john larson has been a passionate fighter of it for years. i'm sure he's spoken about it for years. as part of our plan, as the name suggests, we would shore up social security to the year 2100, and we would do so without cutting benefits. most of the additional revenue that will be coming in we capture those and make more than $400,000 a year. currently right now we're not paying into social security. so it shows you that if the will is there, and if we believe that, you know, everyone should be paying in in roughly equal percentage to social security, there's enough money to fund it all the way until 2100. my daughter would be 86 years old in the year 2100. so i would feel quite good if that could be my legacy. so in the end, it's less about doom and gloom and less about making dramatic, ideological changes to social security. we can save it in mostly its current form if we're willing to say we need more revenue into it. host: this is mike in port charlotte, florida, calling on our republican line. mike, you're on with the guest. caller: hey, great. thanks for taking my call. can

my colleague, john larson, is a main author of it, he has been a passionate fighter for it for many years. i am sure he has spoken about it. part of our plan, we would shore up social security through the year 2100, and we would do so without cutting benefits. most of the additional revenue that would be coming in would capture those and make more than $400,000 a year. currently we are not paying into social security. it shows you that if the will is if you believe that everyone should be paying in in roughly equal percentage to social security, there is enough money to fund it all the way to the year 2100. my daughter will be . 86 euros old in 2100. i feel good that that would be -- my daughter would be 86 years old in 2100. i would love for that to be my legacy. we can save social security in mostly its current form if we are just willing to add more revenue into it. host: this is mike in port charlotte, florida calling on our republican line. you are on. caller: things for taking my call. can you hear me ok? host: you are on. caller: a couple of issues. daughter, i hope this countries

i am john larson, chair of the citizen's advisory committee and i'm here to report on the june 26th meeting of the,. beginning with items five and six and the fund exchange, million-dollar fund exchange to effectuate that project, we recommended approval of the fund exchange and inquired about certain aspects of better market street. one continuing concern voiced is the current design of the ventilation grates and bicyclists getting their tires caught in them. project staff noted that the proposed sidewalk level cycle track within the better market street project substantially removes that conflict, all the bicyclists making turns on the roadway still need to be vigilant even with any grade redesign. in response to a question related to techniques being used -- with regard to hidden or unknown utilities, project staff noted that with 70 station constructions for the metro, utilities were identified and moved, but areas behind the stations may still have abandoned lines. self-reports to the c.a.c. that being mindful of the experience that we are using slots trenching and ground penetrating r

my colleague, john larson, is a main author of it, he has been a passionate fighter for it for many yearsam sure he has spoken about it. part of our plan, we would shore up social security through the year 2100, and we would do so without cutting benefits. most of the additional revenue that would be coming in would capture those and make more than $400,000 a year. currently we are not paying into social security. it shows you that if the will is if you believe that everyone should be paying in in roughly equal percentage to social security, there is enough money to fund it all the way to the year 2100. my daughter will be . 86 euros old in 2100. i feel good that that would be -- my daughter would be 86 years old in 2100. i would love for that to be my legacy. we can save social security in mostly its current form if we are just willing to add more revenue into it. host: this is mike in port charlotte, florida calling on our republican line. you are on. caller: things for taking my call. can you hear me ok? host: you are on. caller: a couple of issues. daughter, i hope this countries arou

one of the things, by the way, john lonski, mary childs, brett larson.ing first of all, what goes on here, how do you take advantage of this? what's going on? >> it's kind of horrifying, what's going on. what they're basically doing is they've taken talks and speeches these ceos have given which is their actual voice, they plugged it in with some artificial intelligence and kind of made it into, for lack of a better term, they have made it into a siri that you can basically have it say whatever you want in the voice of this other person, and they haven't -- neil: is it that accurate that it would fool you to think this is my ceo talking? >> it has fooled people over the phone. granted, when you are talking about a phone call, the quality doesn't necessarily have to be better. i would imagine in a situation of a phone call if it was someone saying this is urgent, i have been kidnapped or whatever the story that it is that they set up, you might let it slide a little bit that the quality wasn't great, it sounded like he was far away or she was far away, bu

john. so what does this rate cut mean for the president and the economy and the markets? let's go to emily larson, lauren simonetti back with us and steven gilfoy. did that interpretation prove accurate? is the federal reserve saying one and done? that's it? can you hear me? >> i didn't hear you address me. okay, this is the deal, folks. this is something of a hot mess created by the communication. the policy moves were fine. the 25 basis points, i agree with all of that. i believe if the goal is to fight the currency war, that we need another 50 basis points by the year's end. probably needed to communicate that message. but not communicating or failing to communicate that message, you saw what the algorithms did. we're mostly trying to pick the bottom in the sectors getting hit hard. so it was on the good side. >> neil: one of the things that was raised, maybe what the federal reserve's chairman was saying was i did this one cut, i don't see a reason to rush into another cut. if for no other reason, i don't want to look like i'm doing the president's bidding. what do you make of that? >> neil,