permitting, density bonuses, and zoning changes. The program sunsets after seven years. Both of these, again, I rock with. To the local side, if indeed they create new infrastructure, new creative ways of doing things that can make the financial burden of building more housing lesser so. So if they can start building homes in areas, they could get money to be able to continue to do so. If that works out, I like it. Let's go to 210. This one is probably what most people are excited about. I think it's going to be one of those things that's going to be very tough for it actually to happen. It's revitalizing empty structures into desirable environments, the Reside Act. It says it will create a pilot grant program to help local governments convert vacant commercial or industrial buildings into affordable housing, prioritizing economically distressed areas and opportunity zones. So this is going to take commercial buildings that are not operating well, that old bar that hasn't been successful in 10 years, it's fallen apart, it's been empty for three. This is going to allow the opportunity to potentially come in and revitalize those commercial properties and turn them into apartments, condos, single family homes, multiplexes. If there's enough money to actually truthfully incentivize people to do this, I like it. But we've gone through a few that are grants so far. So will they be able to create all this money? We did it for a war. Maybe we could do it for the war on affordability. I don't know. Last five, let's go to 301. 301. Now, I'll be honest with you, I've said this before, so I'm fully behind this. 301 and 302, I am fully behind. This should have been its own bill years ago. Section 301, the Housing Supply Expansion Act. This is the exact way we should be expanding housing. Eliminates the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes, establishes the HUD, the Housing and Urban Development, as the primary authority on energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes and homes, and requires HUD to establish a minimum energy efficiency standard for manufactured homes. The biggest piece in here is the permanent chassis requirement. If you're unfamiliar, if you ever buy a single wide or a double wide, whoever builds that house is required to put an axle on it. It's required to be able to literally move on wheels if it needed to. The issue is in modern day, a lot of these single wides and double wides end up becoming what's called a class C property, not a mobile home. Okay? A mobile home is when you take this single wide, double wide that sits on its chassis and it sits without a foundation. It's just sitting on its own wheels. It could be moved if it needed to. That's a typical mobile home. A class C home is a home that went from where it was built off site to its next location, and it was set on a permanent foundation. You'll see these all throughout rural areas. They look like single wides, they look like double wides, they're just a typical rectangle, but they're sitting on a concrete foundation. That is a class C property. The class C property cost could come down anywhere between seven and ten thousand dollars per unit if they weren't required to put a chassis on it. And if it's gonna be on a permanent foundation, there shouldn't have to be. I think it's stupid. Second, section 302 directs HUD to conduct a review of the FHA construction financing programs to identify barriers for modular housing developers and administrative opportunities to reduce any such barriers to initiate a related rulemaking. I that sentence really doesn't hit me too heavy as to making sense. Um to initiate a related rulemaking. I don't know what that means. I'm just gonna be frank with you. I don't know what that means. But what they're saying here is they're gonna look into the regulations, the roadblocks that are holding lenders back from lending on modular homes. So if you want a double wide and you want a single wide, you want Class C property, an 800,000 square foot home on a lot, and you want to put just a mobile home on a permanent foundation, this is gonna open up potentially more financing opportunity. Why do you need that? Well, because certain banks won't give you a loan for a mobile home. They just won't. Or they'll give you a higher interest rate if you do, or higher fees if you do. So if we actually fixed this, we opened up more buying opportunity for these modular properties, all while allowing the companies to build more of them at a better cost, supply and demand. And they're affordable. These aren't the McMansions, these aren't just big apartment complexes. I like this. I like this. Let's get into more of what I don't like. 401. Yeah, we got we got three more. 401. Create incentives for small dollar loan originators. So the mortgage companies that are giving out loans, we want to give out incentives to those companies so they give out smaller loans. So this will direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, to study and report on mortgage loan originator compensation practices and their impact on the availability of small dollar mortgages of $100,000 or less. I want to really just help these guys out. And uh before they go ahead and sit down and look at the practices and study the reports and talk to more mortgage originators, I'm gonna save you the time. The reason they're not writing $100,000 or less mortgages is because no one's getting $100,000 or less mortgages because those homes don't exist. The only people I have seen, okay, we will sell, I think we're gonna eclipse right now. We're just over about 60 homes this year. We'll get about 100 or so for the year. I'll tell you, just in 2026, I've only seen three mortgages under $100,000. Only three. All three were for homes that were about one was $450K and the other two were over $500K. They were just getting a partial mortgage. They're paying the rest in cash. So tell me, does the individual paying $100,000 on a mortgage simply because they brought $400K to the table, do we need to create more incentives for the mortgage originators on giving out that mortgage? Probably not. I think they're okay. I think they're alright. Do we need to, and is maybe this positioned to try to help the first-time buyer get into anything? I think that's how it's positioned. But 100K or less? Please comment if you are in a state that has homes that are livable at 100k or less. No landleys. Livable from day one, roof can't be imploded, bathroom has to function, septic tank has to be in working order. Floors can't have holes in them. There cannot be rats that live in the guest bedroom. If there are rats that live in the guest bedroom, it will not pass inspection.

SPEAKER_06 28:58

It won't. It won't.

SPEAKER_03 29:00

If there are hobos that live in it, it will not pass appraisal. So I don't I don't see how this uh 100K is silly. 100k is silly. Let's go to the last one.

SPEAKER_06 29:10

1001. 1001. Yeah, a lot of minutia between the 400s and the and the thousands.

SPEAKER_03 29:22

Okay, this is probably the most important part that everyone's been talking about about this bill. This is the homes are for people, not corporations. This is getting institutional investors out of housing. Real quick, what's an institutional investor? Okay, the definition varies, but the definition is usually between somebody who owns a hundred properties or more, or a thousand properties or more. Now, a lot of people lean more on the thousand. If they own more than a thousand, they're considered an institutional investor. This is where you get the private equity firms and Wall Street and Blackstone and all those companies, that's where they fit. So the definition has been a thousand plus homes, a hundred sometimes utilized. Scott Bissent had even one point said maybe we'll put the limit at 13. 13. If they own more than 13, they're not gonna be able to buy anymore. A lot of people clamored around that. But now we have the documentation and it's not nearly as fun. So it says this will restrict the purchase of new single family homes by large institutional investors that directly or indirectly own at least 350 single-family homes. So if they own 349, they can keep buying. They own 349, they can keep buying. And if they're buying apartments, condos, multiplexes, land, it does not apply. This only applies to the purchase of new single-family housing, which I'm all for corporations not buying, but let's just be very clear. Unless this is a divestment thing, unless they're forcing investors to sell off what they already have, this isn't gonna help the problem. We're not gonna get more supply that hits the market. Also, this doesn't stop them from buying homes for just for one thing. Let's just break it down in a conspiratorial form. What keeps them from just building a new LLC, a new company, and buying a new home under that instead of their current name? Nothing stops them. And the other thing that they're not stopped from is buying homes that are going to be for rent. Could we go to the next page real fast? Or actually two pages from now. We'll come back to that. So these are the accepted purchases. I'm sorry. Yeah, accepted. Exempted. Except it's accepted, but it's accepted with an EX. How do you say that? Joe, is that accepted? Yeah, yeah. Just like accepted. How am I supposed to know the difference between those two words? They sound the same. Well, I guess. Yeah. These are the ones that are carved out for them to still be able to buy. So for one, they can still buy new construction, renovated, or converted homes for sale by a large institutional investor. They can still build build-to-rent neighborhoods, newly constructed homes, purchase, constructed, or retained uh as rental properties under the build-to-rent program. They can still renovate homes for rent as well. And the last one I thought was kind of silly because no one's gonna do it. They're allowed to create home ownership programs, rent-to-own programs. So they're allowed to do that. Will they do that? I don't think so. I don't think so. Because the rent-to-own thing has kind of been gone for years. So will they bring it back just for the love of the game? I don't think so. Last point, let's look at the housing throughout America. Are there any $100,000 homes? Sean is now gonna scan the map to find where you can bind a $100,000 home. Maryland, $500, Georgia, $379, Oklahoma's getting close at $257, Iowa's $241, Louisiana, $254.

SPEAKER_07 33:05

I thought it'd be around like here.

SPEAKER_03 33:07

I think Alabama's gonna be low, but I think West Virginia is gonna be the lowest. $245,000. So if you were to take advantage of these new 100K or less programs, you would need to find a home that is about 60 to 70% below median in West Virginia. So that's who this is for. I think some of these uh other things we didn't read through on this bill would help lower income rentals in section eight. But as far as home purchasing or getting investors out of it, I don't think it's extremely exciting. I think there's some good things in it, but I do not find it extremely exciting or something that will light a match under the housing market.

SPEAKER_07 33:42

Yeah, and don't don't go to Virginia, go to West Virginia. Yeah, don't go to Virginia, don't differentiate. Gotta go to Western Virginia.

unknown 33:49

All right.

SPEAKER_15 33:50

Can I play devil's advocate on one point? Please. Remember, there's a chart that you showed in the video where you said 11 graphs that will make you go damn. Yeah. And it was the breakdown of homeownership by investors.

SPEAKER_03 34:04

Oh, investors versus consumers.

SPEAKER_15 34:06

Can you try to find that graph?

SPEAKER_03 34:08

Um, I it's on my computer, but I don't think we have it up. It's a John Burns graph. I know what you're talking about.

SPEAKER_15 34:13

Yeah. Look up, just try and Google it. John Burns. John Burns need the visual for this point to talk about it.

SPEAKER_06 34:20

John Burns uh how real estate investing.

SPEAKER_05 34:23

Graph. Just sh explaining to people on the live how I search Google.

SPEAKER_15 34:33

No prepositions, no articles.

SPEAKER_03 34:37

Is that it?

SPEAKER_15 34:38

The 22 years.

SPEAKER_03 34:39

Might be that one. Let's see real quick.

SPEAKER_15 34:41

That's from 2024.

SPEAKER_03 34:42

Yep, scroll down. I love that AI picture. Beautiful. Keep scrolling down, keep scrolling down. I'll know it when I see it.

SPEAKER_06 34:46

Keep going, keep going, keep going. No, it's that one. No, it's not that one. It's not that one. It's this one.

SPEAKER_05 34:53

Purchases?

SPEAKER_06 34:53

No, that's a thousand a hundred plus homes. Keep going down. Maybe it is the second one. Go back and go. Okay.

SPEAKER_15 35:03

So investor purchases market share. So it's the percentage of homes purchased by investors flipping houses. If you look at the top, it says one people who own one to nine properties make up 18%. So the investor thing, what's really interesting is when I looked at this, is you see since COVID, that's a pretty significant spike up and it's at record highs since the pandemic, right?

SPEAKER_03 35:27

Of investor purchases, yes.

SPEAKER_15 35:28

Correct.

SPEAKER_03 35:28

Yes.

SPEAKER_15 35:29

And so the 1,000 plus properties and i buyers are the top 1%. But I had the thought, if you looked at this chart without seeing those blue ones, it's actually a lot more stable. So when you look at the total number of properties that are owned by investors, the overwhelming majority is owned by people with less than 100 properties. But so if you erase the blue and those properties now become properties on the market available to the end user, do you think that makes a small incremental difference? Can it make a difference? A significant difference. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 36:02

Because you're talking about, you're talking about about 500,000 single-family homes that are locked up by institutions right now. It's about half a million. Some say it's about 600,000, but that's around the number. Yeah. And that would be a 50% increase to the current housing market. I personally think if you wanted to have enough supply hit the market that was affordable, and a lot of these renters are holding affordable housing because they're renting it out. If you wanted to see a significant increase, A, we need to force divestment, which is what you're talking about.

SPEAKER_15 36:29

That would be a huge.

SPEAKER_03 36:48

Yeah, now we're talking millions of properties hit the market.

SPEAKER_15 36:51

Correct. So here's the analogy that I like to give. In politics, most things are like a brick wall and they'll never let you take down or think of a castle.

SPEAKER_06 37:02

Okay.

SPEAKER_15 37:02

Right? You're storming a castle.

SPEAKER_06 37:04

Big, beautiful castle.

SPEAKER_15 37:05

The castle is housing.

SPEAKER_06 37:06

My face is on it.

SPEAKER_15 37:07

They build a giant wall around the housing. If we threw a landslide at it and crashed the wall, they would never let that happen. But if you can launch one boulder at a time out of a catapult. So if we get the divestment of 350 plus and we see that blue go away and slowly there's an improvement, do you think it gives you some ammunition maybe in four years to throw the next boulder and be like, all right, now let's say we need divestment over the next 10 years.

SPEAKER_03 37:32

Yeah. If you, if there was anybody who had the balls to force divestment of the greatest elites and lobbyists in in DC to divest their investments for the sake of the people having a better lifestyle, we're on a great path.

SPEAKER_15 37:44

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 37:45

And I think we could absolutely continue to double down, triple down, 10x down on what's working. And those things would work. If you forced assets back to the market and squeezed them back to the normal everyday family and out of corporations' hands, you would absolutely see a better housing market. Investors are the reason. Speculation is the reason home prices have basically doubled over the income that's made by an everyday American over the last 20 years. It's been because of investor speculation and money printing.

SPEAKER_15 38:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 38:10

Those two things combined.

SPEAKER_15 38:10

Well, that's why for me, when I look at it, and the message I just wanted to be devil's ad kid for is I think like the 350 plus, I think that's the one thing to harp on, focus on, like talk to politicians, talk to your local officials. Because it's in the national bill. We can get Delaware to pass that. Like you can ban it in your state. So on a local.

SPEAKER_03 38:29

We need to just ban single family investment purchases as a whole.

SPEAKER_15 38:33

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 38:34

To really make some waves. But then again, you have the problem of a lot of them are already owned. Yeah. So we'd need that divestment to force them to stop buying and force them to sell off.

SPEAKER_15 38:44

Where I come from mentally is I think our generation is we've been, we're eating the shitty cooked pie that the the current previous administrations have built. But I see this as a hope where it's like we think about our kids in 25 years. If we can start here now, I feel like in 10 years we can do, all right, now let's start divestment. And again, because of the way our laws work, if you can harp on this point, if we can erase the blue from this chart and get back to a level that looks closer to 2009, 2010, I think there's some opportunity to slowly improve housing. And then when you have a little bit of evidence to go back to your leaders and be like, look how this has worked, can we please expand this? So I like this getting rid of institutional investors. I know it's packaged into this bill with a million other things, but I'm a I'm a guy who's gonna be talking about this a lot because I think it's not gonna help me, but in 25 years, maybe it'll help our kids.

SPEAKER_03 39:38

Right. And if we had logical people in office that wanted better for our kids, I would think that this could happen tomorrow. But we've kind of seen that that's not the case. Fighting the people who are donating the money to the campaigns and the people that are keeping the infrastructure of America running financially.

SPEAKER_15 39:52

The explosion of the 10 to 99 is a problem, too.

SPEAKER_03 39:55

Oh no, it's a huge, it's a huge problem. Investors, you can really see since about 2005-2006, when they started running all these, you can be an investor, you can own housing, like all these different classes and seminars, and people just started eating it up because it is one of the world's greatest investments.

SPEAKER_04 40:10

Sean, what's our next tab, sir? Let's get into it. Let's let's see what the uh the boomers. Yeah, let's refresh this. Let's little palate cleanser.

SPEAKER_11 40:27

Uh he likes to he likes to complain, and I enjoy it because he's always like confusing. Because in one sentence, he'd be like, When I was a boy, whole days of work, getcha one dollar. And then the next sentence he says the opposite. He's like, When I was a boy, bicycles only cost one dollar. My grandpa, I think that's uh how it evens out. People making more money, things cost equally more money. It's a scam. You know, my day nobody got paid, and everything was free. It was a struggle. I tell you, you went out there, you toiled in the field for a whole week. You got paid one nickel, and then you took that nickel, and you made a down payment on five acres.

SPEAKER_16 41:38

On to our next one. Great job, Charles Shaycock. Great job. Shout him out. Now let's listen to somebody who's not gonna get a shout out. Carolyn Levin! Fox News.

SPEAKER_03 41:49

What does she have to say about you, lazy people?

SPEAKER_14 41:52

Some of these kids, and I call them kids because they're in their 20s. Yeah. And they've never had real jobs, and they're complaining things are expensive. Yes, things are expensive when you don't have a real job. Do you think that's getting traction? Complaining.

SPEAKER_12 42:06

Unfortunately, I do, because this generation, my generation, I hate to say it, Gen Z and those younger than me have been raised with just silver spoons in their mouths, just getting everything handed to them. That's not the values this country was built on. It was built on meritocracy and hard work, pulling up your sleeves, pulling yourself up from your bootstraps, and achieving the American dream. And we need to protect it with all we do. Is it laziness a little bit?

SPEAKER_14 42:29

Is it is it because the professor said country's corrupt, it's evil, and we just need to shake them down and pin money out.

SPEAKER_12 42:37

It's laziness and it's the liberal indoctrination. You bring up a great point about our education system. However, I will say silver lining, so many parents that I talk to across the country are homeschooling, are turning to private education, are turning towards Christian schools across the country because they don't want their children being taught these communist and liberal ideas slammed down their throats. It's why President Trump in our in the White House has advocated so strongly for school choice across the country. We want kids to be taught to love our country. They shouldn't be able to do it.

SPEAKER_03 43:07

As long as you're more patriotic, you'll make more money. As long as you love this country, you're not gonna struggle. As long as you as long as you make more money, you are not gonna struggle in this country. And the only way to make more money is to love the country more. You should homeschool. You should homeschool. Don't let them get a degree. That's gonna hurt their chances of getting a job. That's a tough job market right now. Homeschool them!

SPEAKER_02 43:30

They're gonna love their country more, they're gonna make more money. Is that true?

SPEAKER_03 43:34

This article from memeburn.com by Jenny Fam, also on Substack. Says Gen Z faces the toughest entry-level job market in decades in 2026. Says new graduates are hitting the weakest entry-level job market in nearly four decades. Automation has removed the roles they normally start in, and there's no sign of a quick reversal. Here's what that means for Gen Z career trajectory right now. Let's read through some of these uh bullet points. Says job openings rose eighteen percent, but over the same time period, hiring only moved up three percent. Employees are posting more employers are posting more and hiring less deliberately. One in three employers have replaced junior tasks, some of those entry level, you know, getting into this position, interning. One in three employers have replaced junior tasks with AI per Good Morning America C. Is that GMAC? Is that good morning America something? I don't know. Per the GMAC, removing the work that made entry level headcount justifiable. The new workforce entrance hit 3.3% of total unemployment in July 2025 per BLS levels. This high hasn't been recorded since the late 1980s. Another stat I'll add into there is that those graduating at this moment, fresh with a degree ready to hit the workforce, currently have a 1% higher unemployment rate than those of the general population. General pop in around the low fours, people with a degree ready to get their fresh job in the mid-fives. Let's go to this next graph to see what these unemployment grabs look like. The unemployment rate did fall from 4.3 to 4.2, which is very interesting. Because as we about to we're about to pull up this report here in two tabs, the job report that came out two days ago actually fell below expectations. They were expecting about 110,000 jobs to be created. It was closer to 50. And they revised down April and May, saying that we thought there were more jobs created. Turns out there was less, which has been the common pattern that's been happening for the last three years. Uh, Biden, Trump, same thing. They've they report it higher, comes in lower, the headlines look decent, and then later on they revise it down. The next tab, also from the Federal Reserve data, is employment level for part-timers that are only part-timers for economic reasons. Now, this number spiked up seemingly after we had the data mishap in October with the government shutdown. A lot of numbers look funky from November 2025. I wonder if that has to do with that shutdown. But as we sit right now, we sit at 4.681 million individuals that are part-time for economic reasons. Though that number does seem to slim or down from November, if we look back into July of 2022, that number was about a million people less. About a million people less than it is today. Listen to me. There are a million more people in America right now that are only working part-time because they cannot find full-time work. Andor they're working part-time because they are working full-time work and they need the part-time job in order to survive. They're working part-time for economic reasons. That's not good when we see an increase in people having to work part-time or only finding part-time work for economic reasons. Simultaneously, when the young workforce is being eaten alive by AI and automation and everyone's trying to say it's not happening. But we have several reports that will just that last one. 33%, one in three jobs has been replaced by AI or automation. One in three low-level graduates who are gonna walk into any form of white-collar job and have to start at something little. Hey, start getting us coffee and filling up these Excel documents. We need this data track. Did you get this to Tom? All of those things that normally were done by a young individual looking to grind through the corporate ladder. Get things started. They're at corporate Chipotle and they want to get their comfort of their competition in the corporate world started and they want to come out with a vengeance. They can't get started, 33% of them, because of AI, and that's just now.

SPEAKER_02 47:50

That's just right now. What's it gonna be when it improves?

SPEAKER_03 47:53

What's it gonna be when the CEO actually understands AI and its capabilities? What's gonna happen when that low-level manager gets a hold of Claude and figures out how he doesn't need three of his employees anymore? What's gonna happen over the future? That's just like what that article pointed out from that great Substack article. Um, this is just now. We're just on the the the horizon of a new AI automated world. And the youth can't find a way into a job. They're being told they don't love America enough, and that's why they don't have a job. And those that do get a job are being told if they don't make enough money, it's because they're spending it on avocado toast. So you can kind of see how the young individual feels like they're struggling, but this is overall. Let's go to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics data. We're gonna start zooming. We have employment status of Americans changing a little bit. I want to point us to two lines, though, specifically. Let's go to employed and we'll see that the change from now this is crazy to me. The change from I haven't seen this number this high in a while. I actually had to uh look back at my numbers to see when it was, and we'll show those in a second. Employed dropped five hundred and seven thousand. There are five hundred and seven thousand less employed individuals in America as of June 2026. And you may think, that's a huge jump from last year. That's from last month. That's not year over year. That is month over month. 507,000 people no longer employed. Doesn't necessarily mean fired or laid off, could simply mean they're not participating in the workforce. Maybe they retired, maybe they left America. 507,000 less. Another large number, let's go to not in the labor force or down. Not in the labor force went up. 832,000 individuals exited the labor force. Hear me, 832,000. And we're struggling to get the newbies in, by the way. We're struggling to get the newbies a job, all while 832,000 people just exited the workforce. Between the two of those, that is about 1.4 million people who have, or I'm sorry, 1.3 and a half. 1.3.5 million people that have either exited the labor force altogether or are no longer employed. But the unemployment rate went down, Sean. Explain that to me. Explain that to me that the labor force dropped, the unemployment number dropped, the low number of people in the labor force dropped, but the unemployment rate went from 4.3 to 4.2. This is why these numbers are should not be the baseline for how we're tracking these items.

SPEAKER_02 50:48

The reason it went down is because we had so many people leave the workforce. That's why it went down. We had so many people leave the workforce.

SPEAKER_03 50:56

Can we bring up the Google Doc on the next one? Google Doc on the next one. So just for some perspective, again, in June of 2026, we saw 507,000 people uh lose their job. Now, is that an all-time high? No. Found some other spikes for you to put it in uh perspective. The Great Recession peak, January 2009, there was a month where 1.22 million jobs were lost. November 2008, 702,000. December 2008, 731 K. And then 2009, we had 933 K and another month where it was 674K. So this month's 507K, not a record breaker. Not a record breaker, but you got to look at the COVID crash, the Great Recession, and a couple odd outliers to find a time where that number was even close. 507 is pretty dramatic. Yeah, the COVID crash is nuts. The COVID crash is nuts because there were so many people that lost their job for like a month or two months, or they had to leave their job and come back. And so the numbers look at 22.2 million in April of 2020. Now let's go to not in the labor force. Again, COVID, largest jump, 6.4 million. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Uh, but in June 2026, we had 832,000 people leave the workforce. That is one of the higher numbers on record, even comparing to some of these outliers and the Great Recession peak. For example, in September of 2009, 715,000 people exited the workforce. September of 2009. June was higher. June was higher in terms of people leaving the workforce in 2026 than September of 2009. December 2009 was similar at 948K. A couple other outliers to peak in or around a million, and June 26 was right around that corner. Of course, people leaving the labor force aren't all people that are just downtrodden by the economy. That is a certain percentage. A large amount are retirees, people exiting for financial reasons because they can. Large number, though, especially considering young people are having a hard time finding a job. It's interesting to see that some of the numbers of job openings that are becoming available, people exiting the workforce are at really high levels, yet no new jobs are being created to facilitate these younger workers. In a disappointing job report, this from Heather Long on X says the U.S. economy added 57,000 jobs in June, below the expectations of 115,000. Hospitality jobs declined by 61k, plus April and May were revised lower by 74,000 jobs. The bad news equals wages aren't keeping up with inflation, and wage gains were only 3.5% in the past year, which is below 4% inflation.

SPEAKER_15 53:46

Dude, he's the jobs president. Look at him go.

unknown 54:08

And what happened in November?

SPEAKER_03 54:10

What happened in November 22? I think that's when ChatGPT got published. I think that's when ChatGPT got published. Well, causation versus correlation.

SPEAKER_15 54:18

The thing that's interesting to me that I feel like I could dive more into is the layoff months I saw were all September, October, November. So I used to work for two very large national corporations, um, publicly held. And those periods are often related to reconciling end of year financials.

SPEAKER_03 54:39

Getting prepped for end of year. Yeah. Correct. And a lot of fiscal years end in October. Yeah.

SPEAKER_15 54:43

So what happens is they look at the end of the year, they are about to report a bad stock trade, and these large corporations tend to do their layoffs in that period because they're about to deliver performing under expectations.

SPEAKER_03 54:56

Yeah, hey, our quarterly earnings were X versus Y, but also we're eliminating $10,000.

SPEAKER_15 55:02

June isn't that? Yeah. So it should be put a grain of salt on June's number, more alarming. They're not prepping for end-of-year numbers or public shareholder calls where they have to offload expenses from their books. It's purely economy related. So it's more similar as a number comparison to like the Great Recession of March, when you see those random numbers not towards that fall period. It's not major corporations trying to offload expenses because they had slightly underperformed financial expectations. It's purely because of the economic trends potentially related to the conflict.

SPEAKER_03 55:43

No, I completely understand what you're saying. And also when we're looking at those numbers and we see fall come into the picture, the the second bank fell in America in 2008 in fall, but we're not seeing the actual when those peaks were brought up. Those were 2009 in the fall. So this is a whole year post-recession, and we're seeing those high numbers that are seemingly similar at the least to what we're seeing now. But like you said, we're in June, not fall. Let's go on to our next tab, brother man.

SPEAKER_15 56:12

What does that mean?

SPEAKER_03 56:12

Uncleert. I love it, dog. I'm an old head. Let me put on my old head glasses. Wear my old head glasses. All right. Now we're here to talk about insider trading. We're going to do a quick little uh brief video breakdown. I'm going to bring the TV into the classroom. Let's watch Donald Trump talk about how his sons can't help but insider trade. It's just a part of the position.

SPEAKER_10 56:35

I feel badly in a way for my kids because every time my kids do, if they invest in a stock or if they go and do a bill, anything they do, because the presidency is so powerful, so big, everything, if they buy a cupcake company, well, the uh energy to make the cupcakes is, you know, sort of like, how's my energy policy? So that's who we have.

SPEAKER_03 56:59

What the hell does that mean? If my son Baron were to open up a cupcake company, my energy policy would mean that he's insider trading. Run that back? Just so I'm not paraphrasing here. What the hell does that mean?

SPEAKER_10 57:20

I feel badly in a way for my kids because every time my kids do, if they invest in a stock or if they go and do a bill, anything they do, because the presidency is so powerful, so big, everything, if they buy a cupcake company, well, the uh energy to make the cupcakes is, you know, sort of like, how's my energy policy? So therefore you have a kind of like almost anything they do if they want to buy a truck, if they want to buy, you know, if they buy an energy efficient truck, if they have inside information. Uh so uh it's it's pretty tough in that sense. I tell my kids, stay away from as much as you can stay away from, but they also have a life, you know, they feel big- But they also have a life.

SPEAKER_03 58:07

You can't forget, they also have a life. So when they hear dad talking about this new AI bill, and they just happen to go invest in Meta and Facebook or Facebook Meta, Google, all these other companies, Alphabet.

SPEAKER_02 58:18

It's just that's just them being kids. Why didn't the reporter go?

SPEAKER_15 58:22

But they're not investing in cupcake for people. They're investing in AI and rare earth minerals with countries that you're doing it's the easiest rebuttal in the world.

SPEAKER_03 58:32

But you're sitting in the Oval Office. You can't rebuttal somebody saying buying cupcakes.

SPEAKER_07 58:38

You must have been hungry during that interview or something.

SPEAKER_03 58:42

Trump, though, is the topic of my brain matter today. Because it's not his sons. His sons have made money. And maybe he's right. Maybe he just talks a little bit too much around dinner, over a drink, over getting his medication into his wrist so that it bruises weirdly. He's got some time to kill and he brings up a bill that's gonna pass, and his boys are like, ha ha, time to go buy a cupcake business. Maybe that's the case. Maybe it's inevitable. But what's not inevitable or not required is the president himself benefiting financially off of his term in office, specifically around stock trades. We could go on and on about the Liberty Finance uh grouping of cryptos that he owns. We could go on and on about his crypto wallet, we could go on and on about uh it being his Trump coin being like $73 and then ripped it for $100 million in profit and then it drops to a dollar in value. We could talk about all that. Let's just talk about stocks. Let's just talk about stocks. It says Trump's investment accounts made over 300 undisclosed stock purchases one day before pausing the Liberation Day tariffs. Investment accounts owned by President Trump engaged in more than 300 previously undisclosed stock purchases one day prior to his announcement, pausing Liberation Day tariffs. The trades were revealed in Trump's annual financial disclosures. Following the announcement, stock index surged with the SP recording its eighth best day in history. It's also worth noting that these trades, politicians can make them. Okay, like congressmen and them can make them, but they have to disclose them. They have to disclose when they're making them. These didn't get disclosed till months and months after. Shouldn't that be illegal? Well, it is. It is. And I'll happen to let you know that Donald Trump was held accountable for his crimes here because he did not file his documents showing, disclosing, that he was investing in stocks, he was fined $200. So I don't think he'll do it again. He was fined $200 for filing this late, disclosing these stocks late. But he just happened to make 300 trades right before making major announcements. He also made major trades in AI, Meta, OpenAI, Google.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:14

The same day that later in the evening, he would announce this new AI bill.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:20

And of course, all of QQQ and the AI-based stocks skyrocketed up. He did this with MP, which is a stock trader symbol for a gold mining company here in America. Gave it government financing, pumped it, pumped it, pumped it, owned a lot of it, and it's doubled since his term. Now, if you own these stocks as well, you may be thinking, Zach, I don't care. I'm richer. The point of it being is you're not supposed to be enriching your own personal net worth while serving the country. And by the way, the same exact people, here's here's here's what, ah, here's what it's me, Joe. I know you'll get this. The same people, okay, and I don't want anyone to feel called out by this, but if you feel called out, raise your hand. I don't want anyone called out by this, but the same people who will who will look at insider trading happening in the White House, in our cabinet, not just him. We got Howard Luttniks, we got Bessence, we got all these others doing the same thing. Lindsey Graham probably doing the same thing. We've known Nancy Pelosi, like people in Congress have been doing this for years.

SPEAKER_06 1:02:26

The same people who will look at that and say, Trump's a businessman. He's just a businessman. He's good at money.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:35

He's good at money. Are also the same exact people who will say, Well, Trump's not taking a paycheck while he's in office. Isn't that crazy? Isn't he just a loving, giving human being? He's not taking his what, 180K a year? How much do you make? 400k a year? How much do you make as being the president? Somewhere in that. It's not nothing nuts. It's nothing nuts.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:55

He's increased his net worth by 1.6 billion dollars in a year and a half. In a year and a half. 1.6 billion dollars, but he's not taking a paycheck, Zach. I don't give a shit. He's made $1.6 billion, and that's not even including his family members and Melania and Barron and probably the money that he's helped Jared Kushner make and purchasing his new property out in uh where did he put purchase that property people are riding right now?

SPEAKER_03 1:03:23

Where was that at? Where was that at? I forget. They're riding out there. I love that they were riding because Ivanka Trump and them were buying their properties. I I can't stand watching people just not be concerned about this.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:37

This is not necessarily impeachable, but it should be a headline that generates some form of almost movement. Why aren't we banning this? Why are we allowing the people that we are voting into their position to serve the public to have any focus on profit? Any at all?

SPEAKER_03 1:03:55

Well, Zach, he didn't actually uh launch the trades. It was his uh it was his investment firm. Okay, and he doesn't write his own tweets, but they're still going out on his platform. It's still his money, it's still going out peculiarly timed, pecuriously, timed, with major legislative movements economically that are gonna bet him benefit him financially. So why should I not care about it? Why does no one seem to care about this? And why will nothing seemingly happen because of it? Can we bring up real quick Nancy Pelosi? I want to bring up real quick because Donald Trump, in his term so far, has made over 3,000 stock trades. Okay, made over 3,000 verified stock trades in this disclosure that we have now. I want to bring up the OG. This is Nancy Pelosi. She is the OG of insider trading. Whether it's her or her husband, she knows how to rock it. Now, since we have these disclosures, which force political figures, like I said, to disclose the trades that they're making when they're making them. Since this has been tracked, Nancy has made 203 trades. Her last trade was May 29th. We should look that up so I can buy it too. 203 trades since 2014.

SPEAKER_04 1:05:10

203. Let's go to the next graph real quick. Next one. So if you think Nancy Pelosi's a crook, if you think Nancy Pelosi's a crook. For insider trading while holding her position of authority. I get it.

SPEAKER_03 1:05:35

We submitted it. We we me and Tommy McGee went and brought her an award for her insider trading right there on Capitol Hill, right in the Senate building. They didn't like us too much for it. I'm all for it. Let's get the corruption out. But you can't be mad at the blue side of the corruption and not mad at the red side of the corruption. Because the corruption sees no color. The corruption is colorblind.

SPEAKER_06 1:05:56

They just want green. Now. Let's move on to the one that was at first before it.

SPEAKER_03 1:06:04

Now there. Yeah. So it's twenty five. Trump purchased up to $30 million in stock from NVIDIA, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Amazon, and Broadcom. Later that day, the White House announced a new deregulatory AI agenda, sending each company's stock surging. That's not being a good businessman, by the way. That's a crime. Just to be very clear on this is not someone being financially savvy. This is someone utilizing private information that is not public, making it inside information to benefit themselves financially via stock trades, which is trading. So we have insider trading happening at the executive level, and people are making excuses of he's just a good businessman. I don't see why this is a big deal. He's insider trading. All by the way, in an economy where people are just begging to be able to afford housing and healthcare and get Chipotle. We're watching our executive figures and cabinet members and congressmen of all types and all colors benefiting financially in a market that's not benefiting mostly anybody unless you hold a lot of assets, unless you own a lot of stocks, unless you have a housing portfolio. If you're just on a fixed income trying to survive, you're not in a position of thinking this economy's great. And you're probably not in the position of clapping somebody up who's benefiting from their insider information to enrich themselves. Oh, while you're struggling. Oh, while you're struggling. And even if this housing bill isn't gonna create magic fairy dust, it solves all the housing problems. It does have some good nicks and crannies. Trump's refusing to sign it. He's refusing to sign it.

SPEAKER_04 1:07:45

So what does that mean? Oh, this is food. This is the wrong tab. We're not doing that. Can I get that one out of here too?

SPEAKER_02 1:07:58

Yeah, where are we going? We got we got tabs that aren't even supposed to be here. Alright. Oh, okay. We're okay, got it.

SPEAKER_03 1:08:05

Okay, we can bring it back in. We're done. We're done. We're finale, we're finallied out. We're good to go. I'm gonna finish with one of the most viral tweets I've seen in 2026, but let's just summarize what we've talked about. Number one, we talked about the job market and housing. Uh housing specifically is still in the same precarious position it's been in. It's in a catch-22 of will boomers maintain their assets? Will boomers maintain their housing value and the net worth they've gained on the backs of real estate accumulation through investor speculation and money printing, not just immigration, okay? Not just immigration. That is a part of it. It is a part of it. You add more people to the country, that's more supply of buyers, more demand, 100%. But elites, money printing, government officials, and investor speculation has driven up the housing cost. Bond rates, this war right now, driving up mortgage rates. Will this bill be a magic wand that solves everything? It's yet to be seen, but I don't think so. We don't have anything major in here. There's no federal first-time home buyer program. We're not forcing any millions of homes to be built. We're not forcing more vertical building. We're not really holding much uh for the localities to or the locals to uh create better regulatory infrastructure, better uh infrastructure costs, impact costs, uh, better tax strategies, better zoning strategies locally. Like you're gonna incentive them with some money, incentivize them with some money. Maybe that helps. Maybe that helps. There's some good things. I don't think it's a magic one. The job market is not improving. We keep getting numbers, even though they're not even great numbers. They're hard to even rely on because we see the unemployment rate drop to 4.2%. I'm sure the red is celebrating dramatically, while those in the middle who are just looking at the numbers are saying it doesn't look like an improvement. This 4.2 number doesn't seem like the real unemployment number. The feeling of the job market and the feeling of the young person in this economy does not seem to match up with the reality of this data. And the third is insider trading. We've talked about Howard Lutnick. He is a leader not fit for leadership. This should be in handcuffs, not at the last FIFA match. We've talked about Jared Kushner. We've talked about the people adjacent to the cabinet and the Dave Andreessens and the Peter Teals and Sam Altmans. We've talked about all that. But when corruption, especially financially, is not happening just adjacent to the White House, but it's happening within it. I think there needs to be more said. I think there needs to be more said. Unfortunately, I do think that this is going to be a headline that just comes and goes. I think within a month, no one's talking about it. I think by the end of his four-year term, we'll look at all the numbers and see, yeah, enriched himself completely, him and his family off of this presidency. And he's also probably not the first, definitely not the first, to have done so. Biden did the same with his family. There's been a lot of enriching in politics. Why don't we get rid of it? Why don't we get rid of it? Between the unfettered lobbying and spending that's happening in elections. Now campaigns can be unlimited, uh, have unlimited funding from their parties. That's a new law that came through. Now, funding coming from the Republican or Democratic parties themselves is unlimited. Now corporations and parties themselves can spend unlimited money on campaigns. They can enrich themselves in an infinite way through insider trading, insider knowledge, getting their boys ahead of the game on what's going to happen with new legislation. All of it needs to go away. All of it needs to go away. We need people in positions of politics for people, not profit. Hate this. Hate this. Well, one thing I didn't hate was a uh a tweet that came out from uh Mayor Mom Donnie. Let's go to Mayor Mom Donnie's tweet. This is the most viral tweet I have seen in quite a while. Please comment if you've seen a more viral one in 2026. It reads, New York! It's hot out there, and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool. Set your AC to 78 degrees, turn off lights electronics you're not using, and unplug what you can. Our city is doing its part too, maintaining the 78 degree rule in our buildings, dimming turning off our lights during peak electricity demand, and asking private partners to do the same and powering down non-essential equipment. The stable grid means the AC stays on and lives are saved. Let's ease demand and get through the heat together. 57.9 million views is insane. Insane. And there are a few people that uh took mom Donnie's tweet and decided to give their word on it. Let's look at the first one. First one was Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley says, Welcome to socialism. Let's scroll down real quick. Here's a picture of from 2015 of Nikki Haley saying, Attention, all South Carolina residents, please make a special effort to conserve energy by turning off non-essential lighting and appliances on Thursday and Friday morning. We're going to experience the coldest weather of the season with wind chills is near zero degrees. This is the same exact ask except for cold. It's the same exact ask except for the cold. Let's go to the next tweet. Brandon Gill out of Texas says, Welcome to socialism, where the government demands you turn your house into a sauna because they can't plant for the super unpredictable fact that it tends to get hot in the summer.

SPEAKER_15 1:13:19

Also, what's wrong with your sauna that's 78 degrees is how hot it is. Right. Your sauna is whack.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:24

Your sauna is whack if you're only at 78. I think that 130 or above. Let's scroll down real quick, see if there's anything on it. Let's scroll down on his. Let's scroll down on his real fast. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's see. Oh, look, the Texas governor of which he represents said grid operate uh it says yes, Texas governor Greg Abbott and grid operations or operators frequently urge Texans to set their thermostats to 78 degrees or higher during the summer months to reduce strain on the power grid. Let's go down to the next one real quick. No, just keep scrolling. Yeah. This is from the Department of Energy from the United States government website. It says recommended settings. Summer, 78 degrees when you're home, 85 went away, and 82 while sleeping. Zero chance.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:12

That's a criminal recommendation.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:14

Zero chance.

SPEAKER_16 1:14:18

As we say all this, by the way, um, boys, my household ain't never been those 78 degrees.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:23

Yeah, your shit is cold. No.

SPEAKER_16 1:14:25

Yeah, my household ain't never been no 78 degrees.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:27

I wore pants today and it's 100 degrees out. I actually gripe Zach about how cold his house is all the time.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:37

Not today, though.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:38

No, today it was nice. Today's a beautiful day. Usually you're like, are you cold? Are you cold? I need to wear something.

SPEAKER_16 1:14:43

Today it's nice.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:43

I've worn hoodies here when it's 80 degrees out. 100%.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:47

And that's a sauna. So let's go to the next tweet. Next tweet is for Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek Ramaswamy, governor of Ohio. This is what socialism looks like, folks. The right answer isn't restrictions or mandates. It's drilling, fracking, coal, and nuclear. That's how we're rolling Ohio. And he sounds eerily like Amy Action, acting during COVID. Let's scroll down. Greg Abbott asking for the same thing in Texas. Once again, scrolling down.

SPEAKER_15 1:15:15

Easy rebuttal. Jeez.

SPEAKER_16 1:15:20

Twitter's mean, man. Twitter's mean. How a Ramaswani administration could float Ohio with data centers.

SPEAKER_03 1:15:26

Nice, Vivek. Nice. All right. Let's go to the next tweet. Next tweets our good friend Ted Cruz. He says in a first world country, you could turn on the AC. And he got community noted saying Ted Cruz's own state has made the same request on numerous occasions with multiple sources.

SPEAKER_15 1:15:46

Also, 78 degrees doesn't mean the AC is off.

SPEAKER_03 1:15:49

It doesn't mean the AC is off. It means it's not pumping too heavy. They lie on purpose. Our next tweet from Rand Paul. Proof that communism is, quote unquote, or I'm sorry, parenthesis, parenthesis, unfortunately, alive and well. Let's scroll down real quick.

unknown 1:16:06

Oh.

SPEAKER_03 1:16:06

First comment says. Expected better out of you, King. Many states of have done. Oh, I had a mistweet. I had a misstime. I had a missed time, dog. Many states have done this and have done this for years during heat waves. And Ryan Grimm of Dropsite News, big friend. Even you, your IQ is above the current NYC temperature. You know better. I think they've got to be getting Ryan's so good at Twitter. He's so much better. He's so much better. That's funny. We're taking over private company.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:38

Socialism.

SPEAKER_03 1:16:39

And our last tweet coming from the great Dave Portnoy, a Barstool podcast. World-renowned political pundit. World-renowned political pundit. Very, very smart. Uh, and as somebody who's been on a bar stool podcast, I have to be careful on what I say here. So David Portnoy's a fucking idiot. 78 degrees. Welcome to communism, people. Hope you enjoy. We don't need to scroll down. I don't think Dave has any clue what he's saying about much. But what were the replies? Because it's got like seven million views. Grok, is the 78 degrees unplug your stuff routine actually communism? Or did Republican NYC mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg ask the same thing during their heat waves? Groc said, no, it's not communism. It's routine grid conservation advice during heat emergencies to avoid blackouts. New York City Emergency Plans and Con Ed have long recommended setting AC no lower than 78 degrees. Republican Mayor Bloomberg did the same in 2006. Now I'll offer one devil's advocate to all of this.

SPEAKER_15 1:17:40

Oh, he loves this.

SPEAKER_03 1:17:41

I can offer one devil's advocate to all this. How about we just shut down Times Square for a couple days?

SPEAKER_15 1:17:48

The billboards.

SPEAKER_03 1:17:50

Probably if we shut down uh the the Times Square side for just a little bit, maybe half the billboards.

SPEAKER_15 1:17:56

How else will Levi sell their jeans?

SPEAKER_03 1:17:58

I don't know how Levi's can sell their jeans, but I do think that has a lot to do with the power grid in New York City, is what's going on in Manhattan. So very viral tweet. Maybe Mamdanis is really good at rage baiting. Maybe. But uh it also seems like everybody's looking for an opportunity to call him a socialist when in actuality it seems like in the beginning, it seems like he is getting results, at least the results he said he was going to get, which is refreshing politically. Whether or not you agree with his what he's doing or disagree in saying you don't think the end result will be as good as he thinks it will be. He's doing what he said he was gonna do. And now it seems like every other politician seeing that just wants to find any opportunity to bash him.

SPEAKER_15 1:18:45

Well, devil's advocates, you're a devil's advocate. Is he rage baiting, or are the Republicans just full of rage? Because that was a normal tweet. I didn't see any, he was just like, hey guys, it's hot out. This could help. And then they were like, kill him, kill him with firing guns.

SPEAKER_03 1:19:00

It's not rage baiting when they're just full of rage. Well, devil's advocate to the devil's advocate or your devil's advocate. I would say that they may be filled with rage, but it's it's rage for their country. They don't want to see communism spread, brother. They don't want to see communism spread. We're about to be a bunch of Russian commies. We don't want that. We don't want socialism here. Socialism doesn't work. It's only been proven zero times that socialism can't work over the long tail with a first world country backing it. We can't have that. They're filled with rage and patriotism, baby.

SPEAKER_15 1:19:35

Amen.

SPEAKER_03 1:19:37

Joe doesn't even want to join my bit. That's how much that outrages.

SPEAKER_15 1:19:40

The bit was over to me. I was done.

SPEAKER_03 1:19:42

It became too real and stupid.

SPEAKER_15 1:19:44

Once the bit's done, I'm out.

SPEAKER_02 1:19:46

Sean, last points, takes, thoughts, hallucinations around our topic matter today for the people listening.

SPEAKER_07 1:19:52

No, no take. I would I would tell everybody listening, go listen to one of the top Republican podcasts just to hear what they have to say about everything. It's fine, yeah. It's a good way to test your brain and and hear what people are saying. I listen to a radio show every time I come to Zach's, and I swear to God, almost every morning they just shit talk Mom Donnie for like 92.7? Yes. Yes. I listen to 92.7. It's just like, but it helps me like understand, okay, what are they actually saying?

SPEAKER_03 1:20:17

And a lot of it's just thank you for saying that. That is so wise, brother. Even if you disagree with it or think it is propaganda, to at least hear where they're getting their argument from.

SPEAKER_07 1:20:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:20:28

Because when you hear the flip side, too.

SPEAKER_07 1:20:30

Yeah, because like listen to blue, whatever it is. Just listen, like, listen to everything. Just learn as much as you can.

SPEAKER_03 1:20:35

And when you hear it from the perspective, sometimes it sounds just as silly as you already knew it to be. Sometimes you learn a different uh perspective that maybe you hadn't thought about before, or at the very least, you get to hear how these boomers are coming to their opinions. They're hearing it from radio shows, they're watching it on TV, and it's being presented as just flat fact when there's so much nuance that's not being brought to the conversation. Blue and red, by the way, sometimes miss that nuance.

SPEAKER_07 1:21:00

Yeah, definitely.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:01

But 92-7 definitely misses the nuance.

SPEAKER_07 1:21:04

But even the Fox News thing that we just watched, I'm like, people still bring up avocado. I'm gonna give the opposite love. Why do they do that?

SPEAKER_15 1:21:10

Double down, listen to nothing. Listen to nothing, hate your opposers even more, find your people even more niche. Continue to excommunicate people you disagree with until we crumble and form two different complete factions. I think that's a good idea.

SPEAKER_07 1:21:23

Split society as a whole. Forget everything I said.

SPEAKER_15 1:21:26

Sounds like pre-Civil War shit. No, no, no, no, no, no. Post-Civil Wars. Were we to get more together post-World Civil War? Yeah, prepare for the post now. Just two different, you know what I mean? What what it used to be what? Czechoslovakia, now it's Czechia and Slovakia. That could be us guys.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:42

So now we need to have the United and the States. Yes. The United and the States.

SPEAKER_15 1:21:49

Been watching a lot of World Cup.

SPEAKER_03 1:21:51

Hey, by the way, America won 2-0. Go USA. It's the only thing that makes me feel patriotic right now, soccer. So I'll be watching Monday. We face Belgium. Big game for Belgium. Belgium cookies. If you're watching the match, DM me on Instagram. I'll hit you back as we're watching. But you want to play the song out as uh Joe hits us with our ending message?

SPEAKER_15 1:22:10

Yeah, I was gonna say, after we play the song out, um, there's a couple questions in the chat. We'll stay live for like five minutes. I'd like to get your take on them right before we finish.

SPEAKER_03 1:22:18

We're always we always stay live on the pod.

SPEAKER_15 1:22:20

So if you find us live on the YouTube and end for us real quick before we upload it, we're good to go.

SPEAKER_03 1:22:24

Let's rock this. Song time.

SPEAKER_02 1:22:29

Trump is on the FC list.