Ep. 596 An Interesting Proposal to Put Your Liberal Friends on the Spot
Net Neutrality is a liberal scam to introduce big-government regulations into the Internet world. http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast The writer has a terrific proposal for liberal’s demanding higher taxes. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453964/gop-tax-plan-limousine-liberals-pay-more Liberal Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted this deceptive chart showing what happens AFTER the proposed tax cuts expire. https://twitter.com/senschumer/status/932302409791148032 This dramatic video shows the lengths people will go to escape the horrors of communism. http://www.reuters.tv/v/Alw/2017/11/22/insight-dramatic-video-of-north-korea-defector-s-getaway The economy is on a roll! https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-claims-fall-record-run-persists-140437347.html
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Doing good, man.
Getting ready for Thanksgiving.
Yeah, man.
Me too.
Hey, big shout out to Ron P. You know who you are for sending me that cut yesterday and that ringtone.
We got some surprises later for you in the show.
We got a closing Thanksgiving message I know our regular listeners are going to love.
If you're new, you may be mildly confused, but that's okay.
You'll figure it out over time.
Our regular listeners don't know exactly what I'm talking about.
And hey, just a quick note, I will be filling in for the great one Mark Levin on radio on Friday.
So for those of you listening to Joe's morning show at WCBM, I'll be on their network.
Is Levin's start at 7 over there or something?
Yeah.
6 Eastern for the live show.
So I'll be in for Mark on Friday, tearing it up as usual.
You know, play our buddy Macho Man for that.
Oh yeah!
Thank you, Randy.
I appreciate that.
Play him again.
Joe's been working on a series of cuts, so Macho Man's really excited, of course, about our stint for Levin on Friday.
We appreciate it.
One more time, Joe, just for the hell of it.
Ooh, yeah!
We're trying to lighten up the show a little bit, folks.
Obviously, you know, with all the stuff going on right now, it's, you know, especially before the holidays, Joe's been adding some, what they call in the business, drops and, you know, sound and stuff, so we're trying to keep it a little light.
Speaking of heavy stuff, so, got a ton of emails yesterday.
I mean a lot, an unusual amount.
And I would say in the 500 now and 96 episodes we've done, the two episodes I've gotten the most emails on, received the most amount of emails on, have definitely been my death penalty show where I surprised a lot of listeners.
I objected to it.
You know, it's my show.
I mean, I'm sorry.
I'm not asking you to feel the same way.
I'm just telling you how I feel.
I owe you the honesty and the truth, right?
Oh yeah, I gotta remember that.
And secondly was the Net Neutrality show.
We've done a few shows on Net Neutrality, but the surprising thing about the Net Neutrality shows is the condemnation and praise you get email-wise is bipartisan meaning you'll get conservatives who say Dan you're crazy and I'll have liberals who email me or say Dan you're spot on and vice versa it's not an issue that really it it's not an issue it transcends partisan lines I guess what I'm saying so I got a couple of emails yesterday and said now that the FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has come out and said listen we're going to scrap these rules we're going to take a vote on it net neutrality the emails were everything from what the hell is net neutrality to can you just quickly explain the pros and the cons of this and what this means folks
Let me just say first, I am absolutely 100% against net neutrality.
Let me say second, I value and respect your opinion and your emails.
I get it.
There are differences of opinion.
It's an opinion show.
I'm just here to tell you how I feel and what I believe to be the facts and the truth.
You're not obligated to believe it.
I'm just giving you an alternate perspective.
You don't have to digest it and absorb it and say, hey, this is my opinion too.
That's okay.
You know my email, Daniel Lappongino?
You want to send me an email saying here's why I disagree?
That is totally cool.
I promise I'll read it.
I object to net neutrality strongly.
So those are two points here.
Third point I want to make on this before I move on to the facts portion of the show here on net neutrality.
Yes, I agree with you, supporters of net neutrality.
Again, I'm against this completely.
I agree there's a problem.
There's always a problem.
There's always a problem in free markets.
Steak is expensive.
Chicken gets expensive.
Turkeys get expensive.
Movies get expensive.
There's always an issue with allocation of resources.
Broadband.
5G.
Prices for content on cable.
There's always issues.
I'm not suggesting to you, because I get these emails, Joe, and they're interesting.
I'm not insulting anybody, but I'll get these emails from supporters of net neutrality.
Dan, you're wrong.
And they'll lay out...
20 or 30 problems with the internet market and content market over the internet as we see it now, Joe.
And they'll provide no government solution at all that makes sense.
And I'm like, okay, I agree with you.
All of those problems are accurate.
The only thing I'm saying, where I object here, folks, the only thing I object to is I don't believe government has the answers.
That's the, I agree with everything you say in the emails.
Point stipulated.
You are correct.
This could be a problem.
That could be a problem.
.672 subsection c3.4 where you say and the government will fix it where I totally disagree.
Net neutrality was the government trying to regulate the internet under title 2 which was really instituted you know decades ago to regulate railroads and stuff like that.
It was a government, it was largely driven by leftists who I believe, if I'm just being candid, suckered a lot of conservatives into believing that this was some kind of a pseudo free market initiative to treat a bit as a bit.
It's going to keep the internet open and free.
Folks, it is not going to keep the internet open and free.
You are introducing the government into the internet arena, absent the light regulatory touch it had before that, to precisely do the opposite.
Now, unlike some of the proponents of this thing, I can actually prove it.
Okay, let's get to the facts portion of the show.
So the arguments for this thing, right, which I'm going to refute immediately on this.
Here are the arguments for net neutrality.
They say, well, If the government regulates the internet, which is amazing to hear conservatives even utter those words, but if the government regulates the internet and forces them to treat everyone equally, Joe, by the way, the language used by the left that we've somehow been suckered into, they're going to treat everybody equally on the internet and they can't throttle and slow down and they can't price discriminate against people.
Wait, wait, what?
Folks, do you understand price discrimination is a focus group tested term by the left to refer to what we call the free market?
Price discrimination?
Joe, you don't have our cut of the dude ready, do you, by any chance?
I think I can find it quickly.
Find the dude for me for a second, because every time I hear price discrimination, I think of the dude.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
What does that mean?
You mean like different prices based on different supply and demand?
What are you talking about, price discrimination?
Price discrimination or different prices for different supply and demand models and different customers happens everywhere in a free market.
It happens on planes.
Are the first class passengers discriminating against you?
How are they discriminating against you?
You can buy a first class seat.
You just don't want to or you can't afford it.
Folks, I don't fly first class.
So it's not like I'm speaking with forked tongue like a limousine liberal.
Like I fly in first class and I'm like, you're all great unwashed out there.
You don't fly.
I don't fly in first class.
I've met some of you who listen to my show on planes.
You know who I'm talking about.
People sit next to me, hey, I listen to your show.
Hey, thanks.
I promise you, I haven't met these people in first class.
Those people pay more for folks, what I believe humbly, To be kind of a wasted service.
If my business wants to play for it, I'll take it, but I'm not paying $1,000 to fly the shuttle from DC to New York for 35 minutes to get an extra bag of peanuts.
I'm sorry.
If some rich dude wants to do that, the board first, great!
My fare's cheaper because of it.
Price discrimination.
Oh, price discrimination.
It's called free market pricing.
Price discrimination?
You're charged more for a 70-inch TV than you are a 13-inch TV.
Are you being discriminated against?
No, I just wanted a bigger TV.
Okay.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
This whole idea about net neutrality that you're going to somehow force people to pay more, who consume more content, that's otherwise known as economic freedom and liberty.
How are conservatives getting suckered by this?
Oh, that's price discrimination.
You're using more stuff.
By the way, I had said in the show, gosh, years ago now, and in the recent show we did on net neutrality, forgive me, I don't have the episode numbers in front of me, but you can listen to it yourself.
Every prediction we made about price discrimination came true, conservatives.
That the liberals who are pushing net neutrality were never ever going to use so-called price discrimination, Joe, to go after them.
I took a note on this.
Everything we said was true.
They weren't going to go after throttling or slowing down the internet for poor people.
And they weren't going to go after rich people.
We warned you that it was going to hurt people who were poor and middle income the worst.
And folks, that's exactly what happened.
Because as Ajit Pai points out, the FCC commissioner in an incredible article on Reason at Reason.com, which will be in the show notes.
Folks, read it, please.
Oh yeah!
Read it!
Randy Macho Man says, this article is terrific.
Ajit Pai, let me quote you from the article.
I said to you, listen, they're not going to go after rich people here.
No one's going to be hurt by net neutrality other than the poor and the middle class.
And isn't it convenient that the first case the FCC took up using a template of these FCC net neutrality rules, Joe, was against what?
Was against zero rating.
You know what zero rating is?
Basically, not being charged data, a free plan, if you consume a certain amount of content on a carrier.
So, they went after people getting stuff for free!
The rich people weren't hurt!
It was the people back riding on the plane in stewage, in the luggage carrier.
They're the ones who got hurt!
Now, here's a quote from the Reason piece, for the conservatives who are being suckered by this net neutrality scam.
This is Ajit Pai.
He says, it's telling that the first investigations at the prior FCC initiated under these so-called net neutrality rules were involving free data offering, says Ajit Pai, pointing towards actions initiated by his predecessor against zero rating services such as T-Mobile's binge program, which didn't count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and a host of other services against the customer's monthly data allowance.
Folks, I didn't read that wrong.
People who are getting stuff for free were the first ones targeted.
Because government.
Government.
The government always screws it up.
You're trusting the government to regulate the internet?
That's like trusting an alcoholic to regulate his alcohol consumption.
Are you insane?
Here, it goes on.
This is Pi speaking here in the Reason article.
Go to the show notes, Bongino.com or subscribe to my email list.
Check this thing out.
It's a great, it's short too.
He says, to me, it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get and companies that want to provide free data.
Folks, that's what actually happened.
Okay?
That's what actually happened in the actual real world.
So again, your assertions that, no, no, this is going to stop price discrimination, and I don't want to be charged more to watch Netflix, and the government's going to protect me.
They didn't protect you.
They did the opposite.
Companies that wanted to give you the stuff literally for free, for you, at no cost to you at all, those are the companies that got attacked.
Because it's the government.
They're idiots.
There's no incentive to not be idiots.
Oh my gosh!
I cannot believe people are getting... Again, I don't mean to sound hostile.
I respect your... I get it that people recognize there's a problem.
But suggesting the government was somehow going to fix this is absurd!
This is absurd!
You're introducing the government into a regulatory role?
Into, by the way, from the mid-1990s to 2015, where they had the lightest of regulatory touches, and we had almost no significant game-changing problems, right?
There were issues with the internet, we all get that, but I'm talking game-changers, like it was shut down, customers weren't getting it, Customers were prohibited from getting it.
These major game-changing problems didn't exist from the 90s to 2015, and now you think introducing the government into a regulatory role is going to fix this stuff?
Oh my gosh.
Man, are you being snookered by this one.
All right, so first, point number one to take away from this.
Yes, there is a problem.
I'm simply suggesting you that the government isn't going to fix it.
The market will find a solution.
Secondly, telling me that, oh, it opens the door for ISPs to price discriminate and charge people for the services they're using.
Suggest that somehow the government imposing a price control and a price cap will work where it's never ever worked.
And my argument against that is the first fight the FCC picked was not with price caps for middle class people consuming Netflix who didn't want to pay more.
The first fight they picked was with lower middle income, middle income folks who had data plans that were charged nothing.
That was because it's the government.
They can't get their heads out of their collective cabooses.
You think they're gonna fix your problems?
It's almost comical.
All right, secondly, the broadband.
The idea here, folks, was that, well, if we force ISPs to treat every content, every bit coming over their lines, every ounce of data, bit of data, I should say, coming over their lines equally, then this will create an equal environment and websites won't be stopped, they're throttled.
Folks, What that really led to was companies that were investing in broadband before the expansion of broadband stopped.
Matter of fact, not only stopped, they reversed it.
There's been a, and you can read it in the article if you think I'm making this up, there's been a 6% decline in broadband network investment.
Meaning what?
Meaning companies that said, all right, so now we're going to be forced to provide a product for a cost determined not by the quality or the demand for the product, but determined by the government.
Okay, we're just not going to invest in it at all.
Matter of fact, we're going to stop and slow down investing in broadband.
So basically, the people who need broadband now aren't getting it precisely because the government introduced regulations that we're supposed to get people more broadband.
Joe, do you have the dude, can you cue the dude for me?
I need to lighten up a second.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
I know, too much of a good thing sometimes.
I'm sorry, folks.
I really, I really want to keep, it's before Thanksgiving, and I got to keep the show going.
I just don't get it.
Everything we said was going to happen, happened.
The government would, it would backfire.
It would be middle class folks who suffered.
Middle class folks giving away free stuff were targeted.
Broadband investment has declined and yet people still argue that net neutrality is going to increase broadband investment and it's going to help the middle class because a bit will be a bit and you won't be charged more.
No, no.
You were charged nothing and the government didn't like it.
Oh man.
This is funny stuff dude.
[Laughter]
It is.
It's funny stuff.
I get a kick out of it.
It's just hysterical.
Oh boy.
All right.
We got to do an ad here because I love it.
I shouldn't say that, ad, because I love my sponsors.
Hey, some guy emailed me today and said, you know, if you're going to, I'm going to do a Rough Cuts tomorrow with Joe.
We'll do it on Thanksgiving morning too.
Joe and I were going to do it tonight, but I said, let's do it tomorrow.
If you don't know, you know, I don't have anything going on until later in the evening.
It's always better when it's semi-live, right?
Yeah.
But I got an email, said, hey, you know, I was really interested, given your sponsorship by iTarget, that company.
He said, you know, what did you guys go through, handgun training in the Secret Service?
So maybe I'll cover that tomorrow, but I'll tell you, it was pretty intense.
Our handgun training is legit.
I mean, we would do this thing called the stress course, which was killer.
You'd have to sprint.
Like a quarter mile, as fast as you can, down to this range.
And then there'd be multiple weapons waiting for you at targets.
You'd have your handgun on you, but you'd deploy your handgun, there'd be moving targets, and the targets would move behind other targets that were friendlies on a horizontal track, so you couldn't hit the friendlies.
Keep in mind, you're sucking wind because you just sprinted a quarter mile in your training boots, you're not in PT gear, you're in your tactical stuff, so you're like, And you're trying to shoot.
You can barely line up the sights.
You can't hit the friendlies.
Then you go over to the shotgun.
I have a cool picture of that.
Maybe I'll post it on my Instagram today.
Of the stress course.
Then you gotta pick up the shotgun.
Same thing.
Engage the targets as they move behind friendlies.
Then you finish up with the MP5 as the instructor's screaming in your ear.
So that was pretty cool firearms training.
Now...
That's pretty elite level stuff.
I was glad to do it in the Secret Service, but let's be honest, who has the time for that?
That would be super expensive.
You know, it takes time, it takes money, range fees, you got ammo fees, you got to go clean your guns, and that's great.
We should all do it, but we can't do it often.
So what's the best way to increase your marksmanship and your skills?
Because it's a, listen folks, this is a perishable skill.
You don't practice your marksmanship, you're going to lose it.
This system, iTarget, with the letter I, iTargetPro, the website is iTargetPro.com, is one of the best ways to improve your marksmanship.
Anybody can shoot a gun.
The question is, can you shoot it accurately?
Competitive shooters.
People who do this for a living, where marksmanship is literally their livelihood.
They dry fire ten times more than they live fire at the range.
Now, the great part about this system, and I'll tell you how it works in a second, is you don't have to go buy a new gun, there's no special equipment, you don't have to outfit your house with like, you know, lead cleaners to clean out the lead, none of that.
It's as simple as this.
It's a laser bullet you drop in the gun you have now.
It's not going to damage your gun in any way.
You depress the trigger and instead of a bullet coming out, obviously, the laser bullet emits a laser.
In conjunction with a phone app, you'll see exactly where your shots go on a target they give you.
It is amazing.
I got people who can't put this thing down.
It's like the greatest video game in the world.
And the side effect of it is that your marksmanship goes through the roof.
Folks, give it a shot.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's I, the letter I, targetpro.com.
Here's your promo code.
This is an incredible gift for Christmas, by the way.
Promo code Dan, D-A-N, my first name.
Go to itargetpro.com, promo code Dan, and you'll get an astonishing 10% off.
That's a lot of money, folks.
It's not an expensive product.
It's priced very effectively, but you get 10% off.
It's a great system.
Give it a shot.
Okay.
Again, in the arena of, from the desk vial drawer of dopey liberal policies, not backed up at all of facts and data, but again, they believe in it.
I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today.
And I'm going to make this one quick because it's just so easy to talk about.
Again, the left lives in a fantasy land, whether it's net neutrality, whether it's tax cuts, it doesn't even matter.
I'll get to that in a second because there's a doozy I saw by Chuck Schumer, who's just totally lying to you.
But the Keystone Pipeline, so the final hurdle, here's the story, the genesis of the story, the final hurdle for the Keystone Pipeline, which is an oil pipeline, which is going to be built by TransCanada, which is going to lead to about $8 billion in investment and hundreds of jobs, and by the way, potentially cheaper petro resources for us.
This is a win-win-win-win-win for everyone, the Keystone Pipeline.
It's been objected to by the far left for years.
Now, the left is just lying to you completely about the Keystone Pipeline, but more importantly, Joe, they're lying to you why they object to the Keystone Pipeline, and here it is.
They object to Keystone for one reason and one reason only.
They object to Keystone because they want to keep every bit of oil in the ground and raise your gas prices because they are Neanderthals.
They think that we can sit around a fire all day and we're somehow going to save the environment by doing what?
I don't know, roasting marshmallows around a campfire?
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
They call it the green-red axis, you know?
What started as reds, you know, communists and socialists, they realized the futility of defending that after the fall of the Soviet Union, so they all became environmentalists as a way to combat capitalism and free markets and economic freedom.
They hate oil.
They can't stand oil.
They literally want to keep it in the ground.
They do not want energy because they know energy fuels capitalism and they see capitalism as the enemy.
That's not the argument they use in public because they're liars.
Of course.
I'm not talking about all Democrats.
I'm talking about the far left radical environmental groups that have sued everybody and their mother involved with the Keystone Pipeline.
They are liars.
Capital L liars.
They are just simply not telling you the truth.
That's the real argument.
They want to keep the oil in the ground.
The argument they tell you is, oh, this stuff isn't safe.
It's not safe, Joe.
Okay, so here are the numbers.
So we looked up the safety and I saw a piece in the journal today.
It was fascinating.
Here are the actual numbers for those of you interested in facts and data and that crazy kind of stuff.
Here's the reality of the so-called not-safe pipelines.
Compared to rail, Joe, pipelines are 2.5 times less likely to have a spill than rail.
And for roads, it's even worse.
The number of accidents on the road is about seven times higher than it is for pipeline transportation of oil.
Folks, listen to me.
Those are just the facts.
You do with them what you want, ladies and gents.
For the liberals listening, you do with that what you want.
But now I want you to make an argument to me, and I'll prove to you that liberals, all they want to do is keep the oil on the ground because they hate capitalism.
If you can stipulate with them for a second that we need oil, one, it defeats their whole argument, because then if we need oil, then obviously their whole argument that we should keep it in the ground is bunk, right?
But if for a second they'll even stipulate that, that we need oil, because you and I both know that to be factually accurate, the world would shut down, we would starve, and most of us would be dead if we didn't have petrol resources, right?
Just say to them, well, what suggested means of transportation are you suggesting for the oil if you object to pipelines?
Just wait for them to answer.
What are you suggesting?
Star Trek teletransportation of oil?
What are you suggesting?
Carrier pigeon?
What are you suggesting?
Oh, maybe we should do it by roads.
Oh, roads, you mean where the accidents are seven times more likely?
I thought you said it was about safety.
So you're suggesting a means that's multiple times more dangerous than rail.
So it's not about safety to you, right?
No, no, it's about safety.
But you're suggesting something less safe.
So how is it about safety?
Okay, what about rail?
Oh, you mean rail, where it's 2.5 times more likely to result in a spill than it would if it was transported by a pipeline.
So again, you're making the opposite point you're claiming to make, that it's about safety, when you're actually suggesting a more dangerous means of transportation.
What's your real point?
And then just get them to say, okay, we should just keep the damn thing in the ground.
This really has nothing to do with safety.
I'm just lying to you the entire time.
You see... I like that.
Yeah.
I mean, Joe, you see again why it's so frustrating to wake up every morning and have to deal with liberals.
They just won't tell you the truth ever on anything.
I'm a conservative.
I will acknowledge to any liberal listening, just like I did with net neutrality, there are problems.
There's a problem with broadband getting out there into some rural communities.
There are problems with slow internet.
There are problems with investment where it's needed.
There are problems with slow service.
There are problems with getting, you know, download speeds.
These are all legitimate problems.
I'm simply suggesting you would net neutrality.
Government has absolutely none of the solutions.
The free market over time will fix it through supply and demand.
I'm making the same argument here with petrochemicals.
There are significant problems.
One, it's a limited resource, albeit the situation, the scarcity of it has been highly exaggerated by the left.
We have not reached peak oil, but it is limited.
It does create pollution, there's no doubt about that.
And you know, frankly, it's an open-ended question on the damage from anthropogenic climate change.
I mean, it's an open-ended question.
The left wants you to believe it's a climate catastrophe.
I think they're being ridiculous.
But, you know, we shouldn't ignore altogether science on this stuff either.
If CO2 emissions are presenting a problem, and you can present to me some data that makes sense, which you haven't yet, I'm open to it.
I'm not saying you're... I just don't do alarmism, and that's what the climate left wants to do.
I agree there's problems.
But again, I'm just giving you the data on what your argument is.
You're saying the argument's about safety when the argument we're making is, okay, pipelines make it safer.
And you're telling me, no, that's not good enough either, which says to me, there's an alternative agenda here.
You're just not telling us.
And your agenda is to shut it down completely.
And you think that's going to solve the problems?
So the problems of Joe, potential CO2 emission, right?
Potential, we don't even know, right?
Potential pollution, all of that stuff.
You want to supplant those problems with mass death and starvation due to a lack of energy, which would destroy food production, everything else.
That's a good one.
You guys are great.
That's a solid solution.
You guys really have all the answers.
Oh my gosh.
Unbelievable.
Seriously.
It's just incredible you have to deal with these people every day.
It's like they're brain dead.
Hey, one more thing before we move on to our next topic.
I had another Reuters piece of video I'll put in the show notes at Bongino.com and on my email list.
It is stunning video that you really need to watch of a North Korean defector from the military trying to cross the DMZ.
I think he actually gets across.
He's been shot and he's wounded, but the demilitarized zone, he escapes.
You've got to see the video.
I'll put it up at the show notes.
Folks, if it doesn't hammer home to you on a very serious note, like the show we did on Monday asking, and Tuesday by the way, asking socialists out there, if you have a heart, This guy almost died.
He was shot.
You have to see the video.
Him speeding in the car to get away, sprinting across the field.
The North Korean soldiers, Joe, going down in a prone position and engaging when they hit him.
They hit him with their weapons.
And he still makes it across.
It's an amazing video that should again hammer home to our liberal listeners, college kids and older liberal listeners who still believe in socialism, the horrors people will endure to escape the ravages of communism and socialism.
But you know what?
Keep believing it.
That's okay.
You don't have to live in it.
So again, you pay no price for your beliefs.
You just impose that price on others.
Sad.
Really sad.
Okay.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
I always appreciate the emails on this and they're pretty voluminous.
Their product Dawn to Dusk is, listen, you need to get tomorrow, you're cooking all day.
You need a product to keep you up and get you going.
Dawn to Dusk is the way to rock and roll.
I love this stuff.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
It's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan, or if you subscribe to my email list, there's a little link at the top, which it's been doing bonkers sales.
People love this stuff.
They keep coming back for more.
Here's the kicker with this.
Listen folks, there's energy products everywhere.
Buy a cup of coffee, okay?
Here's the problem with it.
Two hours later, you're crashing on the couch because you get this massive dose of caffeine.
You're like, yes, this is great!
And then two hours later, when all of it wears off, boom, you're on the couch and you can barely move, right?
The great part about Dawn to Dusk is it is a time-released energy product.
You get a nice elevation of mood, nice elevation of energy.
You feel great the whole day.
You're rocking and rolling.
It lasts about 10 hours.
It is terrific stuff.
Go give it a shot.
BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Dan, That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up your bottle of Dawn to Dusk.
Send me your reviews.
I give out my own email.
I send the reviews on to Miles.
He loves it.
You know, he sends some handwritten thank you.
He's the owner of the company to people, which I still find amazing.
I don't know where he finds the time.
That guy's got like the busiest schedule I've ever seen.
So give it a shot.
Dawn to Dusk.
It's a great product.
I'm always happy to endorse it.
Okay, this was a great one.
Our buddy up Chuck Schumer, the liberal democratic senator from New York.
Let me tell you this.
I may have told you this before, but here's my Chuck Schumer story from the Secret Service.
It's not like anything bad, but so we're out in the Hamptons with Mrs. Clinton, who was running for Senate at the time in New York, and I'm doing the motorcade, and she had, he had, she had, had a relatively short motorcade.
It wasn't like you see with the president with the, you know, 30-40 cars and everything.
I don't know what it was, 10 cars or so, but when you're the transportation agent, you have to do the motorcade.
You have to do the motorcade routes, line up the cars, and to be honest with you, lining up the cars is the worst part.
You would think designing the motorcade route and the security for it and all the tactical mitigations and medical emergencies and alternate routes and secondary routes, that would be the hard part.
The hardest part, Joe, is turning the darn cars around.
It's the worst.
I had a trip in Croatia where I spent I think 45 minutes trying to turn the cars around because we pulled into this tiny little parking lot, right?
It's the worst.
No, it is.
It's the worst thing ever.
So we go out to this house in the Hamptons and it's got one of these circular driveways but it's a short driveway and the way the street was designed it was like to make a u-turn you had to do an Austin Powers u-turn.
Remember the movie Austin Powers where he tries to do the u-turn and he's got it's like a 700 point turn?
That's how thin the street, you know what I'm talking about, Joe?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's like trying to turn my Raptor on the street where my daughter goes rowing.
You have to, it's like a, seriously, it's like a 552 point turn.
Try doing that with like 10 cars that were in the motorcade, right?
So I'm doing it, it's taking forever, and I noticed there's this, this guy comes up to me, he goes, hey, we got to get this congressman, he was a congressman at the time, we got to get him in the motorcade.
And I'm like, Listen, I've got ten cars.
I haven't even turned these cars around.
Why does this guy have to be in the motorcade?
Oh, he's got to get to the next site with the Clintons, so have him jump in the car with her and he can pick up his car later.
No, no.
He's got to get in the motorcade.
He's got to get in the motorcade.
They get in the car, they're turning the car around.
It's this crappy, like ninth, I love Ford, by the way, but this car was not a good one.
It was like a rusted through 1980 whatever Taurus or something.
It was like the biggest box you've ever seen in your life.
And here we're doing the turn.
And I got to deal with this Ford Taurus at the end.
The driver doesn't know what the hell they're doing.
I'm like, this is the worst thing.
That's my Chuck Schumer stories at Congress.
I'm like, I never forgot that ever.
I'm like, dude, Dude, just get out of the car and let us do it.
He had to be in the motorcade.
Just get in the Scooby-Doo van with him.
We'll come back for your car later.
I would have driven the car myself there rather than keep that dopey thing in the motorcade.
I probably told that story before.
I don't remember.
Yeah, you know, yeah, you would, because you've been here, obviously, for every—you've never missed an episode.
No.
Neither have I, obviously, but Joe is—I've never had a sub—although we have had to work on a backup plan in case, God forbid, Producer Joe dies of a heart attack or something.
Let's hope that doesn't happen.
That's me knocking on wood, right?
Right.
That's a horrible thing to say.
Sorry.
Yeah, it was.
Poor Joe.
He won't die.
We'll keep him alive.
I say a prayer for him.
So Schumer texted this thing out yesterday.
He says, bring this chart to Thanksgiving dinner.
It'll come in handy when that family member who always talks politics tells you that the Republican tax bill helps the middle class.
Number one, that is the dumbest idea ever.
Folks, I do not, I don't know about you, Joe, but I don't talk politics at Thanksgiving.
Seriously.
You want to talk politics with me at Thanksgiving?
Good luck.
I'm not going to answer you.
I'm not interested.
I love politics, but I'm not going to.
It is not appropriate.
It is a time where liberals, conservatives, we are all Americans.
We have disagreements.
We should all shake hands and thank God we live in the greatest country on earth.
I do not want to debate the tax bill on Thanksgiving.
Now, Chuck Schumer is a maniac, of course, a far leftist, of course, wants to debate the tax bill on Thanksgiving.
That's what maniacs do with crappy 1972 Ford Tauruses rusted through, try to slide in our motorcade in the Hamptons.
But here's the funny thing.
He puts this chart up, which I'm looking at now.
I'll put a link to the tweet in the show notes, just in case you want to look at it yourself.
He puts a chart up, and the chart shows after-tax income for the middle class and the poor going down, and after-tax income for the very wealthy going up.
And you may say, oh my god, really?
So this tax cut plan is going to cost poor people more money, and it's going to cost rich people Less money?
Gosh, that's not fair.
Well, as always, Joe, the why matters.
What's the catch?
Because there's always a catch when it comes to liberal liars, and that's what they do best.
In small letters, Joe, underneath the headline of the—and I'll put a link to the tweet if you think I'm making this up—in small letters, purposely designed for you to not see, it says—this is classic.
I need a macho man after this, by the way, when I'm done reading this, so cue that baby right up, all right?
Yeah, man.
Here's the subtitle, in very small type.
Average percentage change in after-tax income, 2027.
Cue my buddy Randy.
Ooh, yeah!
2027!
Now, what year are we in?
This is 2017.
2017, right?
So we're not in 2027, right?
Yeah!
[laughter]
2027!
Now!
What?
Joe, what year are we in?
This is 2017.
2017, right?
So we're not in 2027, right?
No, we got a while to go.
You have Jay Zabicus around?
I don't know.
Uh, yes I do.
Okay, go get him.
We haven't used Jay Zabikus in a while.
He hasn't commented for a while.
That always confuses our new listeners.
I love that though.
Okay, we have Mr. Zabikus right here.
Okay, so can you do me a favor?
How many years, if you subtract the year 2027 from 2017, how many years is it from now to 2027?
Hold on.
How many years is it from now to 2027?
Alright, hold on.
Uh, 10 years.
10! It's 10 years away!
It's right here.
Now it's sad for our liberal friends like up Chuck Schumer that we had to get Jay Zabikus out because Jay Zabikus is the only way to get through to liberals that that's 10 years away.
Now why is 10 years away significant?
Oh 10 years away is significant because that's when the tax cuts expire.
And why do the tax cuts expire?
Because the Democrats, folks I am not making this up, if you show this chart to your relatives at Thanksgiving, one you're an idiot for doing it at Thanksgiving, but secondly you're even dumber because it's a chart about 2027 when the tax cuts go away!
And why do the tax cuts go away?
Because Democrats want the Republicans to push the tax bill through reconciliation.
Meaning Democrats won't vote for permanent tax cuts.
They want the Republicans to push for a tax cut bill where they can only get 51 votes under reconciliation, which would force the tax cuts to sunset after 10 years.
Think about what I'm telling you here.
The Democrats, like Upchuck, have the power to make these tax cuts permanent by saying to the Republicans, we're on board, you don't have to go through reconciliation.
Okay?
The Democrats are not saying that.
They're saying go through reconciliation, which means that they have to expire after 10 years so that the Republicans can pass it with less votes.
That make sense, Joe?
Yeah.
The reconciliation process only requires 51 votes, meaning the Republicans can pass it without any Democrats.
Right.
But the catch is, the caveat here, is that they expire after 10 years.
Now why would you, would the Republicans want them to expire?
They don't!
That's the point!
They're only going to reconciliation because no Democrats are on board with the tax plan or else they'd be permanent.
So Chuck Schumer, this is classic Democrat.
This is like epic fail Democrat every time.
Tweets out a chart saying in 10 years The rich people are going to benefit and poor people are going to get screwed after the tax cuts expire that, by the way, the democrat party is forcing the republicans to make them expire after 10 years.
That's awesome.
You guys are great.
You guys are just awesome.
Folks, again, why I wake up every morning like what democrat liberal stupidity am I going to have to debunk today on this show?
I'm going to put the link to this, I'm going to copy this because this is just, this is priceless.
So I tweeted to Chuck, yes Chuck, let's all destroy a family holiday by showing them a chart which shows what happens after the tax cuts expire, which you don't want to make permanent.
You can't possibly be this ignorant.
He can, because he is.
This is exactly what they do, they lie to you all the time.
It's just disgusting.
Alright.
We got a really, by the way, at Friday, we have a really, really cool sponsor joining the show.
I know it's weird to tease a sponsor.
No, but I'm serious.
We had a conference call with them the other day.
We're adding new sponsors left and right.
But the one on Friday, on Black Friday, I strategically placed this one because it is one of the coolest sponsors I think we're ever going to get.
Tune in to Friday's show, seriously, just to hear the commercial.
It's that good.
They sent a sample, by the way, and I'll explain to you the drama behind the sample.
It's priceless.
So tune in Friday for one of our new sponsors.
I wanted to put that out there.
Okay, last story of the day.
There's a really terrific, awesome piece in National Review by DeRoy Murdoch, who really writes great stuff.
I really enjoy his content.
And DeRoy Murdoch has a terrific idea, Joe.
By the way, something...
We've proposed often on the show.
I'm not trying to take credit for his idea, but it's just I think it's great.
I want to give him a big pat on the back.
But it's something we've been thinking about for a while.
He's like, hey, listen, you know, on the tax bill, by the way, he says, you know, Democrats and liberals have a big problem with this tax cut plan.
And he discusses in the beginning this group out there.
There are 400 uber wealthy people, including George Soros, ultra liberal George Soros, Joe, who authored this letter and sent it off to political leaders that said, don't cut our taxes.
Matter of fact, not only don't cut our taxes, we want to pay more.
Okay.
Good deal.
Sounds good to me.
Go right ahead.
So DeRoy Murdoch says, I've got an idea.
Let's introduce the hot tax.
Which is kind of like ATM machine.
You're saying things twice.
ATM is automatic teller machine.
But the hot tax, which would be the high rate optional tax, just like ATM machine, The hot tax is a brilliant idea, high rate optional.
And this, DeRoy Murdoch's proposal is to allow rich people to check a box on their filing, Joe, and on that filing, they get to declare whatever rate they want.
You 400 uber wealthy folks who want to pay higher taxes, you are good to go!
Now, you can do that now, of course, but they don't.
But let's make it formal.
Joe, let's, this is a, this is where DeRoy, Takes it to a new level of genius then.
Unfortunately, Joe, you and I didn't think of first.
All right.
We always suggested they should voluntarily pay more, right?
Yeah.
Here's Murdoch's proposal, which is genius.
He said, no, no, let's actually, because they can do that now.
Let's actually change the law and make that part of the law, the hot tax, the high rate optional tax.
Let's stick it in the law as an addendum to the bill now.
And let's hear the liberals then come out against it.
Right, Joe?
Stick it into law!
That way, any time a liberal comes back and goes, well, they're going to cut taxes for the rich, which it's not, by the way.
Actually, I told you, blue state millionaires and billionaires are the people who lose in this tax bill.
But again, don't let facts get in the way of your dopey arguments.
We can just come back and go, no, no, no, the bill has a high rate optional tax.
So all you libs are free to pay whatever you want.
It's right there.
Joe, let me just pretend to be the liberal on TV when they're confronted with that.
They're going to go... Are you choking on a wishbone or turkey leg?
They're not going to know what to say.
No, no, no.
We don't really mean optional taxes.
We're not actually going to pay more.
We just want everybody else to pay more.
Oh, okay.
So you don't like the optional tax.
You want to force other people to pay more who can actually do better things with their money than give them to the government is going to crap it down the toilet bowl.
That makes a lot of sense.
Genius move by Murdoch.
Whoever's listening out there.
And I know there's some of you in the Senate or up on the Hill or in the White House.
Stick that in the bill.
Stick it in there!
Stick it in there!
Make the Democrats argue against it.
And every time you go on TV, just say, no, no, no, we're all good, folks.
All the rich people that want to pay more, it said they want to pay more.
And all the liberals out there, you don't have to be rich if you're a liberal.
You think high taxes are a benevolent philanthropic force in society?
You're welcome to pay more.
Matter of fact, even give them the line.
Make it like whatever.
Line 23C.625.
There you go.
It's right there.
You can just check it off.
What do you want to pay?
50? 100?
You want to pay a hundred plus more next year?
You want to get extra credit taxes next year?
Go right ahead.
Pay 5,000% of your income.
Take a loan to pay taxes.
You're welcome to do it.
Folks, they will flip their lids.
They will not know what to do because they don't want to pay higher taxes.
They just want you to pay higher taxes.
Now, this is where the Murdoch's piece, again, which will be at the show notes, takes a stroke of genius again to the next level.
I always talked about the federal experiment with this, where it's voluntary now, Joe, and I think a banner year for them was $12 million.
$12 million in additional voluntary taxes.
So let's be clear on this.
So the country has 330 million people.
You figure, let's go on the low end, just to be generous to liberals in the math here.
Let's say there's 20 million liberals.
There's probably a lot more than that.
Let's say there's 20 million.
If every liberal in the country even donated a dollar, Extra.
$1 extra.
They would make $8 million more than the highest voluntary tax load they received voluntarily from the country in any year.
Again, going to show you that people are entirely, completely full of baloney.
You're full of it, libs.
You don't want to pay higher taxes.
You avoid taxes at all costs.
You just want everybody else to pay it, so cut the crap.
But here's where Murdoch makes a leap I didn't make either.
He's like, hey, this has been tried at the state level, which I was entirely unaware of, and I'm pissed when I don't know stuff.
Apparently, Joe Massachusetts did this.
I read this.
I was like, damn, how did I not have this material?
So I'm going to talk about this from Levin on Friday, too.
Here's a quote from the piece.
Massachusetts hints at how little those who clamor for higher taxes actually pay when so empowered.
The Bay State, Joe, cut its 5.85% tax rate in 2000 down to 5.1% today.
Okay.
Back then, Citizens for Limited Taxation proposed that the 5.85% rate remain available to anyone who rejected the lower tax.
Since 2002, Joe, an average annual 1,200 of the state's roughly 3.5 million tax filers have embraced the higher rate.
Now, here are the numbers on this.
Massachusetts full of liberals, right?
You would think, okay, so here's the essence of this, Joe, so far is they cut the rate from 5.85 to 5.1, but they left the other rate available to all those liberals in Massachusetts who hated the idea of a tax cut.
You would think this thing raked in a fortune, right Joe?
Massachusetts is full of libs.
Higher taxes, they're great for society, of course.
You'd be wrong.
Here are the numbers.
This is hysterical.
The quarter million dollars they collectively generated is like a pint of Sam Adams lager in the Boston Harbor that is Massachusetts' 40.3 billion dollar state budget.
So out of a $40 billion plus budget, all of these benevolent liberals only asked Joe.
To pay the difference between 585 and 5.1.
We're not talking about a 585% rate and a 2% rate.
We're just talking about a little hike.
Only 1,200 people did it, and it raised a quarter million bucks out of a $40 billion budget.
You guys and ladies are frauds.
Hey, I applaud the 1,200 who did it.
Good for you.
I disagree with you.
I think you're wasting your money, but at least you're principled.
To the others who fought for this thing and didn't pay the higher tax rate, frauds.
Frauds.
Frauds.
You're frauds!
Frauds.
Sorry.
So big hat tip to DeRoy Murdoch.
I love the idea of the hot tax.
Tax.
Just like I love the idea of the ATM machine machine.
It's a great idea.
For anyone listening on the Hill, stick it in there right away.
All right, I want to again give a shout out to our buddy Ron P. He sent in a special Thanksgiving message which Joe and I would just like to quickly relay to our audience.
Joe, play that message.
It ain't cool being no jive turkey so close to Thanksgiving.
Yeah!
Joe, do you have anything to add to that Thanksgiving message?
Oh, no!
I love you guys and ladies.
Alright, I'll see you all tomorrow for Thanksgiving.
