In this episode I discuss the latest efforts by the Democrat/Media complex to take down the Trump government. I also address an economic redistribution campaign that has caused a stir. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/25/thousands-drop-off-food-stamp-rolls-georgia-state-implements-work-requirements/ I also address the power of the US economy. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-absolute-dominance-of-the-us-economy-in-one-chart-2017-02-22
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
They've been tweeting to me, Bongino's a nut, Bongino's a blanker, blanker.
The Dan Bongino Show.
Everywhere big government gets bigger, corruption grows bigger, and these liberals just keep going on and on and on about how great big government is, and they can't prove to you any examples of how wonderful big government is almost anywhere.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Young kids, you are too stupid to figure out your health insurance needs, so we're gonna hammer your cabooses to death until you figure out that the government knows what's best and you're an idiot.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Glad to be here, glad to be an American.
Yeah, no kidding.
Wishing a thankful Memorial Day to all of those who've lost people in combat, have lost people who served.
And although it's not Veterans Day, I'm aware of that.
A big thank you to all those who currently serve as well.
Sadly, many of those will become people we recognize on Memorial Day later.
You know, I tweeted out yesterday, I was thinking about this.
You know, most of us will never ever thankfully know the horrors of war, and that's because of so many who have chosen to take that burden on themselves and their sacrifices.
So a big thank you to everyone who has taken on that unbelievable burden and chosen to live with that for the rest of their lives.
It means the world to us and everybody who listens to this show.
Thank you so very, very, very much.
A little bit more on that later.
So yeah, a lot going on lately, folks.
You know, there's a lot of stories that broke over the weekend.
I wanted to dig right into the content of the show because I did a Fox hit this weekend that went kind of viral.
Yeah, saw that.
Did you see that?
So more breaking news on Friday, and this should really start to disturb you, folks, because as I tweeted out this morning, I have never in my life I've never seen an internal propaganda disinformation campaign to take down a duly elected United States government originate within the United States.
I've never seen it.
You know, I don't even know what's going on anymore.
I mean, I'm getting to the point now where, folks, I mean this, I'm genuinely worried that the Democrats and the media, you know, the complex, it's the same thing, have so lost their minds over Trump That they are legitimately committed to taking down, in a soft coup type effort, the United States government.
You know I don't do hyperbole on the show.
I'm genuinely concerned about this.
The enemy's in the kitchen, Dan.
Joe, there's zero question about that.
Zero.
Let's get to the point.
Friday night, story breaks again.
That supposedly Jared Kushner, who is President Donald Trump's son-in-law, close advisor to the president, married to Ivanka, Story in the Washington Post said, like, breaking!
Kushner tried to set up a secret channel of communication with the Russians.
Now, you read that story again, and if you're a liberal and you have no powers of deduction or reason, you're like, oh my gosh, collusion!
Get him!
Get him!
Put him in handcuffs!
Okay, folks.
Here's the facts about what happened.
Number one, this so-called secret channel of communication between Kushner, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law, and the Russians never happened.
Nobody's saying it, even the Washington Post is saying it didn't happen.
Someone proposed that they talk through some non-open source channel, but it never happened.
Number one.
Now, folks, I get it.
If you're a liberal listening or you're a never-Trumper who's lost his mind, I don't know how else to establish the bona fides if you're a first-time listener.
I was not a Trump guy.
I endorse someone else.
We have been vocal about our criticisms, about policies we've disagreed.
I can't keep saying this.
I'm not a golden calf worshiper, but I am a realist.
I just want to give you the facts to understand that this is a completely fabricated line of reasoning designed to do two things.
Designed for the Washington Post and the New York Times to get clicks on their website, number one.
And number two, to take down a duly elected government.
None of this is based in fact.
This Trump-Russia collusion thing is a total fairy tale.
It's completely made up.
So, I mean, every day we have to debunk something new.
All right, so number one, this back channel never actually happened.
So now, Joe, you have to ask yourself a pretty simple question here.
If Trump and the Russians were colluding to overthrow a United States election, right, to influence, I should say, not overthrow, poor choice of words, but to influence a United States election, and this proposed back-channel communications thing, and by the way, I made the point on Fox, and you can watch the hit, it's on my Facebook page.
I had a cricket phone to talk to my campaign manager.
Is that a secret line of communication?
No, I'm serious.
I guess that is it.
I mean, I don't understand.
Like, these things happen all the time in the government.
There's nothing unusual about this story at all.
But the back channel of communication that was proposed between Kushner and the Russians, one, it never happened, and second, it was proposed in December of 2016.
Now, Joe, you should ask yourself here, if you're a reasonable person, which I know you are, and I know our audience is, but the liberals are not, If there was an ongoing effort, a collusion effort, between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the United States election, how is it that the secret back channel they were going to talk about this was only proposed in December after the election was over?
Has anybody thought this through?
I'm dead serious, Joe.
Has anybody?
This is what's infuriating about this.
Maybe the fact that I was a federal investigator or a cop or, I don't know, an MBA student.
I don't know what it is.
Maybe I just I have an ability to reason liberals don't?
I'm really trying to put myself in the liberals and say, how is it they're allowing themselves to be suckers every single day without thinking this thing through?
So Trump and the Russians colluded to influence a campaign, a presidential campaign, and only talked about setting up the secret communications channel to do so after the election was over?
Joe, does this make any sense to you?
No.
Okay, that's just number one, by the way.
Okay, here's number two by the facts.
Multiple sources, and I'm not, listen, these sources, I don't even, I don't know why I'm even citing anonymous sources, but being that the Post uses nothing but anonymous sources and has thrown out any journalistic integrity whatsoever, I don't, I guess we should feel free to cite anonymous sources as well.
Multiple anonymous sources, Joe, have said that this backchannel, secret backchannel, was proposed by the Russians, not by Kushner!
So the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, proposes to Kushner, hey, maybe we should be able to talk offline here to coordinate on the Syria thing and some other issues, being that your father-in-law is going to be the president and you're representing him in this interaction.
Again, I'm not... Folks, please, don't misinterpret my words.
I'm not saying any of this was wise, okay?
This was clearly dumb politically.
Let's just get that out of the way.
But suggesting this was an ongoing attempt to, like, collude to overthrow a US election is not even absurd.
It's, like, beyond ridiculous.
Multiple sources, it was proposed by the Russians!
And it never happened!
So, we should lock Jared Kushner up because the Russian ambassador suggested to him that they should talk offline and it never happened?
Well, I don't even understand, like, what's the crime?
Folks, are you guys serious at the Washington Post?
Are you serious?
Now, number three in the facts department.
Back channels, back channels, to avoid, you know, the open source stuff, frankly, sadly, I think in many cases, are very common within the United States government.
Here's a, let me quote PJ Media, from an article about the Barack Obama 2008, his first presidential campaign.
Now my writing's horrible, so excuse me, I have to rewrite stuff, because it drills it into my brain.
This is about Barack Obama, folks. Listen up.
Sorry, that was rude. Listen up. What is it? I'm not your...
My apologies. Listen in, though. This is good.
During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret backchannel to Tehran
to assure the mullahs that he was a friend and that they'd be happy with his policies.
The secret channel was Ambassador William Miller, who served in Iran during the Shah's rule as the Chief of Staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intel and as he served as Ambassador to Ukraine.
Listen to this.
Miller confirmed to me, this is the author of the piece, Miller confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders.
Again, folks, this stuff happens all the time.
Only with Obama, it happened with a known terrorist regime, and it's actually been confirmed.
So let's compare the two stories.
Anonymous sources allege that Jared Kushner and the Russian ambassador were colluding to set up a secret channel.
That never happened.
It's anonymously sourced.
No one's confirmed it.
And the other anonymous sources are saying it's not true that the Russians proposed it and it still never happened.
Lock them up, Joe!
Lock them up!
Yet, book him Dano, of course, but I say that dripping with sarcasm, yet in 2008 we actually have confirmed stories that the Obama administration set up a secret channel with a terrorist regime to negotiate when he wasn't even president yet and undermining the Bush administration.
Don't worry folks, nothing to see here yet again.
You know, I have a... In order to keep the show more aligned and sequential, because I know sometimes I get excited and get tangential when I shouldn't, I have a little section here called Facts and Problems.
Folks, here's the problem with all of this, besides what I just told you, that the facts don't align with the actual story.
Again, I can't repeat this enough.
Never in my life did I think a duly elected United States government would be overthrown or try to be overthrown from the inside by the Democrat media complex.
Folks, I never doubted that they hate us politically, the Liberals.
Not all Democrats, but the Liberals.
I never doubted that.
I never doubted that they'd undermine us politically, that they would lie about us, that they'd try to embarrass us.
I mean, I've run for office a couple times, three times.
I know I've run for the Senate, for Congress, almost won, got hurt a few times.
I've seen the process, I know how it works, and I know these people will damage you.
But I really, I mean honestly, maybe this was a bit of naivete on my part, shamefully.
I never thought, and I always thought they would try to overthrow our system of free markets, but I never thought they would actually try to overthrow a duly elected United States government.
Folks, this is dangerous stuff.
This isn't a joke.
You have the Washington Post and the New York Times colluding with the Democrat Party to fabricate an entire narrative.
Now, I cannot, again, I cannot hammer home to you in strong enough terms, this Trump-Russia collusion story is completely, totally, 100% made up.
Here's how the Democrats work.
And with the media friends, fabricate a false narrative to take down the Trump administration, insist the false narrative is true, and continuously report on that false narrative using the false narrative to make demands.
Now, you don't believe me?
Here is the front page of the New York Times today.
This is the headline of their leading story in the New York Times.
Kushner's role is tested as Russia case grows.
There's two things in there you need to know about.
Russia case grows.
There's no Russia case at all.
The Russia case is quote growing because the New York Times and Washington Post are just making it up.
It's nothing but propaganda.
It's not true.
So, you see what I'm saying, Joe?
Use the false narrative to start a story.
Invent more false stories, anonymously sourced, throwing away all journalistic integrity, to further the story that the initial false story you told must be true because the additional false stories play into the initial false story that there's Trump-Russia collusion, despite the fact that the original story has not an element of truth to it.
Secondly, Kushner's role is tested.
This is meant to foster the second narrative.
They want Jared Kushner out of there.
By the way, Kushner's no conservative, folks.
I mean, I don't know.
I've never met the man in my life.
I mean, I'm six years older than Kushner.
That's insane.
I'm 42.
He's only 36.
I mean, I'm not so sure that the role in the White House is, you know, is what it should be.
I mean, frankly, if you want to be candid about it.
But that's not my role.
The President of the United States can pick whoever he wants as an advisor.
But his role is tested?
So it's now the role of the media to invent a false narrative to take down the President and his advisors despite the fact that it's false and then use the story and repeat it over and over to insist that his role is tested as a way to get rid of him?
Folks, this is, I'm telling you right now, we are in a really, really dangerous time.
This is really, this is just sad stuff.
It's really sad stuff.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birchgold.
You know I love Birchgold because I'm, you know, I am obsessed with stability and volatility.
That's why we have Patriot Supply as a sponsor.
You know, I take care of myself physically.
You got to be prepared, folks.
And with stock market hitting new highs, you got to be a little bit concerned about volatility, plus inflation, the Federal Reserve, and loose monetary policies.
If the purchasing power of the dollar continues to decline and inflation goes up and it's not at least matching the market, I got news for you, you're losing money even if the stock market's going up.
So you have to be very careful.
That's why right now is the perfect opportunity to secure your hard-earned money by moving it into precious metals.
The company I trust with precious metals is Birch Gold Group.
They even sent me some silver, which is really cool, by the way.
It's a real deal, folks.
You can actually see and touch.
If you want to buy it, they'll send it to you.
You want to store it, you can go see it.
Silver and gold precious metals.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
Perfect for those looking for some stability in their retirement savings.
These guys are A-plus rated with the Better Business Bureau.
They have countless five-star reviews.
Go check them out.
Birch Gold Group.
Ask them for a free information guide, folks.
There's no commitment at all.
16-page guide.
Tell you how to do it.
Birchgold.com slash Dan.
That's B-I-R-C-H gold dot com slash Dan.
Check it out.
See how you can get some stability in your IRA or 401k, folks.
Gold and silver have been a big proponent of basing our money supply on something stable.
You can touch it, you can feel it.
Go give them a look.
Birchgold.com.
Alright, moving off this story into a couple other stories I thought were fascinating, which I wanted to get to last week, and it's rare that I carry over into a Monday from last week, but this story was so important I didn't want to lose it.
So Mark Zuckerberg, you know Joe, the Facebook CEO?
He gave a speech, and in that speech he proposed something that we've discussed on this show a couple times.
And I thought, you know, this is a great time to bring this up again because it is gaining some steam, not only with liberals, it's an economic proposal, but it's also gaining some steam with some, shockingly, with some libertarians and some conservatives as well.
Yeah, the universal basic income.
Yeah.
So Zuckerberg, who is a multi-billionaire, gave a speech and he's advocating now for this idea of a universal basic income.
The universal basic income, in essence, is the idea that everybody in the United States would get a certain amount of money as a universal basic income.
So let's just...
Now there are a number of different variants of this.
There's not one, ironically for a proposal called the Universal Basic Income, there's not one universal proposal.
There are a number of different ideas how this should happen.
So let's say, let's use just round numbers to make it easy.
Let's say UBI in the United States, if it were to pass, were $30,000.
There are a number of different ways this could happen.
It's not, one is universal and one actually isn't, again which is odd for a proposal called the Universal Basic Income.
Now I want to give this a fair shake, Joe.
And you and I did a show on this before, and I think it was, was it Mike Munger or something on Econ Talk, the other podcast?
He gave a really deep, detailed proposal of this.
Yeah, it was a while ago, and we summed it up, and I don't want to give this short thrift, because listen, I'm an enormous conservatarian.
I mean, it's imbued in me, I can never escape it.
But one of the things we do on the show that I'm proud of is we, you know, we use reason unlike liberals.
I don't want to throw this thing out right away and say, Oh, it's redistribution.
Let's get, of course it's redistribution.
Absolutely.
It's the very heart of redistribution, but let's look at this reasonably and I'll give you my opinion on it when I'm done quick.
Let's do a pro and a con.
Here's the pros of this, Joe.
The pros of a universal basic income.
Let's say everybody in the United States below a certain amount of income, whatever it may be, $50,000 a year, below the poverty line, whatever it may be, right?
Gets this $30,000 a year.
Here's the pros of it.
The pros are, folks, we already have a universal basic income whether you know it or not.
We have government programs for social security.
We have government programs for Wi-Fi.
We have government programs for cell phones.
We have government programs for food.
We have government programs for housing.
So, before you discount this out of hand, because again, we're conservatives, Joe.
We want to think about this rationally.
We don't want to do what Democrats do and just be dopey about it.
Everybody gets everybody else's money!
Shut up!
This is for educated people.
You can stop listening now, libs.
We're already doing a form of de facto universal basic income in the country.
Not only are we doing a form of universal basic income, we're doing it and paying for an unbelievably large bureaucracy to support it, Joe.
We have to pay for the social security bureaucrats to get everybody paid.
We have to pay for bureaucrats at SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, what you would know as food stamps, and more on that in a second.
We have to pay for bureaucrats to administer, I didn't even get into Medicaid, which is another huge expense, SCHIP, the Medicaid for kids.
We already have...
You know, unemployment insurance at the state and federal level, the way that works.
There's already a universal basic income and an accompanying bureaucracy.
So now you're paying for two things.
You're actually paying for an income and the bureaucracy too.
The point some conservatives, who've actually defended this thing, and I've even heard a few libertarians, not many, but a few, is, hey, we're already giving them the money.
Let's dump the bureaucracy and just say to people, here it is folks, we're wiping out everything.
We're wiping out Social Security, Medicaid, all of this stuff.
We're just going to give you the cash equivalent of $30,000 a year.
And the nice part about it is you'd have one office of UBI, whatever the, who knows, maybe it'd be a cabinet level position, you know the way the government works, you know, the Secretary of the Universal Basic Income, and everybody would get the $30,000, and I've heard some conservatives and libertarians say, we'd actually potentially save big headaches on this because two things would happen.
Number one, you wouldn't get these misallocations of cash.
And number two, you'd save on a bureaucracy, which I already mentioned, because instead of 20 different offices or 147 different offices giving people money, Joe, you'd have one.
But think about it.
When you have social security and S-chip and all this stuff and the government, let's say through the Obamacare exchanges, right?
Let me give you a quick example of what I mean by misallocation of money.
When the government gets involved in all these different things instead of just giving people cash.
I'll use the example of Obamacare.
Let's say Obamacare used the same model and said, we're not going to tell you anything.
We're just going to give people $5,000 a year to buy insurance.
Well, what would happen, Joe?
Some people are just going to pocket it.
Some people are actually going to buy insurance.
And the insurance companies would have to do what?
Again, I'm not saying this is a good idea.
I'm just telling you what, what some conservatives have argued, why a universal basic income is more efficient than social security, Obamacare, blah, blah, blah, Medicaid.
Once Obamacare, they didn't give you cash.
What they did is they used the tax code.
And then they said to insurance companies, you have to provide this, this, and this.
Hair transplants, vasectomies.
It drove up the cost.
You get it.
I've already spoken about this stuff on the show in the past.
So what did that do, Joe?
It skewed the allocation of capital towards insurance companies that had already provided those plans that did hair transplants and all that other stuff.
And it misallocated capital maybe to smaller insurance companies that would have succeeded if they didn't have all these Obamacare requirements, Joe, and may have figured out a better way to do business.
You get what I'm saying?
That money's not flowing to them now because the government, along with giving people money through the tax code for Obamacare, also told them what to buy.
I guess an easier example would be I made that too complicated.
Here's a simple analogy.
If the government had a car buying program, it would be the difference between, here's $20,000 to buy a car for every American, or if you buy a Chevy Corvette, we'll give you a $20,000 tax credit.
You get what I'm saying?
What would happen then?
There would be a massive misallocation towards what?
Chevy!
Because Chevy Corvettes would be the only one people were buying.
That's been my problem with government intervention in the housing market forever, by these deductions for mortgage interest, is that people then get a home cheaper than they'd get it ordinarily, and it caused people to buy homes who may not be ready to buy homes.
So, there are massive distortions.
So, the conservative argument is the distortions in the tax code, and the bureaucracy would go away.
Now, here are the cons to this, and this is why I, the more homework I do on this, I think it's just an awful, awful idea.
Folks, you are looking at enormous marginal tax rates if you don't give the money to everyone.
Everyone.
Of working age.
I'm not talking about infants, but let's say at 18, you get this?
Now you may say, Dan, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Is it?
Now this is why I'm against it.
I'm not recommending we should do it because of this, but if we were to do it, You have to give it to everyone, Joe.
Because think about this, including people worth $10 billion, if there is such a thing.
I don't even know what Bill Gates... Here's why.
What's the income cliff?
Where do you stop?
So let's say you don't give it to everyone, right Joe?
And they say, you know, the argument would be, well, you know, Bill Gates doesn't need $30,000 a year in taxpayer money.
Oh, okay.
Well forget the Bill Gates argument for a minute.
Where do you stop the money?
Where's the income cliff?
So let's say you make it...
Let's say $45,000 a year.
Once you've earned $45,000 a year, you don't get it anymore.
In other words, if you earn $40,000, Joe, you still get the $30,000.
So you're making what?
$70,000.
You're not getting Social Security.
You're not getting Medicaid.
But at $45,000, you get nothing.
Think about the, now remember in the show I explained, I'm sorry this show's getting a little wonky, but folks, it's really critical.
This is one thing we do differently.
I want you to learn something on this show, like I do every single day.
Remember we talked about marginal tax rates?
Marginal tax rates, people confuse this all the time.
The way the income tax works in the United States is it's marginal, meaning it's on the last dollar earned.
So if a marginal tax rate for people making $250,000 a year or more is say 50%, it's not, but just say it's 50%, You don't pay 50% on what you've made up to $250,000.
You only pay that 50% on $250,000 or more.
So, Joe, if you made $251,000, that 50% marginal tax rate only applies to... There you go.
Bingo.
See?
This guy's turning into an economist in front of my very eyes.
You only pay it on that $1,000, not on the $250,000 and below.
Now, what does that have to do with this?
Think of the taxes paid on the next dollar earned if you earn $45,001.
You earn one extra dollar, Joe, right?
So just to be clear, let's say the income line.
So the universal basic income, everybody gets a $30,000 check from the government who makes $45,000 or less.
That guy who makes $45,001, his tax rate is like almost 100% of his money because he just lost $30,000.
Right?
He doesn't get it anymore.
So if he would have earned a little bit less, a dollar less, he'd get a $30,000 check from the government.
Now, that's a dramatic example because there are ways to phase it out.
But it doesn't matter, Joe.
Let's say, even if you made $45,000, $1, they gave you $1 less.
Either way, the more you make, the less you get back.
Now, you get what I'm saying?
The more you make, the less you earn.
This creates a very perverse set of incentives, ladies and gentlemen.
I mean, here's an example I wrote down.
Let's say, you know, you're getting $30,000, right?
You're getting $30,000 from the government.
Now you make this $45,001 and now you're paying taxes too!
So at that $45,001, now you have to pay $5,000 in taxes rather than getting $30,000.
Your marginal tax rate's through the roof.
You just lost essentially $35,000.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
You lost your $30,000 check, and now you're paying $5K to the government.
This creates what they call income cliffs, folks.
And it creates marginal tax rates.
The tax rate on that one extra dollar over $45,000, Joe Earn, that are absolutely catastrophic.
Now what's gonna happen?
When you create marginal tax rates that high at a universal basic income, nobody's gonna work more than $45,000!
Forever!
It would be that you would be an imbecile to do that.
Folks, that's why I'm telling you, you have to give it to everybody.
There's no... Now, why is that a problem?
Well, because it's expensive!
I did the calculations.
You're talking about a program, depending on who you stick in there, that would range anywhere from four to six trillion dollars a year.
Folks, the entire federal budget's four trillion dollars.
So, before you even get to the FBI, Secret Service, the military, the court system, roads and bridges, all that other stuff, you've already wiped out the whole federal budget.
So ladies and gentlemen, again, we do reason on this show.
Bottom line is we can't afford it, it won't work, because you'd have to give it to everyone.
Now, in case you say to me, and this is, I like to tie stories into, you know, current news, and that came up last week when Zuckerberg gave the speech, and now it's all the rage with liberals.
Universal basic income!
So just the talking points, remember this, you need to take away from me.
The marginal tax rates, if you don't give it to everyone, are through the roof.
You have to give it to everyone.
Third point, if you have to give it to everyone, it's too expensive.
And here's the fourth point, it creates massive disincentives not to work if you don't give it to everyone.
Here's a story I saw in Breitbart proving my point.
I'll put it in the show notes today as well.
I already sent that link over to Joe.
Sometimes I do it after the show, sometimes before.
Georgia just instituted a policy in, let's see, how many counties?
Georgia has, oh, let's see, 21 counties.
They're going to expand this thing to, oh, 115.
Georgia has 159 counties.
Right now in 21 of those counties, folks, they just made food stamps.
They instituted a work requirement.
You have to work 20 hours a week or volunteer for a government state approved organization.
So just to be clear, if you're going to get government sponsored Georgia food stamps, you have to work.
Half the people dropped off the rolls, Joe.
Out of the 11,779 people in 21 counties, 7,251 dropped off the rolls.
Folks, again, I bring, well you may say, "What does this have to do with the universal basic income?"
Folks, when you incentivize people to not earn more than a certain amount, say $45,000, because you've created a massive income cliff due to a universal basic income, they won't work.
You can say all you want as a liberal, which I see the common response is, oh, people won't do that.
Nonsense!
We're already seeing in Georgia what happens when you create incentives on the opposite end.
To work.
When you say to people, yeah, we'll give you food stamps, we'll pay for your food, but you have to give us 20 hours a week of work.
By the way, Joe, not a shocking idea to you or I. Joe, you would starve to death, correct, if you didn't work at CBM and at Conservative Review?
Like, this isn't shocking to people out there that you have to work to pay for your livelihood.
I mean, I don't know why this is shocking to liberals, but they're stunned by the idea that incentives work.
When you say to people you have to work, To feed yourself, and by the way, contrary to the hysterical liberals about this, this doesn't affect kids who are disabled and stuff.
This is able-bodied folks, okay?
It's just nonsense.
When you create incentives for people to work and you say you have to work to get these food stamps, sadly, most of them won't do it.
The proof is in the pudding.
All right, folks, I'm sorry.
So incentives work.
Incentives work.
You make people work for money.
Some people who don't want to work won't do it.
Some will.
Obviously, some people did take up the offer.
But incentives work, and that's why I think the UBI is a bad idea.
Hey, one quick thing before we wrap the show today.
I gotta get to this Heather McDonald story tomorrow about...
This massive chunk of misinformation on the drug war.
You know how I feel about this.
I was a cop.
I'm very skeptical of the war on drugs in the traditional sense, but Heather MacDonald, The Wall Street Journal, Joe, had a mind-blowing piece about some numbers about the drug war.
I'll get to it tomorrow.
This is a story that has to be discussed.
But another quick one before we go.
There was an interesting piece that's in the show notes today from Market Watch about the power of the U.S.
economy and sometimes we talk in big, you know, fancy terms about the economy and I realized through some of my emails that some, but a couple of our listeners don't have the scope of what the U.S.
economy looks like compared to the rest of the world.
They think, like, the Chinese have a bigger economy than us and we're being overtaken.
Folks, we're not.
We are still the global powerhouse.
Here's some numbers for you.
U.S.
GDP.
And again, a link is in the show notes from MarketWatch in a nice pie chart.
$18 trillion.
Big bad China.
They're doing okay, but $11 trillion.
Japan, $4.3 trillion.
And the Russians, who Kushner allegedly colluded with, according to the dopes at the New York Slimes in the Post.
You know what their GDP is, Joe?
$1.3 trillion.
Folks, relax.
Everybody relax.
The United States, despite eight years of Barack Obama, is still the economic powerhouse of the world.
And here is a little tidbit I did not know from the piece.
The US economy is bigger than the combined economies of Japan, Germany, the UK, France, India, Italy, Brazil, and Canada combined.
Everybody relax.
Tranquilo.
Okay?
We're still kicking butt and taking names.
All right, folks, on a bit of a somber note here, it is Memorial Day, and I lost an uncle in Vietnam who died rather heroically, and if you would allow me just 30 seconds here, I just wanted to read something in memory of my uncle, Private First Class Greg Ambrose, who was killed in action on March 15, 1968, because he was a real American hero, and a lot of these stories never get told.
So he was presented a bronze oak leaf cluster in lieu of a second award of the bronze star medal with a combat V to Private First Class Gregory Francis Ambrose, United States Army, for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force.
Here's a quick paragraph about what he did.
On March 15, 1968, Private First Class Ambrose was serving as a rifleman with his company during a search and destroy operation south of Thu Duc.
He was with the lead element of the friendly force when they made contact with a reinforced Viet Cong platoon utilizing heavy machine guns, claymore mines, and small arms fire.
In the initial burst of fire, Private First Class Ambrose dashed to the point of heaviest contact, where he provided highly suppressive fire to cover the deployment of the rest of his platoon.
With complete disregard for his personal safety, he remained exposed to the heavy enemy fire until he was certain that all of his comrades had safely reached cover.
It was only then that Private First Class Ambrose himself sought cover.
He began to withdraw from his forward position, continuing his accurate fire upon the well-entrenched insurgents.
It was at this time he was mortally wounded.
The dauntless courage, determined efforts, and deep concern for the welfare of his fellow soldiers exhibited by Private First Class Ambrose undoubtedly saved several friendly lives and contributed significantly to the ultimate defeat of a large Viet Cong force.
I just want to say thank you to everyone out there who served and given their lives for the greatest country on earth and wish again a very thankful Memorial Day to everybody out there.
