Professor Scott Galloway

I haven't seen any research that shows that there's a difference in entrepreneurship or management capability based on political party. What I have seen, though, is that 70 or 80% of the nation's GDP derives from deep, deep blue counties. specifically the ones that have technology or big companies or urban areas.

I haven't seen any research that shows that there's a difference in entrepreneurship or management capability based on political party. What I have seen, though, is that 70 or 80% of the nation's GDP derives from deep, deep blue counties. specifically the ones that have technology or big companies or urban areas.

And just as an analogy, for example, California sends $80 billion of excess tax revenue to the federal government, more than it takes. It's surplus. It's a payer. It's a net giver. Whereas Texas is a net taker. They get $70 billion in benefits. And the Republican Party's genius is an ability to get people to vote against their own interests.

And just as an analogy, for example, California sends $80 billion of excess tax revenue to the federal government, more than it takes. It's surplus. It's a payer. It's a net giver. Whereas Texas is a net taker. They get $70 billion in benefits. And the Republican Party's genius is an ability to get people to vote against their own interests.

And just as an analogy, for example, California sends $80 billion of excess tax revenue to the federal government, more than it takes. It's surplus. It's a payer. It's a net giver. Whereas Texas is a net taker. They get $70 billion in benefits. And the Republican Party's genius is an ability to get people to vote against their own interests.

Because if you look at the cuts they're proposing in this tax bill, which will be the largest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the rich or from the young to the old, depending on how you want to categorize it, it's really going to disproportionately hurt red states who are very, you know, 40% of children now are on Medicaid.

Because if you look at the cuts they're proposing in this tax bill, which will be the largest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the rich or from the young to the old, depending on how you want to categorize it, it's really going to disproportionately hurt red states who are very, you know, 40% of children now are on Medicaid.

Because if you look at the cuts they're proposing in this tax bill, which will be the largest transfer of wealth in history from the poor to the rich or from the young to the old, depending on how you want to categorize it, it's really going to disproportionately hurt red states who are very, you know, 40% of children now are on Medicaid.

And those homes that need Medicaid for their kids' chronic illness are disproportionately over indexed in very red counties. So I'm not a huge fan of Senator Warren's policies, but I do think she's a leader, and I'd like some of her narrative. But she kind of summarized it perfectly. She said, look, they're getting richer while you're losing your health care.

And those homes that need Medicaid for their kids' chronic illness are disproportionately over indexed in very red counties. So I'm not a huge fan of Senator Warren's policies, but I do think she's a leader, and I'd like some of her narrative. But she kind of summarized it perfectly. She said, look, they're getting richer while you're losing your health care.

And those homes that need Medicaid for their kids' chronic illness are disproportionately over indexed in very red counties. So I'm not a huge fan of Senator Warren's policies, but I do think she's a leader, and I'd like some of her narrative. But she kind of summarized it perfectly. She said, look, they're getting richer while you're losing your health care.

And not only that, I, again, try to look at this stuff through an economic lens. cutting Medicaid, cutting SNAP payments. SNAP shows a return of 3% to 7% a year, meaning it actually returns. It's like buying a treasury bill. You get money back because these kids have better health outcomes.

And not only that, I, again, try to look at this stuff through an economic lens. cutting Medicaid, cutting SNAP payments. SNAP shows a return of 3% to 7% a year, meaning it actually returns. It's like buying a treasury bill. You get money back because these kids have better health outcomes.

And not only that, I, again, try to look at this stuff through an economic lens. cutting Medicaid, cutting SNAP payments. SNAP shows a return of 3% to 7% a year, meaning it actually returns. It's like buying a treasury bill. You get money back because these kids have better health outcomes.

They're less likely to develop childhood obesity, diabetes, end up needing dialysis, hip replacements, more likely to end up not being hungry such that they can study, end up not being incarcerated. It's been shown that every dollar we get for SNAP we get money back. These programs actually yield a benefit. We're cutting DOGE, which supposedly cut $150 billion.

They're less likely to develop childhood obesity, diabetes, end up needing dialysis, hip replacements, more likely to end up not being hungry such that they can study, end up not being incarcerated. It's been shown that every dollar we get for SNAP we get money back. These programs actually yield a benefit. We're cutting DOGE, which supposedly cut $150 billion.

They're less likely to develop childhood obesity, diabetes, end up needing dialysis, hip replacements, more likely to end up not being hungry such that they can study, end up not being incarcerated. It's been shown that every dollar we get for SNAP we get money back. These programs actually yield a benefit. We're cutting DOGE, which supposedly cut $150 billion.

We're actually going to lose $250 billion a year, because part of the cuts are eviscerating 40% of the IRS, which will cost us $400 billion a year. So we're going to lose a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in tax.

We're actually going to lose $250 billion a year, because part of the cuts are eviscerating 40% of the IRS, which will cost us $400 billion a year. So we're going to lose a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in tax.

We're actually going to lose $250 billion a year, because part of the cuts are eviscerating 40% of the IRS, which will cost us $400 billion a year. So we're going to lose a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in tax.