| 0 comments ]

Young America's Affordability Crisis Has Political Consequences

Authored by Micky Horstman via RealClearPolitics,

One and a half million more young adults live with their parents today than a decade ago. They’re losers … economically. 

Since the pandemic, fair market rents have increased as much as 40% in Chicago, the cost of owning a car is up more than 40%, and car insurance and health care prices have spiked. Student loan debt has quadrupled since 2000, and entry-level wages haven’t kept pace with inflation.

For young people without financial or family support, it’s an affordability crisis that feels insurmountable. Cost of living was Gen Z’s top political issue in 2024; they feel the “American Dream” slipping farther away.

And it’s driving them to the extremes. While political pundits insist Gen Z is “more well-off,” than other generations, and reporters write about “the big myth of zoomers’ economic conditions” – pointing to rising wealth and low unemployment compared to previous generations – political extremists from Democratic Socialist Hasan Piker to far-right nationalist Nick Fuentes are validating the distressed generation narrative.

As Gen Z flocks to the fringes, it’s on lawmakers to bring them back and renew their belief in the American Dream. They can do this by repairing the systems holding young people back, not pushing populist quick fixes or pretending these lived experiences aren’t real.

Wealth rises when you’re living in your childhood bedroom. Low unemployment doesn’t matter if jobs on the market are temporary, low-wage, or evaporate the moment the economy hiccups or AI replaces you. The kids are scared.

The far right blames immigrants. The far left blames billionaires. Leaders propose handing out $25,000 in down-payment support or mass deportations to solve the youth’s housing problems. These extremes are wrong.

The reality is: Government regulations have spiked costs and killed opportunities for young people.

For years, lawmakers infused aspects of left- and right-wing populism into the economy through government mandates, zoning hurdles, rent regulations, and most recently, tariffs. Then they acted surprised when prices climbed and jobs plummeted.

These policies don’t work, regardless of which party implements them, and they are especially harmful for younger generations. Whether it’s California’s disastrous Prop 13, which has kept property taxes locked while home prices skyrocketed, or Florida’s plan to eliminate property taxes for retirees, these policies limit housing supply and raise costs for young and first-time homebuyers.

In New York City, voters were swayed by a Socialist candidate who promised to solve the affordability crisis and make billionaires pay their “fair share.” Zohran Mamdani’s housing platform calls for rent stabilization efforts and expanding government-funded affordable housing development. Ultimately, rent control measures will drive up the cost of housing, and public sector development will come at a high cost for taxpayers – as seen in Chicago where similar “affordable” units cost taxpayers as much as $700,000 each.

Cities such as Austin and Minneapolis, which are becoming havens for Gen Z, prove what happens when free-market barriers come down: Buildings go up, rents drop, and jobs appear.

Minneapolis voters rejected a far-left Socialist candidate for mayor who ran on a similar platform to Mamdani. Populism isn’t attractive to voters when rent is cheap. The secret to affordable living, as it turns out, is removing barriers that restrict housing supply, such as zoning, permitting, and aesthetic requirements.

On the labor front, the progressive push for a $15 minimum wage has put businesses in a chokehold for a decade. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson removed the subminimum wage, forcing restaurants to pay employees a staggering new hourly rate. As a result, restaurants closed and businesses fled. When the incentives for hiring youth and tipped employees vanished, wages began to slow and youth employment declined. Instead of creating new incentives for businesses to hire young workers, the progressive solution has been calls to “tax the rich” and pour taxpayer dollars into city-run youth job programs.

On the other side, Nalin Haley, political commentator and son of Nikki Haley, and Jarrod Wright, host of an America First-themed podcast called “The Wright Wing,” have advanced anti-immigration talking points and convinced Gen Z that workers with H-1B visas will ruin the economy, encouraging an end to the program. Now, Texas is launching investigations to evaluate the program and curbing new applicants. Meanwhile, President Trump’s tariffs are raising costs on everyday items and essentials for the “American dream” including cars and housing. Immigration crackdowns have created only political unrest, not economic security for Americans.

Cost reduction, job creation and wage growth won’t be found in government mandates or in eliminating who comes into the country.

Gen Z needs policies that increase opportunities and lower the regulatory and tax burdens. Lawmakers must reform barriers to work, such as occupational licensing and degree requirements, to expand opportunities for young workers.

Only when the American Dream feels within reach will leaders be able to pull Gen Z back from the extremes.

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/07/2026 - 17:30
https://ift.tt/RTEGJPf
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RTEGJPf
via IFTTT

Young America's Affordability Crisis Has Political Consequences SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Newsom's 'Train To Nowhere': Californians Burn Billions For Political Boondoggle

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In the dystopian novel 1984,  George Orwell wrote, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

The true meaning of that line was never more clear than watching the truly bizarre photo op of California governor Gavin Newsom heralding the success of the greatest boondoggle in history: his high-speed train to nowhere.

Without laying a single yard of track after burning $12 billion, Newsom showed a diesel freight train on a conventional track to create the appearance of a working railroad.

I have been writing about this boondoggle for years. Newsom promised years ago that the project would be transformative. It was, but not as he promised.

Voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue in 2008 after absurdly low estimates of the projected cost. Influential figures and companies stood to make a fortune, and the key was to secure a “buy-in” worth billions, so that it would become increasingly difficult to abandon the project as overruns and delays sent costs soaring.

Now the official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% , and it demands billions more to complete a project delayed by decades. Remember that this entire project was meant to create a rail line of only 171 miles. It is projected to exceed $128 billion and could ultimately cost a billion dollars per mile. There are still uncompleted environmental assessments and challenging rail lines through the mountains.

There is still no train and not a yard of track almost 20 years later.

The inspector general, Benjamin Belnap, issued a scathing report on the first phase of the still uncompleted project.  That is only the stretch from Merced to Bakersfield which was supposed to be completed by 2033. Belnap wrote:

“With a smaller remaining schedule envelope and the potential for significant uncertainty and risk during subsequent phases of the project, staying within the 2033 schedule envelope is unlikely. In fact, uncertainty about some parts of the project has increased as the authority has recently made decisions that deviated from the procurement and funding strategies that were part of its plans for staying on schedule.”

Rather than deliver on the promise of high-speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the Merced-Bakersfield line would now cost $35.3 billion, exceeding the 2008 projection for a complete system.

Merced and Bakersfield have a combined population of roughly 500,000. That works out to roughly $22,000 per person, based on state ridership estimates.

However, Newsom still wants to be president even as citizens are fleeing his state in record numbers.  The “train to nowhere” is a problem. Even the New York Times is writing editorials on whether Newsom will be the next mistake of the Democratic Party.

Newsom’s response is to arrange for gushing columns like Maya Singer’s embarrassing piece in Vogue:

Let’s get this out of the way: He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence as he delivers his final State of the State address…

Newsom’s lanky frame was folded onto a sofa a bit too low-slung for him. This made him lean back—away from me. Or it could be that his body language had nothing to do with ergonomics and is a function of Newsom’s quality of being at once gregarious and aloof.”

It is the type of teenybopper heartthrob coverage that Newsom is counting on from the media. It is not the billions burned on a non-existent railway but his glorious hair and “eminence.”

However, others beyond Vogue readers may be interested in his actual record. Hence, the need to release this absurd photo op that would make a propagandist blush:

“All of the hard work behind us. Now we’re going to see the fruits of that. We’re going to start seeing precisely what you see here. Real tracks, real progress.”

It is like paying for a meal at a restaurant and the Chef charging you ten times what was on the menu, not producing the meal for hours, and then showing you a picture of a different dish as a sign of his progress.

The difference is that Newsom has taken almost two decades to deliver and cut the original dish to a fraction of its original size while increasing the price exponentially.

Californians are now captives on a train to nowhere. The state must continue to burn billions because too much is invested economically and politically. They must ride the train with Gavin Newsom to the very end.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 02/07/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/4fjvkKD
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/4fjvkKD
via IFTTT

Newsom's 'Train To Nowhere': Californians Burn Billions For Political Boondoggle SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Trump Says He's Still Looking 'Seriously' At Sending $2,000 Tariff Rebate Payments

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has said in a recent interview that his administration is still considering sending out $2,000 payments to Americans derived from his tariffs.

During an interview with Trump on NBC News published on Feb. 4, host Tom Llamas noted that the president “floated the idea of $2,000 rebate checks for Americans from tariff revenue” and asked him, “Who’s going to get that and—when is that going to happen?”

Trump responded by saying that he is “looking at it very seriously” and that he is “the only one” who can issue such payments because his administration is “taking in hundreds of billions of dollars of money from tariffs.”

When pressed by Llamas on whether he would “promise some Americans” could get the payments, Trump said, “I can do that. I haven’t made the commitment yet, but I may make the commitment,” without elaborating.

The president then pivoted to saying that his administration provided a $1,776 dividend payment to members of the military in a move that was detailed by the IRS and the Pentagon last month.

Dividend payments derived from the administration’s sweeping tariff regime were floated by Trump in November 2025.

While some White House officials have said the $2,000 payments would need an act of Congress, Trump signaled last month he can unilaterally issue them.

He and others in the administration have indicated there would be limits on income and said that the payments would be sent to non-wealthy Americans.

“I don’t think we would have to go to the Congress, but we’ll find out,” Trump told reporters on Jan. 20, adding that “the reason we’re even talking about it is that we have so much money coming in from tariffs.”

But he added that with the tariffs, the administration “will be able to make a very substantial dividend to the people of our country.”

Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that Congress would need to pass legislation before the payments could be sent, while National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett made a similar comment in November that legislation would be needed first.

Some Republican lawmakers have said they would be willing to support legislation to send tariff rebate checks to people. Among them is Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who introduced a measure in 2025 that would send rebates to workers, although the payment appears to be lower—$600 per adult and $600 per dependent child, totaling $2,400 for a family of four—than the checks proposed by Trump.

Trump’s tariffs are still being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling on a lawsuit challenging the legality of the import taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. It’s not clear when the high court is slated to rule on the tariffs.

Tariffs could still be imposed by the administration, said Trump and Bessent, under different authorities. However, Trump has warned that imposing them would be more cumbersome and a slower process without using the 1977 law.

Last April, Trump imposed tariffs on nearly every country in the world and has argued that the United States has been victimized by other nations for decades on trade. In other instances, he’s said the tariffs can be used to end wars and to put pressure on countries that aren’t aligned with U.S. national security interests.

Democratic lawmakers have been critical of the tariff policies. During a contentious House hearing this week, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told Bessent that she believes the tariffs have increased “prices across the board,” including for housing and lumber, and claimed the administration has been “waging a war” against U.S. consumers.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 15:00
https://ift.tt/vb34NWP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/vb34NWP
via IFTTT

Trump Says He's Still Looking 'Seriously' At Sending $2,000 Tariff Rebate Payments SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Trump Sidesteps 2028 GOP Endorsement On Vance, Rubio

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. President Donald Trump opted not to choose between Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential successors in the 2028 Republican presidential primary during a Feb. 4 interview with NBC News.

U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attend a meeting with oil industry executives at the White House in Washington on Jan. 9, 2026. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

The president had, on earlier occasions, suggested that Rubio and Vance would be the top Republican contenders for 48th president of the United States.

In the NBC News interview, Trump was asked who should be at the top of the 2028 presidential primary ticket.

Well, I don’t want to get into this. We have three years to go. I don’t want to, you know, I have two people that are doing a great job,” Trump said.

I don’t want to have an argument ... I don’t want to use the word fight, it wouldn’t be a fight. But look, JD is fantastic, and Marco is fantastic.

“I would say one is slightly more diplomatic than the other. I think they’re both of very high intelligence. I mean ... they will do shows. They will do Joe Rogan, as opposed to the opponent not doing it because they couldn’t handle it.

They’re both very capable. I do think this—the combination of JD and Marco would be very hard to be beaten.”

When asked whether he would endorse someone in the 2028 primaries, Trump replied he “hadn’t even thought of it” but would be inclined to do so.

Rubio ran as a Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential race, competing against Trump, who went on to win his first term. Since joining the second Trump administration, the 54-year-old has been active on multiple fronts.

In addition to serving as secretary of state, Rubio was appointed acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in February 2025 and national security adviser in May 2025. In July of that year, he confirmed the shutdown of USAID, highlighting that foreign assistance provided by the agency failed to deliver results for Americans.

Earlier, in February 2025, Panama’s president said his country would not renew its Belt and Road Initiative agreement with China after a meeting with Rubio, who called on the country to address the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in the region, in what was one part of the Trump administration’s assertive moves in the Western Hemisphere.

Vance, who has been active in both domestic and international roles, was instrumental in blocking Democrats from restricting Trump’s ability to continue military action in Venezuela, casting the tiebreaking vote in the Senate that defeated the proposal. The 41-year-old has also emerged as a prominent defender and advocate of the administration’s “America First” agenda.

Both Rubio and Vance served as Republican senators prior to joining the Trump administration last year. Rubio was elected to the U.S. Senate from Florida in 2010, while Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 2022.

Regarding a potential 2028 presidential ticket, Vance said in a media interview in October 2025 that he wants to perform well in the current administration before considering such a proposal.

Meanwhile, Rubio backed Vance as a great pick for the next presidential election without ruling himself out of the race.

In December, conservative organization Turning Point USA, now headed by Erika Kirk, endorsed Vance for 2028.

According to a Harvard CAPS Harris Poll fielded on Jan. 28 and 29, Vance “leads convincingly” among Republican voters as their next candidate for president. Vance got 53 percent of the polled votes, far higher than Rubio’s 17 percent, which put him in the third spot. Donald Trump Jr. took the second spot with a 21 percent share.

Tyler Durden Thu, 02/05/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/XwY0j4l
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/XwY0j4l
via IFTTT

Trump Sidesteps 2028 GOP Endorsement On Vance, Rubio SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

"I Deeply Regret": Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman Deny Epstein Malarkey, And Here's Some Weird Sh*t

As the latest Epstein Files release continues to provide premium toilet reading and no arrests, tech billionaires Bill Gates and Linkedin founder Reid Hoffman are in full damage control mode, while President Donald Trump - whose name is all over the files as well, is back to asking if we can just move on. Other notables mentioned in the release are Steve Tisch, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Harvey Weinstein, Leon Black, Peter Mandelson (who just imploded), Sergey Brin, Jason Calacanis, Howard Lutnick and the Nobel Prize committee (more on that later, it's a fun one), and of course Ehud Barak

To review - Gates, whose ex-wife Melinda says he 'needs to answer to those things' in the Epstein files - was featured in a 2013 email Epstein sent to himself - three months after the disgraced financier appears to have brought top Gates 'assistant' Boris Nikolic and 'two Russian girls' to Richard Branson's island for a crypto summit. According to Epstein, Gates - who apparently severed ties with Epstein after some incident involving Boris, 'implored' Epstein to 'delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you with antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis.'

Gates Denies

Gates responded to the latest email, claiming it was 'never sent' (incorrect) and that it's 'false,' (though he did offer $100k to anyone that can make a 'next generation' condom earlier that year).

Hoffman vs. Musk

Meanwhile, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman - who went to Epstein's island, was invited to his weird fertility ranch, and apparently left his passport in a 'gift bag' for Epstein - has been trading Epstein 'gotchas' with Elon Musk, who asked Epstein if he could bring his ex-wife to the island for a 'wild' party. Hoffman claims he was only on Epstein's island to fundraise with former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito, while Musk claims Epstein used the fact that Hoffman was on the island to try to get him to go

Feb 1: Musk drops 'reid was on the island last weekend,' email Epstein sent him, and notes that Hoffman brought 'gifts' to Epstein. 

Hoffman, who says he deeply regrets associating with Epstein post-conviction, defended his visit, replying to ZeroHedge after we asked to clarify that he went to Epstein island to raise money for MIT. 

He also posted an email from Musk to Epstein asking what day "will be the wildest party on your island?" for Musk and ex-wife Talulah to visit. Musk replied; "The big difference between you and me, Reid, is that you went and I did not."

When asked if President Trump deserves the same 'assumption of innocence' that you are claiming, Hoffman pivots, saying he's "been calling for an investigation," adding "No one will need to assume anything if Trump releases all of the files, and we conduct a transparent investigation into those implicated in crimes."

Shockingly, not everyone is buying Hoffman's story...

TL;DR - Hoffman went to the island, he says, to raise money for MIT, brought gifts, and left his passport in a gift bag, and now regrets it. Musk was invited, and/or asked, to visit Epstein's island with his ex-wife, which never happened. 

Weird Shit and Other Novelties

Aside from all that BS, there are some very odd things that also appear in the files...

  • An extremely disturbing diary entry or entries from a victim allegedly held at Epstein's New Mexico ranch, where she was an 'incubator' for bearing children. 
  • Is the DOJ protecting someone here here, when we were reliably told that only victims would be redacted? Or is this a woman referring to herself as 'your littlest girl?'

  • Sultan Bin Sulayim, CEO of DP World, to Epstein: "I am off to sample a fresh 100% female Russian on my yacht.
  • British biotech investor, Nicole Junkermann, asked Epstein if he wanted to have a baby almost exactly 2 years after his 2008 conviction for child sex trafficking. 

The Rothschilds are being deleted from the files... (among other reported 'prunings' since the latest release). Epstein notably told Peter Thiel "I represent the Rothschilds.

  • Epstein and Ghislaine were involved in Bitcoin and Ripple from the earliest days, directly corresponding with Satoshi (who told him to fuck off).

Check back for more! 

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/04/2026 - 14:20
https://ift.tt/WmVRgPi
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/WmVRgPi
via IFTTT

"I Deeply Regret": Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman Deny Epstein Malarkey, And Here's Some Weird Sh*t SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend