In this episode- The Liberal media, and liberal politicians, can't get their stories straight about the costs of healthcare. http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/09/duet.html?m=1 http://trib.al/LHM2LPE New York City wants free lunches for wealthy school students so poor students don't feel bad? https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-new-york-theres-no-alternative-to-a-free-school-lunch-1505431078 The media only celebrates women in politics when those women are Democrats. http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/14/hope-hicks-shows-accomplishments-for-women-by-women-only-count-if-youre-a-democrat/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdVek1HUTNOR000WWpJMCIsInQiOiJzM1ZpSFlyVFFzcjJGYjN6bjhDTmwzSE8zRTkrSlRIVkFpUnVSNEhrWis1VWI2YnFyeXJVTWduclphSU0yaks5Vzh5Y0N1a3hHcXNBQzhVUEl1TlNad3o3bUZ3eW5yODArdWdJazFPT3gwVUI4eWFNVElXYzJrYVRKT0QrcTU1aiJ9 What is going on at ESPN? www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/09/14/espn-denies-trying-to-bench-jemele-hill-for-calling-trump-white-supremacist.amp.html
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Where did that go?
The Dan Bongino Show.
It's time we take off the gloves, okay?
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
Right now we have a party that supports American values, and then there is a party that represents everything America isn't.
On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino.
Welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Always happy to be here, Dan-o.
Man, you guys and ladies are quick out there.
I mentioned this thing with the dictionary yesterday.
Joe goes into work this morning and we've already got one.
Joe is Steve from, is it Hampstead, Maryland?
Sent the dictionary over.
So now we have Jay Zabicus and Steve's dictionary.
And by the way, I got an email today.
Folks, it's not a joke.
This is a real email.
I'm not sure if the dude was messing with me, and if he is, I'm not trying to insult you at all because I do have a really hairy kind of New York, Maryland blended accent, so I get it.
But a guy sent me an email today, I'm not kidding, or yesterday I should say, and he said, I love the show, but who is Jay Zabicus?
I'm not messing with you folks, it's a real email.
Jay Zabicus.
Jay Zabicus, like with a Z. It's Jay Zabicus, the abacus, you know that counting device?
A guy named Jay said that's an abacus, so Joe and I, maybe we should explain this to people who recently joined us, because this is like one of those Rio Linda things with Rush, where Rush always talks about the people in Rio Linda, and if you haven't been listening to Rush, as I have since like the 90s, you have no idea what he's talking about.
I'll be your new producer, Joe Zabicus.
Joe Zabicus.
Joe Z, yeah.
Instead of Joe Armacost, he's Joe Zabicus.
Well, we always laugh about how liberals can't count, so Jay, a listener, sent us an abacus, which is an old counting device where you, you know, the beads, you move the beads over.
So that's the joke.
And now we have a dictionary from Steve.
So you guys are great, because liberals need a dictionary, because when we talk about things like free, yeah, big thanks to Steve, apparently we need a dictionary because liberals actually think free Means costing the taxpayers a fortune.
So we needed a dictionary.
Thank you.
All right.
Um, a busy, busy news day.
So last night I was watching Tucker.
I don't know if a lot of you saw this, but this clown, um, Mike Isaacson, and you know what, when I say clown, I mean like the Stephen King Pennywise, he's another joker, Stephen King, but Stephen King is a clown.
But I mean like Pennywise, the, the, the demonic sewer dwelling clown can take it.
And then, you know, the kid goes to grab the boat and the clown bites his arm off or whatever.
There was a guy on Tucker last night trying to justify Antifa violence in light of the Ben Shapiro speech at Berkeley.
For those of you who missed the news story, Ben Shapiro is a very bright conservative commentator.
Yeah.
An up-and-coming guy.
He was giving a speech at Berkeley, otherwise known as Berserkly, the capital of the liberal and, you know, intellectual vacuum.
And he went out there, and of course, if a conservative speaks at Berkeley, there has to be a riot.
Antifa has to show up.
They've got to beat a few people up, of course, because that's what the left does.
They are the real fascists.
They're just pro-fa, not antifa.
They're pro-fascism, not anti-fascism.
And Tucker had a guy on last night who is allegedly a professor because I'm still having a hard time believing this guy teaches kids.
I heard it was at John Jay College in New York, which ironically is a law enforcement oriented college, teaches law enforcement type studies.
I'm not sure if that's true or not.
I'm having a tough time verifying a lot of information on this guy.
But he was on last night justifying violence against Yeah, justifying violence as a means of, you know, oppressing conservative speech because this is what liberal clowns do.
And I'm not going to spend a ton of time on this, but I just wanted to sum up again the why and the why they do this.
Why far-left kooks like this Mike Isaacson?
You gotta watch the interview, it's just so disturbing, who's actually a professor, why they justify violence, and why they say specifically, folks, speech is violence.
It's for two reasons, and you need to understand this to understand the mind of the demonic left, okay?
Number one, Folks, being violent is not easy.
Thankfully.
I mean that.
As a guy, and I don't say this to be a tough guy.
I mean it, folks.
Tough guys are a dime a dozen, and the dime of them are usually not tough guys at all.
Violence is really painful, and it's hard to do, thankfully.
It's hard to punch someone, it's hard to choke someone, it's hard to kick someone.
It's exhausting, it's fatiguing, and it's painful, because when you do it, someone is probably going to kick you back.
And I'm telling you from someone who has done years and years of sparring and boxing and Ground fighting and Brazilian jiu-jitsu and wrestling has been thrown, punched, kicked.
I've had 12 surgeries, had arms hyperextended, broke my nose twice.
Gosh, tore my meniscus in my knee, had a couple of discs in my back popped out.
Violence, thankfully, really sucks.
This is not a mystery to any of you.
Most of you have probably been punched in the face before, sadly, at some point in your life.
Why am I bringing any of this up?
Because violence is hard to do.
The fact that violence is hard to do is good because it keeps people from doing it.
If violence was fun, you'd see a whole lot more of it.
To get people to do and engage in violence in a manipulative way to advance their political agenda, and make no mistake, people on the far left, these radical, antifa, wacko terrorists, their agenda is to suppress and stop conservative speaking.
The way they do that is through fear.
The only way to engender a sense of fear is to hurt people.
Mm.
To use the force.
It's not the only way, but it's the only way if you don't have a monopoly on force.
In other words, the cops can just say, hey guys, if you show up, we're going to arrest you, but Antifa can't do that.
So it's very rare, Joe, to just speaking and, you know, hey, if you guys show up, we're just going to yell really loud.
Yeah, you may get people a little worried, but you're probably not going to get them too scared.
But by telling people or just doing it and setting an example that if you show up, we are going to beat you, which is what Antifa does.
We're going to hit you with sticks.
We're going to spray you with pepper spray, bear spray.
We're going to punch you.
We're going to kick you.
We're going to gang assault you.
We're going to pack animal you and jump on you.
You can engender a sense of fear.
Antifa needs violence to survive.
So by telling people that speech is violent, in other words what Ben Shapiro was going to say, that speech is an act of violence, in a way, folks, you kind of psychologically condition people to believe that they're acting in self-defense.
When it's clear you're absolutely not.
I mean, folks, I can't argue that, okay?
If you believe that someone talking to you is an act of violence that enables you to punch them in the face as an act of self-defense, you're just not rational.
I mean, you're just not a logical human being.
I think any of our listeners who are reasonable, regardless of your political affiliation, will agree with what I just said.
If I'm talking to you and expelling carbon dioxide while speaking, I make no aggressive act towards you at all, even if I'm yelling at you.
The yelling is not going to hurt you.
I mean, Joe, when we were kids, I mean, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words, I mean, these are like things they tell five-year-olds who, by the way, get it like that.
It makes total sense, Joe.
It makes sense, but it doesn't make sense to radical Antifa kooks.
So the way they get people to believe that Preemptive violence.
In other words, me punching you in the face while you're talking is a good thing.
Reason number one is they want you to believe that speech is violence.
Speech is violence.
They're talking is violent.
You don't understand.
Like they're talking, they're saying these things that are, that are, that are so mean and so vicious that the speech is inherently violent.
So your violence is self-defense.
Okay.
Again, you have to be like five-year-olds get that that's not true, but radical leftist wackos do not.
Secondly, Folks, they've always believed in, you know, an ends justifies the means mentality of the far left.
It's an old Marxist tool to get people to disregard the strategy to get control.
So whether it's violence or whatever, don't worry about it.
As long as we get the state control in the end, the ends will justify the means we get there.
And the ends is some kind of a larger positive, getting the state to take over control.
Now, the way they suppress debate is by associating again, so first is they want you to encourage you to engage in preemptive violence to hurt and assault people and basically become terrorists, but secondly is they rewrite the speech codes all the time as to what speech is considered violent.
So whereas in the past, you know, someone started associating, you know, giving a speech and talking about, you know, Nazism and the extermination of Jews.
This is unquestionably, you know, horrible speech.
Nobody doubts that.
But now what they do is they constantly expand the perimeter of what is acceptable speech.
And when you exit that perimeter, that speech is going to be associated with violence.
So the example I always give on the show, which Joe's heard a thousand times, but it's true.
I guest host a radio show in D.C.
sometimes, and I was doing a show on the air one time, and it was a story about how some leftist activists got together and basically determined that the new term for people who are gay is homosexual, or the new term for people who are homosexual is gay.
Honestly, I forget the order.
I'm sorry, I still haven't found the article.
And if you use that other term, this is unacceptable, and you're therefore homophobic.
It doesn't matter if you've read the article or not, if you're aware that this is supposedly making you homophobic or not.
It just matters that they said what's acceptable or not.
This is how they do it, folks.
They change the rules during the game knowing someone's gonna slip up and make the quote mistake and say, oh that person's gay.
You can't call him gay!
You have to call him homosexual!
You hate gay people!
You're like, I do?
What are you talking about?
When did this happen?
But that's what they do.
And then the next logical step from that, when you use the wrong words because they constantly redefine the perimeter, the next logical step is, oh, that's clearly violence against people who are gay, or homosexual, or whatever the new acceptable term is.
You know, I have the definition of violence from my American Heritage Dictionary.
Let's do it!
What does it say?
Steve's Dictionary.
Break it out.
Round one with Steve.
What does it say, Joe?
Physical force exerted as to cause damage, abuse, or injury.
Wait, wait, wait, wait!
Stop there!
Okay, so definition, is anything in it, is the word verbal force anywhere in there?
No.
Nowhere.
Okay, so it says physical, okay?
So we're all clear.
Steve's dictionary, its inaugural appearance on the show with Jay Zabakis from our friend Jay Zabakis, who sent it over, it mentions nothing about... So we need a dictionary, sadly, to clear up what most of you listening to the show have understood since you're two or three years old, that violence is a physical act perpetrated on another human being.
This is really sad.
We have to break out Steve's dictionary on day one.
It really is.
I mean, it really... This is pathetic.
But this is what they do, folks.
They have to suppress debate.
They are afraid of a battle of ideas because their ideas involve the taking away of your liberty.
Their ideas involve an omnipotent state and the taking away of your liberty, the evaporation of your civil rights, your individual liberty, your economic liberty, your ability to make your health care decisions, your ability to choose where your kids go to school, all of that has to be taken away by the left.
And that guy last night, Isaacson on Tucker, I mean, what an embarrassment.
What a total disgrace to humankind.
That this guy is teaching your kids at a school in New York City.
If you, I mean, is just, you should be lighting up the boards over there.
What the hell happened to co-exist?
Oh, co-exist, Joe.
Yeah, they co-exist with themselves.
If you exist outside of their co-exist circle, they'll beat the crap out of you and make sure you no longer exist.
Thank you, Dan.
That was a subject I covered on Levin's show one day.
Yeah.
The co-exist bumper sticker.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply.
Thank you again to everybody who supports our sponsors.
This is a great company.
I was communicating with them last night on a direct message and they were unbelievably responsive.
These guys are terrific.
They're always concerned about helping out.
Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, they've been communicating with me almost nonstop about it.
And I find that really appealing to be associated with these people because the first response
after the hurricanes for an emergency food company like My Patriot Supply wasn't,
"Hey, how do we profit off this, guys?"
It was, "How do we volunteer and donate "a lot of our time and stuff?"
Which I was like, "These guys are really great."
But this is a really good company, folks, and I'm strongly encouraging you
to go get an emergency food supply.
I was in a, quick story, I was in the gym yesterday, and a guy in the gym I talk to all the time said
that one of the large grocery chain warehouses down here was severely flooded
not going to be able to restock for about a week.
Now, I mean, I'm not going to be dramatic here.
It's not like a major food crisis here, but it's not great either.
I mean, you go into stores, there's not much to buy.
So, you know, I thought to myself, I said to my wife, you know, we'll be fine.
We have enough here.
But gosh, what if this went on for a month?
What if it went on for two months?
Have you ever thought about that?
Do you really want to take that chance?
Go out and get a month's supply of emergency food today.
This stuff lasts 25 years, folks.
It's only 99 bucks.
That's it.
$99 for 25 years.
A listener sent me the calculation.
It's like, Pennies.
Less than pennies.
I mean, for the mental security per day, pennies to make sure you have the food.
Just go out and get it.
Pick it up today.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Pick up your one month supply of emergency food today.
All right.
The title of today's show is Creeping Socialism, and I wanted to bring this up because I read a piece this morning.
And I thought, wow, this ties in great to now this growing debate about single-payer, which if you listen to yesterday's show, government-controlled health care is going to be the Democrat wedge issue in their primary in the 2020 presidential election.
The Democrats have abandoned any sense of reasonability, and I'm not talking about the voters, I'm talking about the politicians, of reasonability, of reasonableness, I'm sorry, excuse me, of reasonableness, and are now going full left towards government-controlled health care.
This is what they want.
This is all they want.
So, I thought to myself, how does this happen?
How do we...
You know, Wagner's law, you know, this, this government is going to constantly spend more money.
You know, how does this happen?
How does this start?
What is the psychology of Democrats constantly winning the fight and intruding and intruding and intruding and getting a bigger and bigger role in our lives with nobody stopping?
Like, how does it start?
And I thought, I saw this story in the Wall Street Journal today, which I'll put in the show notes at bongino.com, which I strongly encourage you to go to.
And I encourage you to join our email list as well, where I'll send you these show notes every day.
There's a story about New York City, Joe, which is always a source of good information for conservative podcasting.
They're now offering free school lunches for all, even if you're a kid who comes from a wealthy family.
Now, that story's not particularly interesting, especially in New York City or surprising.
What's interesting is the reasons they give, and it shows you how socialism creeps and why, as a radio host from the West Coast once said, the freedom train never turns around and goes back to the station.
In other words, your individual liberties evaporate away every day, and all conservatives have been able to do, sadly, And elected Republicans have been able to do almost nothing, is they're able to slow it down, but it almost never goes back in the other direction.
I don't mean to depress you, I'm just telling you it's true, and it's a reason we need to, you know, I think, may need to consider a third party movement, which in the past for me was heresy.
The reasons they give are unbelievable!
The first reason they give is, well Joe, it's all about equity.
There we go!
The speech codes again, remember!
Inside that sphere, everything is to be discussed in terms of equality and equity because this tested well in a focus group and when it tests well, Democratic consultants have told people that they can manipulate other people to believing what's untrue is in fact true.
Okay?
Now, what is untrue?
What is untrue is that wealthy school kids in New York City need free school lunches.
That is factually incorrect!
Their parents have both the ability and the means to probably buy the school, not just buy the school lunch.
So how do we get people to believe that rich kids and upper middle class kids need to have their lunches paid for by other taxpayers who, by the way, are not rich?
And importantly, why are we doing this?
Because the left craves control.
I can't say this enough on the show.
They have to control everything.
When you believe in the power of the state, that the state should be involved in everything, then if you believe the state has to be involved in everything, then nothing is safe.
You can't have people picking their lunches.
The state has to control their nutritional choices and their eating.
When you control people's eating and you control their health care, Joe, you pretty much have everything.
Yeah, by the short and curlies.
You're damn right, and that hurts.
Not that I'd know.
But, moving on.
Equity.
This is the reason.
Now, in case you think I'm making this up, this is a quote from the piece in the Wall Street Journal.
There's a woman named Miss Farina who is running this program for New York City and asked about the program.
She said, and this is a quote, this is about equity.
She said at a press conference last week.
We're erasing all the terrible history of the school food program.
Wait, wait, timeout, timeout.
What?
The terrible history of the school food program?
Folks, you know the definition of hyperbole?
Like ridiculously exaggerating for effect?
What?
The terrible history of the school food program?
You know, like we're talking about something out of a comic book, like Bizarro Superman or something.
The terrible history of the school of lunch.
Like we're talking about like a Stephen King novel or something.
Are you kidding me?
All right, moving on.
So she says, we're erasing all the terrible history of the school food.
Gosh, this is driving me crazy.
I get all these emails.
They keep coming down on my dropdown thing.
All right, enough!
That's like 20 new emails.
We're erasing all the terrible history of the school food program, not just in New York City, but nationally, that has divided children by income.
This is a new day.
Now, this representative chimes in.
Representative Yvette Clark, a Brooklyn Democrat, added that it was... I can't.
That it was time to eliminate the stigmatization of young women and men who receive a free lunch.
The ones who previously made up three quarters of the population.
Holy Moses, folks.
Here we go again.
So, Again, the equity.
Now, you may say, what do they mean by equity?
The gist of the article is that they're saying, if you happen to be one of these students who's eating a free school lunch now, that there's a stigma around you.
There's a stigma!
You're eating a bunch of french fries!
You think people are like, oh my gosh, you got those french fries for free?
What a loser!
This is incredible!
This is what the left does!
They have Creeping socialism.
This is how it works.
Let me walk you through it.
You start a program, a food program.
I'll be honest, I don't know exactly when these programs initially started, but probably somewhere around the Great Society with LBJ.
Let's say 60s or 70s.
It doesn't really matter for the purpose of this conversation.
They initiate a program and it starts as, Joe, there are kids who are starving in school.
Mm-hmm.
And we're going to feed some of those kids.
And, you know, reasonable people say, all right, well, that kind of makes sense.
I mean, it's not going to cost much.
There's not that many kids who are starving.
I mean, the biggest problem in the United States right now, nutrition-wise, is obesity.
But let's just say in the 60s and 70s, it was a huge catastrophic problem.
And they said, OK, so we're going to feed them.
It's going to cost, I don't know, a billion dollars a year for the entire country, right?
All right.
Then what happens?
Well, this is what happens.
You start seeing people who make $40,000, $50,000 a year say, well, you know, the people who are making $30,000 are getting it.
Why don't I get the benefit too for my kids?
Okay, we'll include you.
And then if people making $50,000 go, well, that's not fair.
That's not equitable.
Liberals chime in.
Liberals don't chime in because they want to help people making $50,000 or you get lunch.
Liberals chime in far-left activists because they crave control.
Controlling people's eating habits, controlling their health care.
This is the very essence of statism, folks.
The essence of statism is the power sphere is only centered around the state and the bureaucrats, not you.
The power sphere meaning the decisions are made by them and not you.
So liberals sense an opportunity and they sense an opportunity to manipulate people by saying, you know what?
That's right.
They make 50 a year.
That's not fair.
Then all of a sudden the program involves people making 60, 70, 80, 100.
Now you have three quarters of the population according to their own article, Joe.
Three quarters of the population on these free school lunches and then it becomes an issue of well the 25 percent making a million a year their families well now it's a matter of just being stigmatized because now we know that it's only the rich kids who don't need it and we can't have the rich kids not being like the poor kids so everybody should get a free school lunch despite the fact and if you read the piece that the evidence in the piece is that most of these lunches are in fact thrown out so again Liberals convincing you the untrue is in fact true to advance a control agenda to engorge the power of the state and evaporate your civil liberties.
This is what's happening right now.
None of what they're telling you is actually true.
The biggest problem now again is obesity.
These lunches are being thrown out.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Don't let the facts about Antifa punching people in the face get in the way of a good argument.
Convince people that a preemptive punch by an Antifa person on a conservative is an act of self-defense against speech violence.
And even sane liberals start to lose their minds and go, okay, that makes sense.
Folks, the mission-creeping government is really disturbing, and I'm telling you they're lying to you.
Now, in case, again, you doubt me, I have an unbelievable sound quote.
You say, hat tip here.
to the Washington Free Beacon that did a really good job on uncovering this.
And I have a link up in the show notes from Twitchy that sublinks to the Free Beacon piece as well, where you can see the video yourself.
But you have that audio, excuse me, audio, but there's a video in the piece.
Joe, yesterday we talked about single payer.
Now, single payer is another example of the creeping school lunch program designed to help kids who are poor that are now going to be given to the rich.
Now, before we play this audio, I want to set this up for you.
This is what's happening with health care right now.
Healthcare and the Great Society programs out there expanded the definition of poor to give healthcare to people who couldn't afford it.
Emtala and some of the other things, making emergency rooms, you know, basically de facto waiting rooms for people who need health care.
These were all efforts by the far left to expand the government footprint into health care.
Now, again, what started as a program for the poor, Joe, has now turned into a call for single payer, just like single lunchers.
Now everybody's going to get the same crappy school lunch.
Everyone, no matter how rich you are, just like you're all going to get the same crap healthcare because Bernie Sanders is pushing for full government control over the healthcare system.
Now why is this?
The liberals have a mantra that you should never ever forget.
Now liberals listening have already heard this before.
They don't make it public.
They kind of, you know, they talk about it behind the scenes.
They all know it.
The mantra is this, a program for the poor is a poor program.
They tell people that all the time.
A program for the poor is a poor program.
Now, it's nonsensical.
It's nonsense.
A program for the poor is actually a very rich program because, as we see with the school lunch programs, it costs more and more and more and more until it benefits the rich.
Now, this is the liberals lying to themselves.
They tell themselves a program for the poor is a poor program because they hate means testing.
They understand means testing, which Folks, I can't lose you on this show.
This is a really important show.
I would strongly argue with you for the long time, this is one of the most important I've ever done.
Especially in this single-payer debate.
Liberals never want programs to be about the poor.
Because, Joe, how can you advance the state control over people's lives if the state only controls the lives of the poor?
You can't.
That's why Medicaid and Medicare came into being and constantly move up and up.
In other words, Medicaid was for the poor, then lower middle class, then middle class.
Now under Obamacare, it expanded to families, you know, some families with assets in the millions.
I've spoken about that on prior shows.
People who have assets and not necessarily income.
Because the government needs to, if you are a statist, you believe in the power of the state.
And the only way to gain the power of the state over people is not to isolate it to the poor.
So they don't want poor programs.
They want well-funded programs that control everyone.
So they hate means testing.
What is means testing?
Means testing is the issuance of a government benefit based on your income level, your ability to pay for it.
So as your income level goes up, you'll get less and less and less and less.
So this has come up.
And by the way, the emails on social security, folks, I appreciate it.
For those of you listening, yes, I really do.
But some of you, did you listen to the show?
Joe, was I not clear yesterday?
I'm not, I was in no way suggesting that people who are 55 and older, I thought I was very clear.
I thought you were.
Who have very little ability at this point, especially people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, to enter back into the workforce.
I'm not suggesting anyone should take away your social security.
I never said, I don't know why people keep emailing that.
I'm saying if people 55 and younger, there's no money and you have to accept that.
There's no, and if people say, well, why don't we cut from welfare?
I agree!
I agree!
I'm just telling you there's no money!
The solutions are open-ended!
So, but means testing, sorry, I didn't mean to get off track, but I brought that up because means testing comes up in terms of Social Security all the time.
That why are we giving Social Security benefits to people who are worth 30 and 40 million dollars?
Now, I'm not going to debate that now, because, you know, well, those people paid, it's their money, I get it.
But the point is the liberals are not fighting that.
The liberals are fighting against, they want to give, they want to keep it that way.
You get what I'm saying Joe?
The liberals want social security universal.
They hate means testing because they understand that once that income stream in retirement, social security is only limited to people who actually need it.
They can't control everybody.
They can only control the people who are getting the money from the government.
Is this making sense, Joe?
Yeah.
They hate this.
That's why they don't want school lunches only going to poor kids.
They want it going to everyone so that they can control these people.
They can control what they eat.
They want social security going to people who make millions of dollars because they can control the money.
They can use it to buy votes.
They can use it to buy influence.
They can use it to influence lobbyists.
This is how you gain state control.
A program for the poor is a poor program.
That is a liberal mantra.
They hate means testing.
Now, They know this stuff is going to lead to bankruptcy.
They know it.
They're not stupid.
Don't mistake yourself.
Don't think for a minute liberals are dopey.
They know exactly what... some are, but you know, listen, there's stupid people all across the political spectrum, sadly.
I've run into a lot of them and many of them are in elected office now.
Reminds me of a line I heard from a congressman one time.
He said, the first year in Congress, you'll wonder how you got there.
Someone told me you heard this and the rest of the time you worry how everybody else got there.
So they're not too bright either.
But these people are not, the ones at least, the far-left activists are in their strategy to gain state control over your life.
They're not dumb.
They know what they're suggesting, single-payer health care, the government controlling health care for everyone.
They absolutely understand that it's going to bankrupt everyone.
Don't believe me?
Who is the biggest advocate right now for single-payer?
Bernie Sanders.
If today's your first show and you missed yesterday's show and the day before and you're a brand new listener, go listen to yesterday's show and the day before.
Bernie Sanders is pushing a government-controlled single-payer program.
By the way, good luck with that, dude.
Really.
That is a political loser like I've never seen, especially after the failures of Obamacare.
They couldn't even run a website.
You think they're going to run the whole healthcare system?
Here is an audio cut Joe was nice enough to put together.
It's about 50-something seconds long of Bernie Sanders in an interview about 20 years ago or so describing how Medicaid for all, in other words single-payer health care, is almost guaranteed to bankrupt us.
Play that cut.
that we understand that I think was reinforced when we went to Canada is that, at least as
I see it, and I'm not an expert on it, but this is the way I see it. Number one, you
want to guarantee that all people have access to health care, as you do in Canada. But I
think what we understand is that unless we change the funding system and the control
mechanisms in this country to do that, for example, if we expanded Medicaid to everybody,
give everybody a Medicaid card, we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money
that we would bankrupt the nation.
So maybe you want to talk a little bit about that and why in Canada, under their national health system, you can have access for all people and yet, per capita, it is less expensive than in the United States.
Well, for one thing, you don't have extra charges.
For another, the fees Folks, that's Bernie Sanders.
I didn't make that up.
Joe, that's a legitimate YouTube clip, correct?
We're not, we're not being, you know, we're not, this isn't a sarcastic, stupid show.
We stitched up together.
Joe did not, that's the entire clip.
We did no additional editing at all.
I said, Joe, just run the whole thing.
Right.
Now there are two takeaways from Bernie Sanders acknowledging that a single-payer Medicaid-for-all program will bankrupt us.
Number one, it's fascinating how Bernie Sanders opens up that little dialogue he's having with that other gentleman.
First thing he says, Joe, I'm not an expert.
Okay, wait, wait, hold on.
Timeout, red flag, under the hood for review.
Let me get this straight, Bernie.
People who've been in the healthcare industry, doctors, administrators, hospital managers, nurses, custodial staff in hospitals who know special ways to clean hospitals.
You don't clean a hospital like you clean a school.
Seriously.
I mean, there's expertise at every level of the healthcare system from custodial staff to brain surgery, healthcare administrators, actuaries.
That you're acknowledging you're no expert in this while you're acknowledging that you should also take away the healthcare system's control from them and give it to you, but you're not an expert.
So again, I can't say this enough to our liberal friends who seem to be easily confused by these things.
Let me give you a simple analogy here so you can maybe understand.
Let's say you had a sports team.
Let's say you had a football team.
Joe, can we both acknowledge that coaching a football team at a professional level is a very complicated matter that would require some special expertise in offensive lines, defensive lines, run plays, defensive alignments, conditioning skills, diet, medicine in case players get hurt, concussion and maybe expertise.
Can we all acknowledge that?
Yep.
So, they need experts.
Actual experts who have experience.
No different than the healthcare arena, right?
Now, why would you put a government bureaucrat or a series of government bureaucrats in charge of an NFL football team?
It goes back to Hayek's knowledge problem, Friedrich Hayek.
You just don't have the knowledge to do this.
He is, Bernie Sanders himself is acknowledging this in the clip.
Did you miss it?
It's a podcast.
You can rewind.
Just listen again.
He opens it up by saying, he opens it up by completely discrediting everything he says afterwards.
I'm not an expert.
Okay.
Thank you.
I should have just cut the clip there, Joe.
Thank you, Bernie.
Have a nice day.
We know you're not an expert.
You're a politician.
You know nothing about the healthcare industry.
Nothing!
He goes on to make another point.
So first, he's not an expert, but he wants to treat it.
He wants to handle the system that requires expertise.
Expertise requires experts, but he's not an expert.
Okay, great.
Good logic there, Bernie.
Very sound.
Second, he says the system's gonna bankrupt us.
And he says, well, he moves on to Canada and he starts talking about some other items, and what he's alluding to there, I believe, is he's alluding to rationing by saying the payment models will lead to bankruptcy unless we change them a little bit.
He's alluding to per capita spending, meaning what I think he's talking about, what the other gentleman's talking about too, excuse me, in the piece, is they're talking about rationing.
In other words, we can't just pay for everything.
Now, I'm kind of putting, to be fair here, because I don't like when they do this to us, I didn't see, the clip got cut off the air and I probably shouldn't expound on it, but when he's talking about bankruptcy and he says changing the payment models, usually, typically what most liberals are talking about is a form of rationing, although they'll never use the words.
They'll use rationing by price.
In other words, well the guy does mention something about government bargaining with people.
What does that mean?
Folks, just think through what the man is saying.
If government is bargaining with people and providers, well, if the price for hip replacement is $4,000 and the government says, well, we'll pay you $2,000, but that's the price.
That's the market price.
He has to pay the anesthesiologist.
They have to pay the hospital.
He has to pay the administrative staff.
That $4,000 covers that.
And you say, well, we'll pay you $3,000.
Well, they're just not going to do it.
You get rationed by price.
That is the, and this is how liberals play these rhetorical games for you.
They say, oh, we don't ration.
We made rationing illegal.
Well, what did you make legal is the question.
Well, we made legal price controls by government.
Well, what are price controls?
Well, it says we're going to pay and we're not going to pay a dollar more than this.
Well, what does the doctor do then?
Well, he's not going to do the surgery.
So you just rationed it.
No, no, no.
Rationing's illegal.
That's, that's what IPAB does.
The Independent Payments Advisory Board.
IPAB, which was an Obamacare creation, made rationing illegal while simultaneously instituting a procedure to ration by price.
This is what liberals do, folks.
It's just disturbing.
I mean, they think we're all suckers.
All right, a couple more points I want to bring up on this.
I got an email yesterday from someone asking me to describe, he may be a new listener because I've actually described this before, When you call health care a right, what exactly does that mean?
And I'm not going to spend too much time on this because regular listeners have heard it before, but it's important, folks.
When we describe big R rights as conservatives, we're describing rights you have, not rights the government has.
You have the right to free speech, the right to practice your religion, the right to assemble.
These are big R rights.
Now, when liberals talk about rights, they're talking about conferring an obligation on someone else.
They're not talking about rights.
They use the word rights, but never mistake the two.
They're talking about conferring an obligation on someone else.
Meaning, if you have a right to health care, a big R right to health care, that right means that you can claim it, whether someone chooses to provide it to you or not.
You say, well, they absolutely should have the right to health care.
Really?
Now, I know what you're thinking.
Oh, what if I'm dying?
What are you going to kick me out of the hospital?
No, no, we're not talking about that.
I'm talking about, you know, You wanna go in, I saw someone sent me an email the other day about getting your throat checked or something, that when healthcare is free, like this doctor, people used to walk in all the time to get their throats checked.
And they were like, what are you here for?
Well, I'm gonna have my throat checked.
Was anything wrong?
No, but it's free, so I'm just having my throat checked.
If you say no, you're kicked out of the program as a doctor.
You're conferring servitude on someone else.
If you have a right to food, you could walk on a farmer's farm and say, this is my right.
I declare the right of prima nocte for all you Braveheart fans.
That's a right.
You can't confer a right on government.
You, by definition, confer an obligation on someone else.
If I have the right to food, I can go take yours.
Sure.
That's why liberals love this kind of stuff.
Because it institutes class warfare.
Oh, they have all this stuff, the rich people, therefore I have a right to take it.
So remember, a right is nothing but an obligation on someone else.
Secondly, when liberals talk about it.
There's an interesting piece I have in the show notes, which is really good, by John Cochran, who has a blog called The Grumpy Economist, which is really terrific, by the way.
And he talks about the New York Times and the Washington Post, how they can't seem to get their stories straight.
And in there, there's another piece about administrative... This is interesting.
Here's administrative costs in healthcare.
Let me finish the thought.
But here are two headlines, one from the New York Times, one from the Washington Post.
They can't get their heads straight around healthcare.
One from 9-11-17, September 11th, 2017.
New gene therapy treatments will carry whopping price tags.
$475,000 for gene therapy.
Washington Post, 9-12-17.
The dam is breaking on the dems and breaks of single payer.
Okay, so what is it?
Let me get this straight, what is it?
And Cochran writes a really good piece about this saying, it's short too.
What is it?
Is the costs gonna be astronomical?
And then nobody's going to be able to afford it?
And then your second piece is what?
That the Dems should move to single payer so the government should embrace the astronomical cost?
Which is it?
In other words, these people are clearly not economists, Joe, because the point I think he's trying to make, and the point I am definitely trying to make, is the only thing that's going to bring down the cost of $475,000 gene therapy is a market force.
Anything the government involves itself in, Joe, as a third-party payer, anything is going to go up, not down in price.
So, for the New York Times and the Washington Post to make these conflicting points, they don't even see the connection.
They probably don't even read each other's work, these two.
The only way the cost is going to come down is by competition.
And what does the government do?
The government, by default, immediately eliminates competition.
Because the government's the single payer.
The single payer, it doesn't matter.
You're giving your tax dollars to the government.
When you give your tax dollars to the government to spend on healthcare for all, you're walking in to have your throat checked all the time because it's free.
The doctor knows you're not paying.
He charges whatever he wants.
There is no cost control.
It's never going to happen.
It's like fetch.
It is never going to happen.
Remember, when markets get involved, costs go down.
When government gets involved, costs go up.
Think about the cost of LASIK eye surgery, which insurance largely doesn't cover in many cases.
There's a reason it's affordable to most Americans now.
It's precisely because the government's not paying, and there's a large competition out there to get the price down.
Yeah.
All right.
Hey, a final thought on this topic, and I just want to quickly hammer a couple other things.
On a philosophical strategic note, the left does this all the time.
They take these big lurches left, right?
They start with a program for the poor, Joe, free lunches, and it becomes a program for everyone later on.
Because remember, a program for the poor is a poor program.
They hate means testing, they don't want any of that.
They do this by making big lurches left and then moving back slightly to the middle.
So this effort by Bernie Sanders to institute a nationwide single-payer program, I don't think is sincere.
Well, it is sincere for him.
But the Democrats understand that by making these big bold moves left, they can move back to the center and get more and more and more.
You get what I'm saying?
Like, let's argue for 100% government health care, and therefore when we argue later on for a more reasonable 50% control over the health care system, it'll seem reasonable compared to our prior insane requests of single-payer health care.
Why am I bringing this up?
Because folks, strategically speaking, for you conservators and libertarians out there, there's only one counter to this.
Do the exact opposite.
I wanted to bring this up because what I did yesterday, I wasn't trying to manipulate you yesterday's show or the day before, and I certainly meant what I said.
But what I brought up on yesterday's show about Social Security is an effort to do exactly what the Democrats do and an effort to do it on our side.
You know what?
They want to argue for expanding Social Security forever and taking out the income caps.
You know, they only tax it up to a hundred something thousand dollars a year in the payroll tax.
You know what?
We should argue about getting rid of Social Security for people 55 and younger that spend their own money.
They want to argue for single-payer health care.
You know what our argument should be?
Let's get the government out of health care at all.
Let's turn it over to charitable organizations.
Let's let doctors write off charitable health care.
We have to do the exact opposite, because the minute we start to placate their demands for single payer, it makes their other ridiculous demands.
Oh, now government should control only 70% of the health care system.
All of a sudden, sellout Republicans start to say, oh, well, that sounds reasonable.
At least it's not single payer.
No, no, make them, make them do that.
Make them do that.
Let's argue for getting government out of health care altogether.
That way, when it becomes, oh, all right, now we're only going to take care of the 10% of the most poor in the United States, all of a sudden, that looks reasonable.
You get my point, Joe?
That's the only strategy to beat this stuff.
All right, today's show also brought to you by CRTV.
Folks, we got a great lineup over there.
I strongly encourage you to go sign up.
Use promo code Bongino, my last name, you'll get $10 off.
It works out to be less than $10 a month, which everybody cutting the cord these days.
This is the way to go.
Get rid of a lot of the garbage you see on cable.
You're paying a fortune for nothing.
With us, you get Mark Levin's show, you get Steven Crowder's show, you get Michelle Malkin's show, you get Steve Dace's show.
All this for less than $10 a month.
You can watch it on your computer.
You can watch it on your smartphone, you can watch it on your tablet, you can sling it to your TV.
This is the future of conservative television.
We don't have to worry about any garbage out there.
We produce the best stuff out there.
Go to CRTV.com today.
That's CRTV.com.
Use promo code Bongino and sign up today.
Okay, couple other stories I saw.
ESPN, I'm done with.
I'm not gonna hammer this too much, but this Jameel Hill, I don't know if you saw the story, but a commentator, Jameel Hill over there, who said, called Trump a white supremacist.
You're just an idiot.
You're a moron.
I mean, I can't even, I don't even know what to say to you.
You're just a disgrace.
And ESPN apparently considered briefly taking her off the air, and is more worried about the backlash show from taking a fool like this off the air than they are about their tens of millions of viewers.
Who see through this garbage.
So I'm done with ESPN and I can't encourage you in strong enough terms to tune them out.
If you're DVRing any of their stuff, I gotta get their channel off my favorites list too.
I'm done with them.
ESPN, it's ridiculous.
Also, Susan Rice, major breaking news yesterday on the Susan Rice unmasking scandal, which again, don't expect the media, mainstream media to cover at all.
As it turns out, Susan Rice in a closed door meeting up on Capitol Hill has now acknowledged, this is unbelievable folks, this is absolutely unbelievable, unmasking Trump team members to spy on them with regards to a meeting with the Saudis, and she got caught lying!
She said, just so you understand the story, this is crazy, that the Trump team met with a Saudi Arabian official and she goes, well, we were curious about what the meeting was about because the Saudis had cancelled the meeting at the White House but insisted on meeting with the Trumps.
Number one, even if that was true, who cares?
That's none of your business.
But, turns out Joe, it's not true.
It was actually the White House who put up obstacles to the meeting.
So the White House didn't want to meet with the guy.
He went to go meet with Trump, and now Susan Rice used it as an excuse to spy.
Now you see the problem with discretionary government?
Whenever government uses its own discretion and not a codified law, it will unquestionably take that power and take it to the next level.
Just like it's going to expand the program to the poor into a program for everyone, it'll take a program designed to catch terrorists into a program designed to catch political opponents.
Every time.
The most dangerous force in your life is a growing government.
Don't ever forget it.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
I'll see you all next week.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
