Ep. 578 The Democrats Can’t Wiggle Out of This One
In this episode - The Democrats are struggling to explain away their collusion with the Russians. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/26/clinton-mum-on-fusion-gps-scandal-as-dems-dossier-denials-pile-up.html Who is really paying the largest share of the income tax in the United States? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omb-top-20-pay-95-of-taxes-middle-class-single-digits/article/2638746 Here’s a great explanation of liberal’s disdain for patriotism. http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/left-right-clash-national-identity/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpVNVl6SXdOR0V4TkRWaCIsInQiOiJ4NE5DNmtOaEEyYUJuSEoxYlwvNmVIOTlcL0ZFeEw1V1RYckpWN1Job0cxdEx3QStnZEx4WUIrMXBkeTREZFlRVHpUXC9IQXh6Nlp0N2dkSEdIVzhiQ043Qlo3b1VBZTNERzJSaVhFRlh1V0hYWEk4bVRjc21KSUpjZXFkXC9KVjBLaUYifQ%3D%3D Here’s some great news about the economy. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/first-reading-on-third-quarter-gdp-up-3-point-0-percent-vs-2-point-5-percent-rise-expected.html The head of the Democrat National Committee doesn’t know basic components of the Constitution. http://freebeacon.com/politics/tom-perez-says-electoral-college-not-creation-constitution/ Finally, the IRS admits it targeted conservative groups. https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/10/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29 Sponsor Links: www.itargetpro.com Promo Code “Dan” www.PrepareWithDan.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We have to call it what it is and we have to stop being delicate about it.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
We're not like the leftists.
The conservatives don't need safe spaces.
They don't need lollipops and coloring books and teddy bears.
I'm good, okay?
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey, what do you say, Mr. TV star?
I'm doing well.
Yeah, it's been a long couple days traveling up and around, you know, but this is my show.
This is my emotional bedrock.
I always look forward to doing this.
So I'm back in the home studio, recording this show for you on Friday morning with Joe.
Joe, you had a little shout out, right?
Yeah, listen, I want to give a shout out to Kyle in Dundalk, Maryland, who is a Renegade Republican listener.
He called the radio station I work for locally in the morning.
He didn't tell me anything about, you know, renegade Republican anything at all.
He gets on here, let's go to Kyle and Dundalk.
First thing out of his mouth, hey, I want to give a big shout out to producer Joe and ask Dan Bongino, who is Jay Zabikus?
That's pretty cool, Kyle.
He called the local radio station.
That's funny.
They called WCDM.
Joe told me that story.
Nice job, Kyle.
There you go.
Spread the word about Jay Zabikus.
Jay Zabikus is taking off everywhere.
I was actually in the airport, headed up to Fox and some guy next to me, he's looking at me and, you know, it's happening more and more lately and he goes, hey, are you famous?
And I'm like, brother, Let me tell you something right now.
We have really dumbed down the word famous if you think I'm famous.
I mean, I was laughing.
It was a joke, of course, but we had a long conversation.
Nice guy lives down here.
So, yeah, things are going crazily.
Thanks for everyone spreading the word.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, you guys are awesome out there and ladies.
All right.
Oh, man, is there a lot to talk about today?
Folks, I don't want to keep beating this story to death, but this Clinton-Russia-Obama administration-Russian collusion thing is a monster, and I'm afraid, folks, I want to be very candid with you here, I'm afraid, I'm a little concerned, I'm a little concerned that we are going to allow again
The media and their hacks in the Democrat Party to hijack the narrative and change the story from the truth to what is not, in fact, truthful.
I mean, the Democrats are experts through the Three Musketeers of Doom, Hollywood, the media, and academia.
I've said this to you over and over and over on any topic.
Taxes, healthcare, Trump-Russia, public education, regulations about gaslighting you.
Telling you a story that is false.
It's not opinion.
It's categorically false.
Telling you 3 plus 3 equals 72.
Repeating that story confidently over and over again, this is what gaslighting is, to gaslight someone, and then isolating them from the truth to the point where people actually believe in an alternate reality.
Now if you watch that absolute wacko on Tucker Carlson last night, that Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat, if you watched him lose his mind last night on Tucker Carlson, you will see how gaslighting really works.
In other words, how there are people out there who are Blue Pillars.
They're Matrix Blue Pillars.
They have taken the Blue Pillars.
They believe in the Matrix, even though they've been told it's totally inauthentic.
You're living in an alternate reality, right?
And they still believe it.
I mean, why would I say they've been told?
They've been told by conservatives.
Now, we saw this with this Trump-Russia story, which was totally now made up.
Now as the facts come out, we know there is no evidence at all that any of this happened.
Matter of fact, what I find ironic, and this is where I want to go with this...
What the liberals and their media allies were using to justify a collusion with the Russian narrative, a collusion with the Russians narrative, was Don Trump Jr.' 's meeting with this Russian lawyer about Magnitsky, where someone in that email chain said, hey, and by the way, they may have some really bad information about Hillary Clinton.
The Democrats lost their marbles.
Brad Sherman, Maxine Waters, all the cast of Looney Tunes.
They lost their marbles.
Collusion.
Look at this.
Oh my gosh.
Someone who's Russian said they had information.
Meanwhile, keep in mind, none of the information was paid for and none of the information was even about Hillary Clinton.
They were there talking about Magnitsky.
They used it as a pretext to get a meeting with Don Jr.
to talk about the Magnitsky Act, which is a Has put sanctions on some Russian officials who want those sanctions removed.
There was no information about Hillary Clinton actually even exchanged, but the Democrats lost their marbles about what would have been, at that point, pretty standard oppo research, albeit a little untoward that it was coming from a foreign official, but nothing illegal about it at all.
Democrats went crazy.
Now, They are so desperate, folks.
They are in a panic.
I have seen it.
I follow, there are very few accounts on Twitter that are liberal.
When I say follow, I mean I actually follow them.
I mean I go to their accounts because I want to give them a follow.
And I read what they're putting out there.
I'm telling you they are in a panic.
They're panicking!
Because they know that the story is boomerang, and here's the narrative they're trying to pitch now.
Oh, nothing to see here, folks.
Nothing to see here at all.
This is just standard opposition research.
The Clintons and the DNC paying, through a conduit, Russian sources for fake Russian intel on Donald Trump.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me be clear on this.
If the story ended there, As much as it pains me to say this, I'm obligated to tell you the truth.
They would be correct.
It's ugly.
It's untoward.
I told you it was untoward about the other situation.
I don't think we should be dealing with foreign governments and foreign officials presenting information about US elections no matter what.
Right.
But although, honestly, I know this comes off as kind of a partisan thing to say, but I genuinely mean it.
I really think the Don Jr.
meeting was just out of a sense of naivete.
I mean, not that he's a bright kid.
He's a bright guy.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
I just think they were political neophytes.
They said, all right, I have negative information about Hillary.
Let's take it.
And he didn't really think it through.
It was a mistake.
I think he acknowledged it.
I get it.
That sounds partisan.
But I mean, I'm telling you, Joe, it's all I can say.
I can only vouch for myself.
I can't tell you anything.
The Hillary thing is different, folks.
They paid a company that had on the payroll a guy who openly acknowledged using Russian sources with ties to the Russian government to get, he didn't acknowledge it was fake information, but to get information from the Russian government.
If the story ended there, it's really really ugly, but Joe, there's nothing illegal about it.
Although it is ugly.
Where the story, now that's where the Democrats want you to think the story ends.
Follow me here.
They want you to think, okay, maybe a bad call, but we just paid for oppo research, just like Don Jr.
wanted oppo research from the Russian lawyer.
That's not where it ends.
That's not the controversy.
It's what happened with this information.
That is the real scandal.
And as I said on Fox & Friends yesterday, in my opinion, and you know I don't do conspiracy theories, I think this is the scandal of the century.
Because what happened with the bogus Russian intel that the Democrats paid for, it's what happened with the information that mattered.
Folks, that information may have made it into an FBI sworn document in front of a judge to get a wiretap on an opposition party from the White House, they were Democrats, the Obama administration, on the Republican Party presidential nominee!
You know, I've been thinking about this all day, a way to make this simple for Democrats who are actually interested in the truth.
There are very few, but I'm sure there are some.
I know Republicans, you probably get the story by now, but to my Democrat listeners, I'm trying to think about it.
Let's just get all the political politics out of this for a second.
Let's just say, I don't like my neighbor.
I'm connected, whether I'm an FBI agent or whatever, I know someone in the FBI, it doesn't matter.
I pay a lawyer to go out and get information on my neighbor.
The lawyer comes back to me and says, because the lawyer's got to get something now, he's acting unethically like this Fusion GPS company was.
I pay the lawyer for negative information on my neighbor, Joe.
The lawyer needs to produce, right?
We're giving him a lot of money, which to Clinton, millions of dollars changed hands here.
The lawyer comes back and says, oh my gosh, what do I got for you?
I've got your neighbor stories about your, I've got stories about your neighbor.
I'm bringing this up because I just think this is just like phenomenal.
I got this.
You have to be an idiot to believe in this.
I got stories about your neighbor here that are going to just blow your mind.
He was in Russia.
And he was doing a golden shower thing.
I'm not even gonna explain what that is.
It's a really disgusting.
And you're like, what?
This is cool.
What?
Dude, this is insane.
You then go to your FBI friend and say, I need a wiretap.
On my neighbor to get information because he may have been in Russia engaging in these activities with the Russians and this could be dangerous to the country.
Folks, think about what happened.
A lie due to a personal grudge, which is this whole question that Clinton's had against the personal and professional grudge against Donald Trump.
A lie may have been used by a federal law enforcement entity to gain wiretaps on an opposition political campaign.
Well, I mean, let me get this straight.
Watergate, which was justifiably a very big deal, a huge deal.
Watergate, where there was a break-in orchestrated to get information about an opposition political campaign, that's been the sad gold standard for political scandals, right Joe, for the century?
Oh yes.
So there's an orchestrated break-in to get information.
So a crime was committed to get information on an opposition campaign.
In the other case we're looking at right now, you have a campaign, a presidential campaign from a former Secretary of State under a sitting president that paid Russian sources for fake intelligence to put in a document to use to get wiretaps against an opposition campaign and And none of this worries you at all?
That's an electronic break-in, you know?
It's an electronic break-in into our souls, into our collective souls, into our collective morality.
It is a violation of the Constitutional Republic.
It is a violation of everything that flag stands for.
It is a breakdown of Lady Justice being blind.
It is a breakdown of law and order.
It is a breakdown of the hopeful bureaucratic disconnect between justice and the presidency
and political motivations. I know the Justice Department works for the
president but they are not supposed to work to advance his political
agenda. It's supposed to be a blind agenda in the in to enforce the laws of the United
States which is the constitutional purview of the executive branch. It is a
breakdown of everything we hold sacred. Now I bring this up because I
wasn't gonna get into this this morning.
There's so much going on, like with the economy, and gosh, Tom Perez yesterday totally losing his mind about the Constitution, the new head of the DNC.
He said the Electoral College is not in the Constitution.
This guy's in charge of the DNC!
He really said that, not a joke.
Really?
Yeah, yeah, he said that, which is incredible.
But I was watching Fox this morning and I saw Leslie Marshall on.
Who's a nice enough lady, but a democratic strategist.
She was debating Matt Schlapp from American Conservative Union, who just wiped the floor with her, by the way.
But Leslie came on, and again, she's defending this as oppo research.
Oh, don't worry, the Clintons just paid for oppo research.
Yes, I get it!
You win!
That's not the point!
The point is what was done with the OPPO research.
Remember the two questions.
How did it make it, this fake Russian intelligence, into the presidential daily brief?
How was Obama briefed on this?
How?
How was this information not corroborated?
And secondly, how did this potentially make it into, which many people have alleged at this point, I'm not reporting this as fact, but it's out there.
If it did, how did this make it into an FBI affidavit to get a wiretap against an opposition political candidate?
Folks, I mean, if this is the case, if this is where we are right now as a constitutional republic, what you're telling me with a straight face is, just to be crystal clear on this, you're telling me As long as you pay a foreign intelligence outlet to get information regardless of the authenticity or fact-based nature of that information, if you're an opposition candidate of connections in the Justice Department and you slip them that information, said fake information can be used to get a wiretap and violate everybody's constitutional rights.
Are you insane?
Do you realize where we are as a country if you acquiesce to that?
Folks, The Democrats I have said to you repeatedly and I will say again right now have zero principles.
The Organized Democrats.
I'm talking about Democrat voters.
The Organized Democrat Party has zero principles.
They made the case a few months ago for treason for Don Jr.
for meeting with a Russian official said to have oppo who presented no such oppo.
And yet when oppo was purchased from actual Russian officials and made it into the highest branches of our government, that's not in question.
Made it into the presidential daily brief.
The Democrats are now running around and telling a completely different story.
It's because they don't have principles.
It's because they don't believe in anything.
They believe in power.
They believe in the acquisition of power.
Power as a tool.
Power as a tool to advance the power of the state and diminish the identity of the individual.
Whatever vehicle they need to get there, they will use.
This isn't a joke.
We're in a fight.
Folks, we're in a real fight.
A real fight right now.
This is not an argument about, you know, quickie foreign policy trade disputes.
Those are serious arguments, but folks, they're not existential.
This is an existential fight we are in right now for the very essence of the Constitutional Republic.
What, I mean, what is this?
I don't know where, I really, seriously, I don't know where we go.
If this isn't stopped, and people don't go to jail potentially over this, who may have been involved in the placement of fake Russian intelligence on the President of the United States' desk and used in a court-ordered affidavits to wiretap others.
I mean, really?
The Teflon Clinton is going to get off again?
It's sad, folks.
It really is.
These people have zero principles.
But let me just wrap it up on this.
Don't let your friends, your liberal friends, stop at the oppo research.
Concede that point.
Yes, you are correct.
Oppo is not illegal.
I'm not suggesting that.
You win.
Can we move on?
We are simply suggesting that what happened with the OPPO research was that is where the conspiracy and the scandal is.
We're talking about OPPO research that made it onto the president's desk and that potentially made it into charging documents or affidavits by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
You can't say the same thing happened with the Trump campaign because none of that happened.
They don't even have the OPPO.
The OPPO never changed hands.
Don't let them stop there.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
You know, I got a really cool email about this product from a couple people who've already purchased it.
I was talking to my wife this morning, 'cause we got ours, iTarget Pro.
And one of the emails, by the way, a guy said, "Tell the audience that it's the letter I,
You put it in the firearm, and it projects a laser onto a target.
And what does this enable you to do?
It enables you to dry fire, once you buy the product, for free!
You can practice your marksmanship.
Folks, listen, anybody can shoot.
I've said this over and over.
Anyone can pull a trigger on a gun.
It's not complicated.
It's pulling a trigger accurately that matters.
My wife's like, this thing is great.
Seriously, I'm telling you right now, mark my words, when you buy this product, You're not going to put it down.
You're not.
It is unbelievably simple to use.
They give you the target, the laser bullet.
You download the app.
You can keep track of all your scores.
You see exactly where your rounds went.
You can practice your sight alignment, your trigger control, learn how to index the trigger on your finger.
Folks, you can practice all that.
You're not going to put it down.
It is an unbelievable product.
Listen, we all know ammo gets expensive.
There's range fees.
There's range time.
It's great to go to the range, but most of us just don't have time to get there once a month, once a week.
But if you want to practice safely in your own home, excuse me, please check it out.
Go to iTargetPro.com.
That's the letter I. iTargetPro.com.
Uses a laser in place of the bullet.
Works with the phone app.
It will detect, again, exactly where your shots are landing.
Competitive shooters dry fire ten times more than they live fire.
These are the people who do this for a living.
And the iTarget system will take dry fire practice to a new level.
By the way, After an hour, watch your marksmanship and your ability to sight a line and your trigger control get that much better, okay?
It's that good.
Go to itargetpro.com, that's the letter I. Use promo code DAN, my name, D-A-N, to save 10%.
You're going to be very happy with this product.
It really is terrific.
All right, moving on.
Story number two today.
So folks, the liberals are freaking out now that the budget guideline was passed yesterday, which, let me just get this out of the way, I'm not ecstatic about.
There were 20 Republicans that voted against it for various reasons.
There were Freedom Caucus members who voted against it because it is a grotesquely irresponsible budget.
In my opinion, it blows past our spending caps.
Due to the sequester in the BCA, it is an irresponsible budget.
Now, the Republican counterpoint to this from leadership has been, well, this isn't the actual spending plan, it's a guideline.
They're correct, I give you the truth here, not my talking points, but still.
If it's a guideline, why can't we guide people to fiscal sanity?
That's what I don't get.
I mean, it's a guideline.
What, what are we afraid of the guideline?
Like, why are we not cutting spending?
So, but I'm not going to do this about the budget today because again, it's not the formal budget document, but the budget outline was passed yesterday, which gave The Republicans, the ability to pass tax cuts with only 51 votes to reconciliation.
A simple explanation of the process is, reconciliation, if it can be shown to impact the budget through budget savings, the Senate only needs 50 votes and there's no filibuster there.
So you really, we don't, 50 because the vice president will cast the tying vote.
So that would give you 51.
So now they don't need Democrats.
So that was the big story.
That's why this was such a big story yesterday.
Well, they passed the budget.
This is great.
Again, some Freedom Caucus members voted against it for the right reasons because it spends too much money.
A lot of Northeastern Republicans up in New York And the New Jersey Northeastern area voted against it because of the elimination of the state and local deduction, which we talked about on prior shows, which is going to impact people in the Northeast.
But that's the fault of the states.
They tax their citizens too high.
It's not our fault.
It's going to affect us in Florida because we don't pay a state income tax down here.
So, you know, for us it doesn't really matter.
You should try the same thing.
Yeah.
It may work.
Yeah.
For those of you listening to the show the other day.
Yeah.
We don't need no jive turkeys on Thanksgiving.
Yeah.
Trading Places.
The greatest movie ever.
Seriously.
Really funny.
I love Denny Murphy.
Um, so that's the news from yesterday.
Now, liberals are freaking out now because now that the budget guideline has been passed, Joe, it gave the Republicans $1.5 trillion in room to institute this tax rate cut.
Now, Krugman, Paul Krugman, liberal, uh, wackadoodle on the left who writes for the New York Times, who's completely lost his mind.
This guy won it, by the way, a Nobel prize in economics, which really reflects extremely poorly on the Nobel committee.
I don't know what they were thinking.
They're worried.
Now, let me just explain to you what's going on here.
The economy, the numbers were released today in the third quarter, grew by 3%.
These are the exact same people, Joe.
The Krugmanites, Larry Summers, these far-left economists under the Obama administration, who to justify Cycle upon cycle of sub-2% GDP growth under Obama.
Remember, the historical standard is around 3%, folks.
So regardless of your feelings about Barack Obama, if you believe in simple math, which I know my audience does, Barack Obama had a substandard record on the economy.
That's a fact.
Whether your opinion matters or not, it only matters to you.
It doesn't matter to the outcome.
Barack Obama averaged 2% or less every year of his presidency and never hit 3% growth.
Trump comes into office, there's an instant deregulatory push to get rid of a lot of business red tape, there's an instant push for tax cuts, and there's a lot of optimism in the economy.
The economy has now grown for 3% over two quarters, which same liberals, same said liberals, Joe.
Krugman, all these other liberal hacks, said would never happen!
3% will never happen.
Secular stagnation, Joe, secular stagnation, which is a, I bring this term up all the time, is a fancy liberal term for everything that's been invented has already been invented.
The economy can't grow anymore.
It wasn't Barack Obama's fault.
Remember that last sentence?
Because that's what really mattered.
They don't really believe everything that was invented has been invented.
They don't really believe that.
They just needed an excuse to absolve Barack Obama of a mathematically horrendous economy he presided over.
Are you following me, Joe?
Oh, yeah.
So they used terms like secular stagnation to say it wasn't Obama's fault.
Now, we all know it was Obama's fault.
There was historic lows in, excuse me, in investment and pushes for mergers and acquisitions.
Companies didn't invest in their own product.
They just bought other companies because they just didn't feel like there was any other opportunity out there under the Obama administration.
We had Obamacare that sucked billions of dollars out of the consumers' wallets to pay for higher premiums.
We had Obama's tax hikes, which sucked money out of the economy.
The reasons the Obama economy sucked were obvious, but the liberals continue to want to blame this on secular stagnation, meaning the economy's just stagnant because nothing else can be invented and this is the way it's going to be forever.
Now that this is immediately Being disproven as absolutely false, and now that the budget's passed and it looks like tax cuts are going to happen, they are in a panic because... They're terrified, Joe, that the foil effect is going to kick in.
Now, what's the foil effect?
The foil effect is the... It's a reason when you go to a jewelry store, they put diamonds on a black background.
Because the diamond looks that much shinier on it.
It's a foil.
It's a contrast.
It's a sharp contrast.
They are terrified the foil effect is going to take effect now.
Now, if the Obama administration and the Trump administration were separated by a period of, you know, stagnation as well, then there wouldn't be that foil because they wouldn't have married up time-wise.
What they're afraid of, Joe, I may have said that in a confusing way, they're afraid that People who are alive and working right now, obviously remember Obama six months ago, and remember the sucky economy, are now going to say, wow, you know, I'm a moderate Democrat.
I'm open to new ideas.
And I got to tell you, I'm not really a Trump guy, but gosh, my 401k is up.
I just got to raise it work.
We're hiring more people.
This Trump ain't so bad.
That's what happened in the Reagan years where he won in 1980 by a resounding margin.
And won in 1984 by an even more resounding margin.
Because that's what happened.
I mean, they coined the term the Reagan Democrats.
They are terrified this is going to happen again.
Joe, you see the point I'm making?
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
That the contrast is right there in front of you.
Black background, diamond.
They see, you can see it, you can look at it.
If you walk through the store and there's this black background, With nothing on it.
And then you walk through and you see a diamond on the floor.
The diamond may look nice, but it's not going to look as shiny as it did immediately accompanied by that black background.
The contrast is right there.
That's what they're afraid of.
They're afraid that given the economy has picked up so fast since Obama left office, that the American people are going to wake up and go, wow, the Obama administration really sucked.
You see the point I'm making?
Yeah, it's like the economy's been waiting for a chance to jump on that black velvet pad.
That's a good analogy.
Way to describe it.
They've been waiting, waiting, and now it's here and they're like, whoa, this is bad for us.
So now they're in full panic mode.
This is where I was going with this.
I'm sorry for the wind up, but it's important you understand all that.
Now they're in a panic to stop the tax cuts, Joe.
Because if these tax cuts go through, they are absolutely convinced, the liberals, I can tell by their panic, you're feeling the shots, that means you're over the target.
They are in a panic that it's going to juice the economy even more.
Now!
For those of you saying, well, 3% is pretty good.
That's the historical average.
Well, I mean, how high can we go?
How high can we go?
I'll just give you facts and data, which we do in the show.
You want nonsense, garbage opinion?
Go listen to a liberal show.
1984, Reagan hit 6%, almost 7% growth.
Folks, do you know what 7% growth is?
almost 7% growth. Folks, do you know what 7% growth is? 7% growth, if we were to do
that over 10 years, which granted is probably a little much even for me and
I'm a big free market capitalist, but 7% growth over 10 years would double the
The real economy!
Not the fake economy, not the nominal economy, the real economy!
Meaning, the average salary of an American, if we hit 7% growth over 10 years, what Reagan did in 1984, it was very real, he didn't do it over 10 years, but he hit it in one year, If we did that over 10 years, the average American salary would be about $80,000 to $90,000.
In today's money!
Today's dough!
Do you know how much growth that is?
This is the reason the liberals are in a panic.
Because they're saying to themselves, hence the wind-up, okay, guys, we're in a little bit of trouble.
The economy's growing by 3% in the last two quarters, the minute Trump got in office, meaning our guy really sucks, okay?
And now it looks bad.
Joe, I'm telling you this is what they're saying!
If these tax cuts pass, we are Fill in expletive with an ed.
We are screwed.
Better way to say it, family friendly show, right?
Yeah.
Because they're terrified that what actually happened in the Reagan years, as the tax cuts hit, they hit in 86, 84 we hit growth, but the tax cuts had been slowly phased in over time.
They are terrified that money is going to filter through the economy into your wages, into productivity, and into cheaper products.
And they are not going to know what to say, because now people are going to remember And here's the big, here's the coup de grace!
They're going to remember the suck of the Obama years just like they did in the Carter years, which wiped the Democrats from power for 12 straight years.
Reagan won two terms, George H.W.
won in a landslide, and George H.W.
would have won re-election probably if it weren't for Ross Perot.
It's hard to prove a counterfactual.
I don't like to get into counterfactuals, but it's a good chance he would have won re-election.
The Democrats would have been wiped from power possibly for 20 years.
Folks, they are terrified.
They know the suck of the Obama economy.
They know it.
They were just hoping for an extended suck under Hillary so they can drag out the story and they could say, look, it's not Hillary, it's just secular stagnation.
We've just invented everything and this is the new normal.
Google, you think I'm making this up?
You know, I back up anything I say.
Google economy new normal.
Just Google it.
You think I'm making it?
And notice, no one, Joe, nobody in any of the articles you pull up, none of them are conservative economists.
They're all liberals!
I was waiting for that term to come out, the new normal.
The new normal!
They want you to believe our economy sucks, that it wasn't Obama.
It was Obama and his economic policies and the draining of capital from the economy that destroyed it.
And now that it's turning around, they are in a full-blown panic.
They cannot allow these tax cuts to pass.
You can expect the hysteria to increase.
Now, because I love numbers and data, great, great piece, the Washington Examiner today.
Please go to my website, by the way, and subscribe to my email list.
I will send these articles to you, to your inbox.
You don't have to do anything.
I'll send them right to you.
I call the internet every day for the best articles out there.
There's a really great piece, Paul Bedard, today's Washington Examiner.
About how the liberals are now going to double down on this is a tax cut for the rich because they don't have anything else.
It's the old, you know, Marxist class identity theory.
You know, let's let's pit the classes.
We even know we're a classless society.
We don't have classes.
There's no formal classes here, OK?
But class identity politics over national identity.
And Dennis Prager has a really good piece in the Daily Signal about that today, which I'll also put in the show notes, which is really I may not get to it today, but it's a really, really good piece.
I may get to it later on Hannity.
I'm feeling it for Sean.
On the radio if you want to listen in.
But here's some data, folks.
Let me, again, I do facts here, so let me be completely candid with you.
The tax rate cut package now as it stands, we don't have the numbers yet.
In other words, nobody knows what the income categories are going to be.
Right.
For the marginal rates.
Having said that, I'm telling you there is no way this tax cut doesn't benefit both the middle class And the rich, though.
And I'm willing to tell you that, what we would call the rich.
I have zero problem with that because I understand basic economics.
Liberals who don't and who are hack politicians will tell you, oh, this benefits the rich, it's gonna screw over the middle class.
They're lying to you, I'm telling you the truth.
Now, again, we do numbers, liberals do nonsense.
In the Washington Examiner piece, they point out some OMB numbers, these are government numbers, this is not a conservative think tank, Office of Management and Budget Numbers, that Mick Mulvaney put out yesterday during a speech.
Joe, give me a number.
Not a trick question here.
You know, sometimes I try to mess with Joe a little bit, but not today.
Give me a number.
Just give me a guess.
And I expect answers to be all over the map on this because even I was off big time.
Okay.
What do you think the top 20% of earners, meaning the top 20 out of 100 earners in the United States, what percentage of the federal income tax load do you think they pay?
The top 20%?
I would say probably close to 40 or more.
40 or more percent.
Brother, I am so glad he responded that way because I guarantee you 999 out of a thousand Americans would say 40 or less.
Folks, I'm always candid with you.
I was even surprised by the actual number.
You know what the number is?
No.
95%.
Holy cow.
Holy, oh, like Phil Rizzuto.
Holy cow!
Remember Phil Rizzuto for the Yankees?
I grew up watching WPIX and the Yankees.
Holy cow!
My grandmother grew up with Phil Rizzuto and Glendale, by the way.
95%!
20 out of 100 earners, taxpayers, pay 95% of the federal income tax load.
hundred earners, taxpayers, pay 95% of the federal income tax load. Man, why am I
telling you this?
Because, folks, unlike the left that will lie to you, this tax rate cut will benefit the middle class.
The research on the corporate tax cut and how that money filters down to employees in the company is conclusive.
Now, the degree of it is up in the air.
Are you going to get a $1,000 raise?
A $4,000 raise as the administration stated over 10 years?
Honestly, folks, I'm not sure.
I've looked at the research and I'll bet it's somewhere in there.
Could be $2,000.
If it's $4,000, great.
I tend to be a little more cautious in my analysis and I'm always skeptical of econometrics.
I think your raise is probably going to be on average closer to $1,500 to $2,000.
Here's the bottom line.
It's a raise to you!
The corporate tax cuts will benefit you because the money has to go somewhere.
It doesn't get burned or evaporated.
It filters into productivity, which helps your wages.
Having said that, and set the table, yes, this tax rate cut will benefit you.
I am not going to deny that this will benefit the rich, and that's why I just gave you that number.
Alright.
Folks, you can't have 20% of the people, the 20% of our highest earners, you can't have them paying 95% of the tax load, which is almost everything, and then say, well, we're gonna cut taxes, but it's not gonna benefit the people paying the damn taxes!
How?
And by the way, Joe, in case you think this is like some anomaly, this has been going up.
The wealthiest among us are paying more and more and more.
In the piece, it cites that two years ago, just two years ago, they only paid 84%.
I mean, what are we?
Are we going to get to the point as a society where two out of ten people are paying all that?
Nobody pays in at all.
Nobody pays for the military.
Nobody pays for the courts.
Nobody pays for, as the Democrats would say, You know, roads and bridges.
Everything's roads and bridges.
Nobody's paying for that, but two out of ten people?
That's your idea of an egalitarian society?
The society's so free that two people are financing eight other people's lifestyles?
Folks, this is insane!
Two out of ten people paying 95% of the taxes.
How in the hell are you gonna have a tax rate cut that doesn't benefit the people who actually pay the taxes?
So unlike the Democrats, I'm going to acknowledge That wealthier people and well-off people will benefit somewhat.
But the point is, so will the economy and so will you.
And as I said on Outnumbered yesterday on Fox, I'll say again on this show, I challenge any Democrat out there, anyone, to email me and show me where a tax rate cut led to any long-term, long-term loss in tax revenue to the U.S.
government.
Long-term.
Frankly, give me short-term.
Now there was one period after the George W. Bush tax cuts, years later by the way, because revenue increased afterwards, where tax revenue went down after the recession, but that's not a surprise to anyone with common sense.
The economy took a downturn, so you were taking a percentage of a smaller economy.
But show me either short or long term where tax revenue went down over time due to a tax rate cut.
Show me!
Show me the numbers!
Folks, I said this on national television yesterday because they can't do it.
Tell your liberal friends!
Time out!
Tell me when tax revenue went down after a tax cut.
Tell me!
Show me the numbers!
They can't do it because it's not true!
They're making it up!
Now, just one quick thing.
As they point out in the examiner piece, which is really good, very readable too.
They're talking about lowering marginal rates, folks.
The way marginal tax rates work, they are not absolute numbers.
In other words, when you say we're gonna lower the top tax rate from 39.6 to 35, which may or may not be in a plan, nobody knows yet, they're talking about a rate on a dollar earned above a certain amount.
So if there's a, let's say there's a 10% rate for income earned, Joe, between 50 and $100,000.
Well, we could all consider relatively middle class in the United States, right?
Yeah.
So if I say I want to cut the tax rate for people who make $50,000 to $100,000 from let's say 20% to 10%, I want to cut it in half.
let's say 20% to 10% I want to cut it in half.
Mm-hmm.
That $50,000 to $100,000 doesn't only apply to people who only make $50,000 to $100,000.
Meaning $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000.
Mm-hmm.
That tax cut folks also applies to people who make a million.
You may say, well, how's that?
Because, Joe, at some point in your earning of a million dollars, you had to cross the 50 to 100,000 threshold.
Right, right, right.
That's the rate you paid on that money, on that money only.
So you will get a tax cut on that money too.
What are you going to say?
We're going to cut the marginal tax rates for people who make $50,000 to $100,000?
But on your course to making $50,000 to $100,000, if you make a million, you're still going to pay the higher rate anyway.
Like a big F you?
I mean, are you kidding?
There's no way to cut taxes without benefiting the rich.
They're the ones paying the taxes.
You know why?
Because they cross all of those margins.
You get my point, Joe?
Yeah, sure.
They cross 0 to 50, where the tax rate, let's say, is 0.
Of course, yeah.
50 to 100, where it's whatever, 15.
100 to 300, where it's 20.
You know, 300 to 600.
They cross all, they pay all of those rates on the way up to the top.
Oh, man.
This is like basic econ 101.
You'll benefit the rich.
Who pays the taxes?
The rich.
Yeah.
Oh, well, what the hell you want?
I don't understand.
There's no, you're going to screw them for five out of a hundred, out of a hundred people who are picking up the rest of the load.
Excuse me.
Eight out of 10 people who are picking up 5% of the tax load.
Oh my gosh, folks, it's insane.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply, too.
You know, this is a great read in conjunction with iTarget, because, you know, you need to be prepared.
And like I said in the iTarget read, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a firearm if you can't, you know, shoot what you're hitting at.
I mean, it really, it's not even, you gotta know your stuff with your firearm.
Be prepared.
You also have to be prepared with your food supply.
You know, we insure everything in our lives that matters.
We insure our cars, we insure our homes, we insure our teeth.
You know, some people even have legal insurance.
Folks, it makes absolutely no sense to not have the basic things we need to stay alive, like food!
Go get yourself some water and go get yourself an emergency supply of food.
I do not speak with forked tongue on this.
I love this company.
I have boxes of it in my own closet.
I bought so much stuff from them.
I have their berries, their vegetables, their breakfast kit.
You need emergency food.
We've seen these natural disasters over time happen just recently here.
We've seen the threats with the North Korean EMP attacks.
Folks, have a supply of emergency food.
My Patriot Supply will get you a one-month supply of emergency food that will last you 25 years.
25 years!
You only need water to prepare it.
It is super easy to prepare, very easy to store.
Please pick it up today.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com for just $99.
That's it.
That's basic insurance.
You'll get a one month supply of emergency food.
Go pick yourself up a couple of boxes.
Please support our sponsors.
They support us.
It's a great company.
They've been with us a very long time and I really appreciate what they do for people out there.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
Pick up your one month supply of emergency food today.
All right.
One last story here I wanted to cover.
The IRS, just to show you again how liberals lie to you constantly, and they do it with no shame.
You know, on a very serious note, when I ran for office, three times I ran, I was always very concerned when TV cameras were on or off that, you know, it didn't really matter because video cameras are everywhere now.
But especially when TV cameras are off, to speak with absolute precision.
Especially in my race in Southwest Florida because there was a clownish reporter from the Naples Daily News, I can never get anything right by the way, and she would fact check the spelling of your first name.
I don't mind fact checking, but she did Democrat fact checking, which is synonymous with lying.
You know, tortured statistics.
So I was always careful to speak with precision.
What I find incredible about this IRS scandal, and the reason this is in the news again, is yesterday, finally, the IRS admitted wrongdoing and settled the lawsuit with, what is it, with Tumpkin Tea Party, Patriots, and other groups that were discriminated against and targeted by the IRS because they were conservative.
Now, this was an epic scandal in the Obama administration, but I want to wrap it up on this.
I don't want to re-litigate the IRS scandal.
You all know what happened.
The IRS targeted these conservative groups because they were conservative.
It's as simple as that.
Joe, there's no more disputing this.
They settled the lawsuit yesterday and the IRS apologized.
So you can continue to argue all you want that the IRS scandal didn't happen, but the millions of dollars in settled lawsuits and a formal apology says you're an idiot, not me.
So I bring this up because Barack Obama I gave an interview with Bill O'Reilly from Fox where he was asked about this and Barack Obama said there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS case.
Folks!
Remember that.
You know, I'm hesitant to use this word, this term, but how does that not make Obama a liar?
How?
Well, you know, let me give him an out for a second here.
It either makes him a very ignorant president who had no idea what was going on in his own IRS, who had zero curiosity at all about what his IRS was doing, Or folks, it makes him a liar.
What's the third explanation?
No, I'm serious.
Liberals, email me what the third explanation is.
Either Obama was the President of the United States, had no curiosity at all about what happened at the IRS, but commented on it anyway.
Told Bill O'Reilly, there's not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.
Or he knew about the case, which now is official.
It's not open for your interpretation, Libs.
We don't care what you say on it.
The IRS has formally apologized and acknowledged what they did.
Makes you a liar too, by the way, if you refuse to acknowledge that.
Or Barack Obama did know and he lied to the American people in a nationally televised interview because that's what he does.
And folks, I don't know, I just find that incredibly disturbing.
You know, my credibility matters a lot to me.
That's why I'm very careful what I tweet, and when I say something I can't back up, I have to correct it.
And that happens sometimes, but that's the course of conservative or any kind of commentary.
And you know, what's funny about this is...
I'm not a journalist.
I don't claim to be.
I'm not a journalist.
I don't claim to be a journalist.
I don't want to be a journalist.
I'm an opinion guy.
I offer conservative content.
But the authenticity of this show, I think, is...
Our use of facts and data contribute to its authentic nature, and it bothers me that I was so careful when I ran to not say things that could be categorically proven false, and the President of the United States couldn't have cared any less.
Really disturbing.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Please go to bongino.com, subscribe to my email list.
I'll send you some really cool articles I found today.
And I'll send you one more really cool one, too, about, again, Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, who apparently has not read the Constitution and isn't aware that the Electoral College is in Article II of the Constitution.
Read it, it's actually pretty funny.
Yeah, I mean, again, you want to talk about a guy who just puts out there stuff that's so nonsensical.
But these are Democrats, this is what they do.
All right, folks, listen to me on Hannity today.
I'll be filling in and I will see you all on Monday.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
