2476: The $50,000 Housing Trap: Why Government "Free Money" Will Ruin Homebuyers

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company. For more information and links to all our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com. Yo, what's up, man? Yeah, things are good.

I refinanced one, got 2 new properties, did the refinance and the 2 signings.

So up to 9 now. So things are going good there. And the only reason I can walk away from corporate is because I have 9 rental properties. So, I mean, dude, it's—

you're—

you are an extremely pivotal As always, man, thank you so much for being so free with your information and sharing with the world. It's worked so well.

Welcome to the Creating Wealth Show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self-made multimillionaire. who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer, and entrepreneur who's owned properties in 11 states, had hundreds of tenants, and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it. And now, here's your host, Jason Hartman, with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Alrighty folks, I want to review the proposal of the Homeownership Promise Act. Uh, this is something I started reading about just in the last 48 hours. It is only a proposal, but I wanted to go through the details with Jason Hartman and get his feedback, his thoughts, his questions, because I often find going through things like this with somebody you trust and who has experience is very enlightening. So Jason, I don't know that you've heard about the Homeownership Promise Act. Uh, is this something that's crossed your radar yet, or is it just— Not—

I, I talked to you about it. That's it.

But that's it. All right.

If it, if it's from 2 Democrats in Portland, I can already tell you what's going to happen here. Stop it.

Stop it. So let's just talk about what it— what, again, it's a proposal. And essentially, you know, I think it's well-intended, right? The housing market, you know this as well as any, is in a recession and in some markets a depression, right? Rates are up, buyer demand is down. You know, sellers are frustrated and, and, you know, flippers are getting crushed and the housing market's in a horrible place. Is that reasonable to say?

I wouldn't call it like a horri— I would have called a horrible place, you know, the Great Recession. I wouldn't say it's that bad.

Uh, but it's a bad place.

Maybe it's— I, I would, I would call the market like I've called it before: frozen, boring, uneventful. I mean, it's, it's been just pretty boring for almost 3 years now, or maybe over 3 years. It's been frozen because it's a standoff, right, where neither party will move. Volume is way down. That's what it is. But prices keep going up.

So yeah, no, no, no question. But what I think, uh, you know, government officials are seeing is a housing market, uh, that is frozen. And again, I would argue in a recession, right, the housing market collectively is 13 to 15% of the economy.

Yeah.

And, you know, we went from 6 million to 4 million transactions, and home builders are eating margin to move inventory. It's, um, you know, it's not a great market. I think that's fair.

Sure.

So what has happened with this Homeownership Promise Act, and you guys can search that for more details, is they are targeting first-time homebuyers. The first thing I will say is, unlike past proposals There's actually no income threshold. So there isn't, you know, make the median or 2x the median or anything of that nature.

The first-time buyer can make $2 million a year and qualify for this program.

At least as, as currently written, correct. There are some more caveats which we will get into, uh, but yes, there are no income thresholds. So anyone, an AI engineer to a school teacher, could potentially participate in that.

So that's the first thing.

Uh, so first-time homebuyers only. The second thing is the maximum federal contribution is $50 grand. So $50,000 in potentially free money. There is one caveat there. They're doing what's called a 5-to-1 match. Okay, what is that? Every $1 that you save for the down payment, the government will match $5 up to a total of $50,000.

Wow.

By my math, that means you, the homebuyer, saves $10,000. The government will kick in $50,000. So we're talking consequential.

Yeah. In other words, the actual purchaser has very little skin in the game. Yeah.

Yeah. They have $10,000 upwards of $60,000 of the $60,000, but it will all be equity. The $50,000 is— I guess they're going to call it a grant. The government is not taking an equity position.

I can tell you, when I bought my first home, I wish someone would have given me a grant.

Yeah, I, I wish I had $50 grand for my first home. Yeah. So, okay, so we're getting into all this. The, the one caveat, right? So again, back to the person making $2 million. The only caveat that I saw that would be somewhat restrictive to that person is you have to buy at the median or below of your MSA. So, you know, if you're a $2 million earner or pro athlete or whatever and you're buying a McMansion, you don't qualify, right? Because that's above the median.

But what a lot of people will do, they'll abuse this program. I can already tell in a lot of ways. And one way is that people will basically use it to house hack, where of course they have a high income, they don't need the program, right? But they'll buy a property, they'll say it's their primary residence, they might move into it for a short time, and then they'll move out, turn it into a rental. And basically what they got is they got the government to buy them a rental, pretty much.

Yeah, anytime there is free money available, people look for the loopholes around. And again, they could close that loophole by saying you got to live there 1 or 2 or 3 years. But again, yeah, people are gonna—

But enforcing that'll be impossible anyway, right?

Tough. Well, again, with AI, maybe not so tough because you can just track where mail or bills are being— anyways, I don't want to peel it apart on little details. I just want to look at the reality. The median home price across America today, I think, is— let's call it $400 grand for easy math.

Yep.

There are plenty of markets where the median home price is $200 grand. And at least as it's currently written, there was no skew to the, the price point. So somebody in a $200K market could get $60 grand, and somebody in a $400K market gets $600 grand. And I guess the last thing I think about like this is this does not create more housing. It only creates more demand, correct?

Exactly, exactly. You nailed it, Michael. That is exactly the problem with all of these stupid programs. And you know, the government does the same exact thing with college tuition. All they do is create more demand. We need more Pell Grants, we need more this and that, we need more student aid. That's the whole fucking problem. Like, we need less aid. Okay, because less aid will force the universities to stop with the fake scarcity and their prices will drop to the true market rate of college, which when my mom went to one of the best colleges in the country at the time, Berkeley, okay, which, you know, wasn't woke and crazy back then, like she could pay for college by working a part-time job. She could pay for it herself. She didn't need a student loan. She didn't need any help from her parents. You know, she just paid for it because college was not expensive. back then. And then the '70s came along, they introduced all these student loan guarantees, and guess what? A tidal wave of money started hitting the colleges. I mean, think about Fannie Mae for a moment in the housing market. Fannie Mae's stated goal— you can probably go find this, I did in the past— on their website today still is to increase home ownership.

For sure, I would guess that's there. Yeah.

Okay, well, guess what? If you increase demand and you increase availability of financing, the price is going to go up. Yeah. If you increase the FHA loan limit, the Fannie Mae conforming loan limit, which they do practically every year, right? They increase all these things. The price will go up because more money will be chasing limited supply. The only way to solve the housing problem is by the increase of supply. That's it, end of discussion. And this Portland, this stupid Oregon program is going to do the same thing Cash for Clunkers did, college student loan guarantees did, and all the housing programs do now.

Yeah. So when I think about this, again, it will increase demand almost overnight. Again, it's only a proposal, folks. It's not law yet. It's a proposal. It could go through iterations, and I'm sure it will. But I just want to, I just want to poke at this idea because I think it is a lot like the other programs where if you are an owner of stuff already, you love this idea.

Yeah.

If you get in early, like you're one of the first movers, you love this idea.

Oh yeah, it's, it's, it's the Cantillon effect where essentially this is the people closest to the money that get the biggest benefit. So the, the 2 categories you just described benefit from a version of the Cantillon effect, and this is a 250-year-ago economist who described this concept of the insiders, the people closest to the money printer, get the biggest benefit. And, and that's exactly what happens. So, so personally, for my own personal gain, I like this program. I love it.

Yeah, yeah.

I, I philosophically, it's a complete disaster.

Oh, it is. Again, I think it's a complete disaster. I don't need more help getting rich. I really don't. I'm already there. I don't need an extra $4 or $5 million with it. I, I am serious. If this program went into effect, let's just say January 1st, 2027. By January 1st of 2028, I am worth at least $4 million more, and I didn't do anything.

Yeah, yeah. And that's, that's because it increased the demand for the limited supply of assets we both own.

Fake demand. Yeah, fictional demand into a scarce asset. Yep, only goes one way. So back where I was talking about, so again, asset owners win. First movers wins, kind of like Section 8. First movers win. Yeah, but then 2 years from now, we are in worse shape. I, I did some rough math, and it's again very rough, but—

We won't be in worse shape. First-time buyers will be though.

No, exactly.

First time.

Yeah, right. The housing market— like, dude, think about inflation, right? If housing goes up 15%, what does that do to rents and all this other stuff?

Look at my, my fiat currency collection here. Uh, one of my—

What do you got there? Tell us what you— tell us which one.

This is— well, the, the poster child for bad inflation currency, for bad fiat currency management, is this one. This is Zimbabwe.

Okay, $5 billion.

This is a $5 billion bill, Michael. I couldn't even buy you a cup of coffee with this $5 billion bill.

That's crazy.

And, and the history of every fiat currency ever is that it goes to zero eventually. So that's, that's exactly what these kind of programs do. They create this exact problem.

Yeah, it would, it would take inflation higher again, seemingly overnight. Again, in the context, it'd be a year or so. But this idea, while probably well-intentioned, again, trying to buy votes, trying to get, you know, go tackle housing affordability and all of that stuff. If you attack the symptom instead of the underlying cause, you're not helping anybody.

This is what the left always does. They always— That's not fair.

Every government official wants to get elected. This is not a left and right nonsense.

I agree, I agree, but I'm not saying left and right. I'm saying this is—

You just said left.

No, hang on, you didn't listen. Let me unpack my comment more carefully, okay? The left side of the political aisle tends to attack the leaves and not the roots, the weeds and not the roots, okay, more often than the right does, okay? Now, they both do it, of course. Listen, every politician simply wants to give out goodies because we know—

And be reelected. That's the—

I mean, I don't know what happened before, but since Marxism, okay, you know, in the 1800s, right? We'll go, we'll go back to like the 1800s when this, some of this stuff took root, you know, maybe even a little bit before Marx. The concept of giving away goodies and being Santa Claus by politicians started to be like a real force in the electoral marketplace. And when that happened, politicians just got the message. Right? And that's why even the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, right, you know, he had a lot of fans, man. He had a lot of fans because he just gave out the goodies. And that's how they gain and stay in power, is by doing that. Well, the left is way more guilty of that than the right. Okay, we just—

we need to stop this left and right nonsense.

Yeah, it's—

no, everybody's in the— most people are in the middle. You want to talk about the right? How about President Trump offering $5,000 if you vote Republican in the midterm?

That's not what that offer is. That offer is Trump saying that the benefit of his policies have created a surplus. Now, of course, the left has spun that as a giveaway, but so what if it's a giveaway? That you don't think the other side does that tenfold? Of course they do. Everybody does it. It's the way you stay in power. It's the way you get elected in the first place. It is.

The point of that statement is everybody does it, and I think that is terrible.

There's— it's just a matter of degree though. The left does it way more than the right.

I have no idea if that's true or not. I think both parties are equally guilty, and I hate both sides for doing it. I hate— I hate all of these free programs that don't help people. This— this all feel-good nonsense, it's— this all buying votes is crap, and both sides do it. And I won't get away with it.

It's terrible, but you have to capitulate. Listen, if common sense won the game, Ron Paul would have been president, okay? Because he was the only guy that wasn't really a sellout, okay? All the other politicians—

I don't remember him. I don't remember.

Oh, well, Ron Paul ran what, uh, did he run in 2012? I think he was 2012. He ran a couple of times and he should have been president. I mean, I had Ron Paul on my show. I had him speak at one of our conferences. I mean, he's great.

Who was the independent that ran? Not Ron Paul. There was, um, He got like 12% of the vote. I forget.

Well, Ron Paul, I think, ran as a Republican every time. I'm pretty sure.

Okay. Yeah, I forget who I'm thinking of. He ran Computer Associates, I think, or CSC. Um, anyways, I, I—

Well, you mean way back to the '90s? Ross Perot?

Ross Perot. That's who I was thinking of.

Oh yeah, Ross Perot was great. He should have been president too. He would have been. I agree.

That was, that was the first time— I think that was the first election I could vote in. Might have been 1990.

And you had to love his little charts.

Exactly where I was going. The charts just made perfect sense.

The hand-written charts were awesome. Yeah, they were great. That was the first time I got it.

I'm like, holy cow. Yeah. So again, shout out.

But but what Ross Perot really did is split the vote and give us eight years of reality. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. When you when you did when you the postmortem. But again, I thought he that's the guy that I was like he wasn't a politician. That was the first time I saw somebody run that in my opinion wasn't a politician.

I love non-politicians. That's why Trump is the greatest president in modern history. Not perfect.

Oh, that's gonna get some replies.

Geez. Here we go.

I wish we could stop talking right and left, man.

Here because right and left still matter.

I mean, it's it's a thing.

It doesn't matter.

for real estate and economics, all of this, unless— if you want to go that path, we can go that path.

But it does—

I'm talking about the Homeownership Promise Act leading to a horrible and destructive outcome that only benefits the rich, hurts the people most intended for. Folks, we don't need more housing demand, we need more supply.

Michael, the one other area I'm going to take issue with you is you have— you have repeatedly, even just in this interview, you have like couched this proposal as probably well-intended. I don't think any of these things are well-intended. I think they are evil. I think you should say they're evil, just like you say the doomers are evil, right? For, for talking people out of good investments.

The audience can let me know what they think, but I don't think politicians in general put out evil things. I think they generally put out things that they think will help their constituents.

They now have to— they have to be smart enough to know the results of these kinds of things. Have you met a politician This is just basic supply and demand economics. It's not complicated. Okay. And you know, you said it yourself, increased demand for limited supply and prices will go up. And guess what? These politicians usually own a lot of real estate. Okay.

That's fair. They do own a lot of real estate.

They're lining their own pockets and, uh, yeah, I don't know. They're just buying votes.

Yeah. What do you think? Do you think these politicians, and again, everybody does it. We've seen lots of buyer's programs, you know, proposals in the last 4 or 5 years. All of them are demand generation. None of them are supply, right? Because supply is hard, supply is expensive, supply is a tough riddle to solve.

And supply— with supply, like, think about it. If you're working on the supply side, which is the right side to be working on for this— we agree on that for sure, right? All you're going to do is, like, say for example you make building easier and less expensive, then you fix the supply side that way. You know, you do what Trump wanted to do is let builders build on federal lands, right? All you're going to do is get the votes of some developers. That's a small number of You know, if you increase the supply, you're going to get massive numbers of votes from first-time buyers, millions of votes, right?

So if you increase demand— sorry.

Yeah, if you, if you focus on the demand side like this proposal, absolutely.

Yeah, no, yeah. And again, why they go after demand is it's easier and it's a hell of a lot faster. And if you make a proposal—

if you—

well, of course, if you make a supply change, it doesn't impact when you're in office. A supply chain shows up years later. Yeah, right. Demand is instant or nearly instant. Yeah, that's, that's why they do it. Yeah.

Yep. You know, if you want to look at another program like this, Cash for Clunkers, the Obama program. Yeah, that was a—

that was cars, right?

So Cash for Clunkers was, you know, under the guise of helping the environment. Okay, let's get everybody— let's incentivize everybody to get rid of their old car and buy a new car. Because the new cars are more fuel efficient, less polluting, you know, all sounds logical, right?

But what it seems— well-intentioned, back to that earlier point.

What's that?

Seems well-intended.

No, definitely not well-intentioned. Because, yeah, because Obama and the other idiots behind the program had to know what would happen. People took perfectly good usable cars and they put them in the junkyard, okay? And then you had to manufacture a new car. Now, I am not an expert, and I'm just going to make that disclaimer first on this. I'm not an expert on this, but I will bet you a lot of money that letting that junker car run for another 5 years or 10 years and die of a natural death when people would have gotten rid of it because it's too expensive to maintain and the economics would have— They have an end of life, right? Without an incentive, right, would have caused less pollution than just making a whole new car. Hmm, okay, like making a whole new car causes way more pollution, I think, right?

The manufacturing—

a less fuel-efficient old car and a higher polluting old car. Okay, and by the way, in places like the Socialist Republic of California, you got to pass smog checks every 2 years anyway. Yeah, so, you know, yeah, it's just—

Yeah, I think that's— I think that's fair. I don't know anything about the Cash for Clunkers, so I've— but I think logically speaking, producing a net new car Uh, it's probably very bad for the environment because I'm guessing those smokestacks and all that stuff in a factory—

oh, you got to make all that steel, you got to make—

I mean, I think that's, I think that's probably fair. I, again, I don't know anything about that program, but yeah, at the end of the day, what the reason I wanted to talk about this is, like, let me just say this, for a real estate agent or a real estate broker, you want this Homeownership Promise Act to pass because you're starving. You're starving. It's been a depression for 3 years, dude. This will take transactions from 4 million to 6 million almost overnight. It'll be that crazy.

Yeah, I don't know if it'll be that good, but yeah, it'll definitely increase transaction volume. Yeah, no question. Yeah.

And also, let's be clear, I mean, something else that will likely happen if this passed in 2027, I will likely 1031 out of all of my now newly expensive low-end housing and move into apartment buildings. So if you want to talk selfishly, you want me to talk my book, I hope this passes January 1st, 2027. Yeah, by January 2028, I will be out of all my low-end houses and moved into distressed multifamily.

Okay, so let's— that's interesting. So first of all, let's unpack why exactly you would do that, because I think, I think what you're saying is the low-end houses would— the prices would have been pushed up by that additional—

In a year, absolutely. Yes.

Okay, okay, got it, got it. That's—

so I get an artificial 15 to 20% bump.

Okay, but why wouldn't you just hold them longer and wait for more demand to play out? Because—

Because I like taking overpriced assets and moving them into distressed assets. And I think commercial multifamily will be imploding in a year.

Yeah, well, it's already imploding, so in a year it'll be even worse. Yeah, yeah. And by the way, I, I never got to hear your thoughts on the Brandon Turner thing that you brought up last week.

Yeah, what was it again? Which one?

Well, you were just saying something about Brandon Turner and his video about he didn't want you to be rich or something. Yeah, which I watched part of that video since you mentioned it.

Yeah. Yeah. So the folks, if you know what we're talking about, I think it was 2 weeks ago, Brandon Turner put out a video that was titled I Don't Want You to Be Rich. I think that was the title of the video. And basically it was a 30-minute video, which I can only stomach the first half, so I just couldn't watch the whole thing.

It seems sort of new agey and soul-searching-ish. I watched a little bit of it.

Yeah, it was, it was It left me with this ick because I think he's trying to remove sins of the past.

Which, which, by the way, what, you know, why we're talking about this is because he sort of famously admitted he lost $15 million of investor money in one or multiple syndications he did. I'm not sure. And then he says he's gonna try and make up for it for those investors by starting a new real estate education company. Now that's just— the irony is hilarious. And, you know, Brandon, I've met him a few times. He's a nice guy, but I— and I don't know the details of his losses and so forth, but, um, you know, I, I do definitely give him credit for coming out and just admitting that, you know, unlike Ken McElroy, who didn't—

who just sweeps it underneath the rug. Yeah, I, I've gotten plenty of notes here recently. Ken McElroy apparently has lost multiple buildings.

Yeah.

Oh, really? That's what I— yeah, people are reaching out to me on the side because obviously I go hard at Brandon Turner, but people are like, don't forget Ken.

Yeah, well, that's the, the one I know of was like a $51 million loss, but I think I think they got one of— I don't know the details, but I think they got one of those buildings, they got the lender to work with them. And so they might get lucky and have some salvage from that deal where the lender agreed to work with them and not force a sale so quickly. So that might be good news, but I don't know.

I got more news on Brandon. Again, people are now realizing that I don't like the guy. More and more people from his fund are emailing me. Yeah, one guy said that Brandon Turner is doing his 3rd capital call. On a building. And if you don't kick in money, you're going to basically be watered down to zero. So new money is valuable, old money is not. So the pain is still growing in syndication.

Yeah, it is, it is. Okay, so where were we going with that before we got onto the tangent of—

We were pretty much done. Again, I think this Homeownership Promise Act is— I'll call it well-intended. Audience, you let me know what you think. But it will be financially destructive and will leave us in a worse place Call it 18 to 24 months from now.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I don't agree that it's well intended. I think these left-wing politicians, or any politician for that matter, before you—

there you go, let's say any politician.

I mean, Michael, I'm worried. Have you become a libtard?

Uh, absolutely not. I just, I think, I think the left— I, I think what we have in today's society is we have crazy leftists and crazy rights. And what I'm seeing in people is if you see yourself as left or right, you always think the other side is evil. And my friend, I think they're both evil.

Sure, fair enough. I mean, listen, you know, to be a politician, you have to sell out, okay? Otherwise, you're gonna be Ron Paul and you're never gonna get elected, okay? You know, that's the reality.

You're gonna make noise and not get elected.

He got elected, but he didn't get elected president, and he would have been a great president.

He was a senator? What was he?

Yeah, he's senator or congressman.

Congressman, I think.

Yeah, for many years. And everybody, all of his peers said he was exactly what he said he was. You know, if he said something and he believed it, he was consistent. You can't be president with that. Yeah, you gotta, you gotta sell out on some things. You just, it just doesn't work in reality. Okay. Yeah, it's, it's great to be dogmatic, but it's not gonna work.

Doesn't work. That doesn't get you elected. Yeah, being dogmatic doesn't, and it doesn't keep you elected. Yeah, exactly, exactly. So yeah, no, I'm definitely not a libtard. That definitely— I am.

Okay, I am just giving you a hard time.

I don't mind. I love this. I love this back and forth.

Okay, so I know you're not a libtard for sure, but you didn't catch a little bit of TDS, did you, somewhere?

No, no, no, I— but, but I'm also—

did you go to— did you go to— did you go to Oregon recently?

Oh my God, no, no.

Maybe you went there and caught a little bit of TDS in a coffee shop somewhere.

It was in the latte.

Yeah, they put it in the water.

They poison you there.

Man, yeah.

No, but so on TDS, so again, I voted for the guy 3 times. I just—

And he won 3 times, by the way.

He was not president. Well, I can't— that's not mathematically possible because you only be a president twice anyway.

I know, but he did win 3 times.

I'm not having this argument.

Oh, we're not going to go into the election fraud issue?

No, we're not going into that.

Okay.

Uh, because it doesn't change anything. The corpse of Biden was president for that 4 years. I, I'm just not willing to say he walks on water. I'm just—

I don't think he walks on water either. I'm just saying—

You just said he was the best president ever.

Oh, totally. No, best president in modern history. I mean, name a better one. Okay, listen, folks. Okay, look, the problem here is that I operate by life's most important question. And for my listeners, you hear me say it all the time: compared to what? That is the most important question in life. And that's how we as humans evaluate everything, every decision, all these decisions we make all day long. By the compared to what framework, all right? And who could you compare in modern history to Trump and say was better? Now, some will say Reagan.

Let me know in the comments below. I'm not going to reply. I'm going to let you guys reply because this will get the comments section on fire.

There you go. Let's get the hate going here, folks.

Yeah, why not? Who's better than Trump? Leave the comments below.

Let Jason know. Yeah, exactly, exactly. I mean, Reagan was not better than Trump. All right. And all of the rest of them sucked. I mean, the Bushes, Obama, you know, I mean, yeah, they all had some good and bad, mostly bad things. The Clinton crime syndicate, the Biden crime syndicate, the Obama who let Europe become Muslim. It's a disaster. There's, there's no compared to what? Like, there's no—

Folks, leave comments below. Who is better than President Trump? Um, in the modern— how, how far is modern history? Like to the '50s?

I don't know. You could go back to even JFK. Okay. Okay. Like, I think JFK was a good president and that's why they shot him. Okay. Uh, you know, I like JFK. Okay. Um, I mean, you know, he was— and he was a Democrat. Okay. He was, but he was the old style Democrat that was legit. Okay. The new style of Democrat is just gross. Okay. But the old style of Democrat was fine. You know, they were like, for the people. I'm for the people, man.

Don't do it. Uh, don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Yeah, JFK was— JFK was all right.

I like that.

LBJ— LBJ ruined the country. I mean, he just ruined the country through welfare programs, Great Society, immigration disaster. You know, Nixon, very— you know, Nixon was very smart but also probably pretty corrupt.

Okay, yeah, I think he got kicked out.

Yeah, well, listen, I'm not— I'm not— I don't think Nixon is quite as bad as the general narrative because Watergate was like nothing compared to what goes on today. Okay, you know, so compared to what, you know, uh, and by the way, last time I was in DC a few months ago, I stayed at the Watergate Hotel.

Oh, you did?

Is that a real place? Yeah, and they showed me the Watergate rooms, the rooms they stayed in. It was fast, you know, I'm fascinated by that. I'm also fascicated— fascinated— fascicated, is that a word?

No, that's not a word.

By the JFK Yeah, by the JFK assassination. You know, when I saw the Oliver Stone movie years ago, I literally flew to Dallas because I had to go and stand next to that window where Oswald supposedly shot. I mean, I just get like really fascinated by this stuff.

And so, so again, I've never— I have no opinion, never researched this, but obviously the narrative is there was more than one shooter. I'm guessing you think there was more than one shooter?

Obviously.

The magic bullet or the whatever they call that?

I mean, it's just— that was a complete cover-up. The Warren Commission is a scam. Just like the 9/11 Commission is a scam, just like the COVID conspiracy is a scam. I mean, listen, they're all over, folks. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to, you know, you're not crazy if you believe this. Look, let me just tell you what a conspiracy is for a moment, because they love to marginalize people with this stuff. The United States was a conspiracy against the British Crown. Okay, wake up. Like, being— there are conspiracies going on every day. All it means is 2 or more people planning something behind your back, okay? You don't think there's conspiracies? Your friends are conspiring against you all the time. Did you see the movie Mean Girls? Okay, like, especially in these, you know, in these girl crowds, like, they're always stabbing each other in the back, right? There's conspiracies going on all over. Michael and I right now are conspiring against, you know, well—

The doers.

I'm conspiring against the left, but maybe you're not.

Oh, I have no problem. I, I have no problem kicking the left. They deserve it. But here's my problem is I'll kick the right just as much. That's, that's where you don't like— that's what you don't like.

Well, when it's appropriate, sure. But, you know.

All right, Jason, you're fun. This is always fun.

Next week, next week though, you have to give the answer to the quiz: who is the best president in modern history and why? Okay, so next week, Michael, I want to see the comments below. We're going to get the comments first. And let everybody duke it out in the comments and throw their hate. I, you know, here it comes. And then next week we're gonna get your opinion. We have to start the show next week with that. Okay, you ready?

Sounds good. Yep. All right, good. All right, Jason, thank you so much.

Happy investing. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss any episodes. Be sure Be sure to check out the show's specific website and our general website, HartmanMedia.com, for appropriate disclaimers and terms of service. Remember that guests' opinions are their own, and if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes.

iTunes.

Or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you're using and write a review for the show. We would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.