This Show Will Cure You of Your Liberalism (Ep 1475)
If liberals are correct, and government spending and high taxes make us all better off, then why not spend and tax even more? In this episode, I address these questions and the anti-intellectual nature of liberalism.
News Picks:
Here’s the tab for every American for the disastrous coronavirus “stimulus” bill.
Our massive federal debt is spiraling out of control.
The House passes the outrageous 1.9 trillion dollar pork bill.
Economic freedom is evaporating in the United States.
Is a major tax hike coming your way?
The border crisis is out of control.
A solid explanation of the “seen versus unseen” phenomenon in economics.
This The NY Times article is a disturbing portrait of the cannibalistic nature of cancel culture.
Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved.
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.
Getting to the show today, you ever see that movie War Games?
You younger fellows and ladies out there, fellows, people use that word to listen to the show, you're probably like, war games?
What the hell's that?
It was a movie in the 1980s with Matthew Broderick.
And this guy sets off a global thermonuclear war thinking he's playing a game.
And in the worst computer voice from the 1980s, the computer asks him, remember that?
Shall we play a game?
Does that sound kind of like the computer?
I think so.
Hopefully somewhat like, you can check out that clip.
Yeah, thank you, Joe.
That's my best computer accent.
So, shall we play a game today?
Oh, no.
It's not going to be hokey.
We're not going to play.
It's not going to be like UNO or poker.
I want to play a logic game today.
Given the passage of the devastating porkulous bill and the immigration policy collapsing, taxation policy collapsing, I want to play a logic game and ask the Democrats a few simple questions.
If your policies are right, then why not This.
We'll get to this in a minute.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
I protect my data with a VPN from ExpressVPN.
Go today.
So should you.
Get a VPN, expressvpn.com slash bungeeno.
Welcome to the Dan Bungeeno Show.
Let's get to that.
I also want to get to a video of Michael Moore embarrassing himself, engaging in magical thinking, but that's what Michael Moore does best.
Along with other things, he's very skilled at too, but I'll leave that out of that because I want to keep the show somewhat on the level, let's say.
As I said, today's show brought to you by our friends at ExpressVPN.
I've been talking about them for months.
Why?
Because some of you haven't gotten a VPN yet, and that's a big mistake.
Maybe you thought, hey, it's America.
We have free speech and privacy laws.
Sorry you thought that.
And so you hesitated on a VPN.
Maybe you believed that Congress wouldn't allow big tech to censor and spy on you.
That's a fail too.
And so maybe you didn't act.
I'm here to tell you this.
With Democrats in charge of the government and your liberty under attack from all sides, there's never been a more important time to protect your digital rights.
Do it today.
That's why me and thousands of my listeners choose to secure our online data by using ExpressVPN.
You think a VPN isn't for you?
You can use the internet just fine without one.
No, no, no, no, no.
That's no longer true.
With the recent actions taken by big tech to control our digital lives, that is definitely no longer true.
Are you confused about how it works?
Don't be.
ExpressVPN is an app for computers and smartphones that encrypts your network data and reroutes it to a secure server.
That means you can use the internet more anonymously without having your activity tracked.
You think VPNs are complex and only for tech experts?
Wrong.
With ExpressVPN, you launch the app and tap one button to protect yourself.
It is genuinely that simple.
I trust ExpressVPN to protect my online data because they're rated number one and they stand for my values.
Now's the time for you to take a stand.
Take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Bongino to get three extra months free.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Bongino today.
All right, Joe, let's go.
I will have an announcement at the end of the show, too, today.
Don't let me forget that, all right, Guy?
I have a little big asterisk here, but I don't want to forget my announcement.
So let's get back to our war game.
Shall we play a game, Bart?
Using simple logic, right?
We're going to play an if-then game.
If the Democrats are right, then why not this?
You know if-then equations, right?
Some of you took a logic course in college.
Was it Modus Tonens and Modus Polens and stuff like that?
Remember that?
If-then logic, right?
So let's start with number one for the Democrats.
If you're a liberal and you're intelligent, you will no longer be a liberal after this show today.
If you're a liberal and you're not intelligent, don't worry, you will still be safely ensconced in your liberal ideological prison after the show today.
No worries at all!
Let's try number one here.
Joe, if government spending, and government spending your money, because that's where government gets its money, makes us wealthier and more prosperous, Then why not spend more?
Right.
Now, you may say, well, Dan, that is a standard logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.
You're reducing the argument to the absurd to make a point.
I'm not doing that.
I'm asking a sincere question.
Given the passage of the Porkulus Bill, also called the Stimulus Bill, Spending ridiculous amounts of money we admittedly don't have.
The government doesn't have it.
They're just printing it.
If that's okay and it's going to make us wealthier and more prosperous, that's the goal, right?
I'm trying to get myself in the liberal melon, in the liberal head.
Ow, that hurt a little bit.
I hit myself with my own gavel.
I'm trying to get myself in the liberal head.
It is a head-scratcher, right, Joe?
Because it's very difficult to get yourself in the liberal head.
But if you actually believe that's your pitch, right?
Spending all this money is going to make us better off.
Am I wrong?
Liberals, if you're listening, stop here.
Pause the show.
Am I wrong?
Or was your pitch, no, no, let's spend all this money in the stimulus because it's going to make us worse off?
That's not your pitch, right?
Okay, good.
So you think it's going to make us better off.
So my question is sincere.
It's not reductio ad absurdum.
It's if spending this amount of money is a good thing, why didn't we spend more?
Is there a limit?
Is there a limit to government spending?
And if there is a limit, don't you think you should tell us what that is?
Folks, again, I know this is a simple logic exercise, so liberals are having trouble, but to the conservatives listening, you're getting it, you're picking it up, you're like, yes, makes sense.
If there's a limit, what is that limit?
And what's on the other side of that limit?
Because if on the other side of that limit is national bankruptcy, where we all go under and the country collapses, I think we should know that number.
Joe, just throwing that out there.
It'd be a very good idea.
Is that not fair?
Joe, fair?
Oh, yeah.
If government spending's a good thing up to a limit, you haven't told us this limit, and on the other side of that is, yes, after this limit, we will surely collapse from bankruptcy, you should probably put out there what that number is.
Do you get what I'm saying?
Thank you.
Thumbs up from you.
Joe, make sense as the official audience on Buzzfeed?
Absolutely.
You gonna ever tell us that?
If government spending's good, how much of it, what's the limit, and what happens on the other side of it?
It's just logic.
It's a logic.
I know liberals who listen to my show and media folks who listen.
You're like, what an idiot!
How is that not a fair question?
So, let's get to the stories.
Why?
Why are we bringing this up now?
Because, as you can see from the Washington Examiner, the great Paul Bedard, the COVID Porkulus price tag.
He writes stimulus.
I'm not calling it a stimulus.
It's the Porkulus.
COVID Porkulus price tag.
This bill is going to cost you, that Biden's going to sign, I believe, tonight.
It's gonna cost you folks $17,000 per person and $69,000 per family.
That's how much the $1.9 trillion porculus bill, spending money we don't have is going to cost you
because where does the, again, logic man, logic.
We're just using logic.
Where does the government get its money?
It's not from the sale of iPhones or Android phones or from the sale of recycled plastic bracelets from the ocean.
The government gets its money by taking it from you.
So if the government is giving you money, it had to take it from you.
So how much is it taking from you to pay for the $1.9 trillion porculus?
$17,000 per person and $69,000 per family.
Wow, that sounds like a lot of money.
Where is the money going?
This is the kicker, and please read this story in my newsletter.
Subscribe, follow.
So you got to say follow now.
Follow because it's free.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
You can follow the newsletter and get it every day.
Here's where the Porkulus money, the 17,000 per person they're taking from you, right?
It had to come from you.
It's not, there's no money fairy.
Less than 9% goes to combating COVID.
I thought it was the COVID Porkulus!
It's the 9%, Joe, 9% COVID porkiness.
It's the 91% non-COVID porkiness.
27% goes to basically bail out state and local governments.
Gosh, that sounds fair.
You just moved to Florida, now you're paying for your buddies in San Francisco to pay for weed and booze for homeless folks in hotels in San Francisco.
Oh yeah, we covered that story yesterday.
Another 21% goes to policies that reduce private sector employment.
Wow, that sounds great.
What a gem that is.
$135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
That sounds really important in a COVID crisis.
I don't know what we'd do without the National Endowment for the Arts.
Another $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
The humanities people were really pissed.
They were like, you gave the arts people a buck 35 mil.
You better throw a buck 35 mil our way too.
And they were like, hey, it's not our money.
We don't give a...
Another $200 million, Joe, for the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Without that, this COVID crisis will go on forever, of course.
And $12 billion for foreign aid.
I'm sure that's going to do a lot to solve the COVID crisis here.
$12 billion for the foreign government.
So that's really terrific.
So I'm going to ask you the question again in segment number one here.
If government spending is so delicious and makes us wealthier and more prosperous, then why not just spend more?
And I'm going to ask you this follow-up question.
What other service or product in your life would you spend $17,000 on per person
or your family $69,000 on and get so little in return?
Again, liberals, by the way, if I'm a little hyped up today,
I'm sorry, I have some inflammation in my lungs, so I had to take two shots of albuterol in my lungs
and it really like geeks me up I'm not even kidding.
It's like mainlining some drug or something.
That's why, because I know Giza, gosh, you sound a little hyper today.
A little bit, but the subject matter's good too.
Thank you.
Joe's even wondering, he's like, what's wrong with this guy?
What'd you drop, a nitric oxide tablet or something?
That too, earlier in the morning.
What other product or service have you spent your family $69,000 on to get so little in return?
And why haven't you asked the question?
Like, yeah, that doesn't, that doesn't sound right.
So you spent $69,000 because the government, again, folks, logic.
The government only gets money from its citizens.
It doesn't produce anything of value.
It takes from you.
So it took from your family $69,000 and it gave to you back $135,000 for the National Arts and Humanities.
Got another $1.35.
$200 million for the Dewey Decimal System Library Services Agency or whatever that was.
$12 billion of foreign governments.
If another company came to you, Joey Bagadonas Inc.
and said, Bongino Family?
I want $69,000 from you.
Okay, what do you want?
Is there some great investment?
New tech company?
What do you got?
What are you offering?
A brand new car?
Be a nice car.
$69,000.
You'd probably get yourself a year, two-year-old Corvette, right?
Maybe a three, four-year-old Escalade.
That's a nice thing.
What do I get for it?
No, no, no, Bungie.
We're going to cut you a check for $1,400 back Um, okay.
And we're going to send the rest of your money to the Dewey Decimal System and to Kazakhstan.
You'd be like, again, Joe, audience ombudsman for an emotional reality check.
If you were part of the, you're part of the Armacost family, you're part Scottish or English, right?
So you're, I think they're called clans over there.
So you're part of, I'm part of the Bongino family, La Familia, because I'm, I'm, I'm Italian.
Well, half actually, but half enough.
Right?
My wife's actually Colombian.
So, uh, you know, my kids are all over the place.
We've traveled the world there.
So I'm just checking, like, if you were part of the Bongino clan for a minute, and they came to you for that, or La Familia, and said, yeah, we're going to do that.
We're going to take your $69,000, cut you a check for $1,400, and we're going to send the rest to Kazakhstan, and the Dewey Decimal System.
How would you feel about that?
Well, hold on there, Count Porcula.
Back it up a little bit.
You would say, that doesn't sound good.
No.
Right?
No, no, no.
I'm just, I'm just checking.
I'm just, The Kenny Bell!
I didn't acknowledge the Rush Limbaugh bell at the beginning of the show, but we should do that every day forever because we owe it to Great Rush.
But again, we're doing a simple logic exercise.
If you're a liberal at the end of this segment and you're smart, you should be asking questions like, OK, I know you hate my guts because I'm Dan Bongino and I'm a conservative.
I get that.
I understand.
I roll with the punches.
I have a thin skin, not a thick skin.
It still bothers me.
But whatevs.
But you should be saying, even though you hate me, like, gosh, he kind of makes sense.
If we're spending money we don't have, taking the money from people who are citizens, and you just said, well, Dan, you just said we don't have it.
Yeah, we're taking it from your future income.
That's where deficit spending comes from.
Not your income today, because you don't have it.
They're taking it from your future income.
So two points.
You haven't given us a limit on what government spending, where the red line is, because you don't know it, which would mean you should be a little more careful.
And secondly, is there a product or service out there you would spend that kind of money on and get what you've been offered by the government?
The answer is not only a no, it's a resounding hell no, I wouldn't.
Sticking with this theme here.
If government spending's good, why not spend more?
And how much more should we spend?
And what happens when we spend too much?
Questions sane people would ask, like us, not the liberals.
Listen, you haven't asked any of this stuff.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, my gosh, we don't have a spending problem, Dan.
It's a taxing problem.
We spend a lot, but our debts and deficits are largely caused by not taxing those evil rich people enough.
That's really weird, because there's a great article in CNS News, a really terrific outlet today.
It'll be in my newsletter.
Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter to access the article.
Or you can just look it up direct.
Here's the headline by Terrence Jeffrey, who does great work on this subject.
Trifecta.
Federal taxes, spending, and deficits all set records through February.
So for the liberals listening, thinking, we definitely, definitely have a taxing problem, not a spending problem.
We can spend more because we just set a record, literally a record, and you know I hate that word, literally a record for federal tax revenue, and we also set a record at the same time For a deficit in the same period, which if you're a, again, shall we play a game?
Logic, logic game, logic, if then equations, right?
If taxing is a problem, then how come we just set a record for tax revenue and set a record for our deficit too?
Because we're spending too much.
Then, logic equations.
I know it's hard for you liberals, but just think it through for a minute.
Go register in an online Khan Academy class.
Logic 101, modus tollens, modus ponens, whatever it is.
From the CNS piece.
Quote, federal taxes, federal spending, and the federal deficit all set records in the first five months of fiscal year 2021, which is October through February.
It doesn't marry up with the calendar year, according to the monthly Treasury statement released today.
In other words, this is government data, Libs, in case you think we're making it up.
It's the Treasury, under the Biden administration, that released these numbers.
I didn't make them up.
Federal taxes hit a record $1.4 trillion For the October through February period.
Yet federal spending hit a record, too, of $2.4 trillion, which resulted in a record deficit of obviously $1,046,654,000,000.
Again, simple logic, folks.
$46,654,000,000.
Again, simple logic, folks. Logic games.
If taxing is the problem and we should be taxing people more,
how come we just hit people with a record number of taxes as we raise the most amount
of money we've ever raised and we're now running the biggest deficit ever?
The answer is, if you're logical and smart, some of you are, in the liberal ecosystem, some of you aren't, it's because we're spending too much money.
McFly, you know.
All right, I got one more story from that which I'll get to in a minute.
Let me get to my second sponsor today, because this is important.
Again, logic you think would, you know, reason, logic, science.
That's what the Democrats and liberals believed in science.
Not so much sometimes.
All right, my second sponsor is one of my favorites.
You probably thought I took this one this morning, but I actually reserved this for workout days.
It's my favorite.
Liquid IVs Energy Multiplier.
Listen, I get brain fog.
I don't know about you, but I just do.
If you have brain fog, you know what it is.
Half of Americans report that they struggle with daily fatigue.
A lot of us aren't sleeping great.
We got a lot going on, stressed out.
The signs are obvious.
Decreased focus, lack of motivation, your mood stinks, and you're just generally unhappy.
That's why I go with Liquid IV's Energy Multiplier.
Love this stuff.
You can upgrade your vibe and reach your constant state of awesomeness with this.
Here's a packet.
You just rip off the top, put it in water, tastes delicious.
There you go.
Energy for the day!
Liquid IV cellular transport technology delivers an optimal ratio of nutrients for more efficient uptake.
Enhanced rapid absorption into the bloodstream gives you a lasting energy boost fast.
Powers you through the mornings, long days at work, gives you a boost for those tough workouts.
That's what I love it for before my workout.
It's clean ingredients, non-GMO, vegan.
They're free of gluten, dairy, and soy.
The packaging's super convenient.
You see it right here.
And Liquid IV's on a mission to positively change the world.
They donated over 10 million servings globally.
In response to COVID-19, 4 million products are donated to hospitals, first responders, food banks, veterans, and active U.S.
military.
Grab your Energy Liquid IV in bulk nationwide at Costco or, or you can get 25% off I recommend you do this today.
This is good stuff.
When you go to liquidiv.com and use code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O at checkout.
That's 25% off anything you order when you use promo code Bongino at liquidiv.com.
Start fueling your adventures today at liquidiv.com, promo code Bongino.
Check this stuff out.
You're gonna really dig it.
Send me your emails about it.
I always get positive feedback.
All right.
So block number one of the show, you always got to tell people what you're going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.
That's the rule of trying to instruct.
Segment number one here, government spending is good, then and makes us wealthier, then why not spend more?
If we spend more, how much more?
What's the limit?
And don't you think you should tell us that?
Well, we are spending more.
We're spending historic amounts of money.
We are now going to have the largest federal deficit this fiscal year than we've had in human history.
We're spending money we don't have.
And here's what's happening!
Another story in the newsletter today by Paul Bedard.
Budget busting spending gives the United States their worst ever economic freedom score.
Yes!
Nice job, Libs!
Well done.
I had to reverse my hands there because my elbows don't exactly work that great anymore.
Really great work here.
We used to be at the top of the charts, not number one, but at least in the top few countries for economic freedom.
Joe, we're now, as Paul Bedard notes in the piece, we're now behind even three former Soviet satellites.
Estonia, Georgia, and Lithuania.
You want to be economically free, you have to now flee the United States for Estonia, Georgia, and Lithuania.
Great countries, by the way.
Very nice.
I have friends who've been there.
We are dropping like a rock.
Why?
Because we're spending money we don't have.
Meaning what?
If governments get money from their citizens because they're not free market companies, right?
And they're getting money from you that you don't have.
If you don't have it, they don't have it.
So how are they spending it?
They're printing it, which means they're going to take it from you in the future to pay back all the money they printed.
therefore your economic freedom.
You have to go to Estonia, Georgia, and Lithuania to get your economic freedom back.
Okay, it's not our only War Games part here.
That was part one.
If government spending's great, how much?
Why not more?
If illegal immigration's such a wonderful thing and 100,000 illegal crossings a month isn't a crisis, the White House refuses to say it's a crisis, Then I'll ask a simple question.
I, Libs, again, I know this is really hard.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not trying to be a tool here.
I'm trying to just lay it down straight.
I'm asking you logical questions.
If a hundred thousand illegal border crossings a month into the United States is not a crisis, the White House's words, not mine.
I know it's a crisis.
The White House says it's not.
Joe, is this not a fair question?
If a hundred thousand isn't a problem or crisis, then why have a border at all?
I don't, I don't understand what's the point of the border.
Right.
Dan, come on.
Again, reductio ad absurdum.
You're reducing the argument to the absurd.
I'm asking you a simple question.
It's not absurd.
Guy, is this not a fair question?
If 100,000 people walking across the border illegally, in other words, Joe, right?
Ignoring the border.
That's right.
Then what's the purpose of the border?
Joe's confused because he's like, "I don't get the question."
Because obviously Joe's like, I don't know.
What is the purpose of the border then?
Neither do I!
What's the point?
It's not reducing the argument to the absurd.
It's again, using logic and reason to say, okay, if a hundred thousand people entering the country illegally is not a crisis, ignoring our border, then what number is?
Is there a number?
Is it not a fair question?
When does it become a crisis?
250,000 a month?
A million a month?
Two million?
Do you have a number?
Do you think if you're...
The chief executive of the United States, the president of the United States, in a leadership position, that your administration's responsible for giving people a number?
Like, yeah, 100,000 people entering the country illegally is no biggie.
It's not a crisis.
But maybe 250 is.
How did you come up with that number?
Why is 100,000 not a problem?
Why is 250 a problem?
Why isn't a million a problem?
The answer is, folks, because none of this is logical.
And they don't believe in any of this.
They're just making it up.
They don't actually believe government spending creates prosperity, because then they would just spend more.
They don't believe that.
They don't believe illegal border crossings are a good thing, or else they'd just wipe the border out.
Just say, hey, forget this immigration thing.
The whole process is a joke.
We think illegal crossings are great.
$100,000 was no problem, so let's just let everybody in.
Oh, that sounds silly.
How is that silly?
It's simple logic.
If spending $2 trillion of money we don't have is a great thing, then why not spend $4 trillion?
It's a double great thing.
If 100,000 illegal immigrants in the country is no problem, or to be precise, not a crisis, then why not let in 200,000?
That's not a crisis either.
That's a double not a crisis.
Here's Peter Doocy, one of the few honest reporters left out there in the White House briefing room.
I'm sure they force him to wear the scarlet letter every day in the briefing room, the other liberal lunatics in the briefing room.
He's from Fox, Steve Doocy's son, good guy.
And here's Peter Doocy challenging White House circle back.
I ain't no circle back press spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, who Ducey's asking another simple question.
If kids in cages, air quotes, was a crisis during the Trump administration, then how come the kids you're putting in cages now is not a crisis to the Biden administration?
Again, ladies and gentlemen, I know this is block two, the immigration part, but it's another if-then equation.
If kids in cages equals crisis during Trump, Ducey's saying then, logic here, if then equations, then why do kids in cages during the Biden administration, why does that not equal crisis now?
Fair question, right?
Saki had a, clearly in her head, she's circling around and circling back because she can't figure that out.
She thinks it's quite funny, actually.
Check this out.
I think that's a little bit of mixing different circumstances.
I would say that... It's children, all in tight quarters.
I mean, a classroom, but... Not quite.
It's not funny.
Not quite.
I would say that let's take a responsible approach to the two issues.
I just did.
A responsible approach is to use reason and logic.
Is that not the...
Pinnacle?
The peak of responsibility?
To not use emotion to solve problems and use logic and reason?
It's a simple question!
It's a simple question by Ducey.
If packing these kids into tight quarters in the Trump administration was a crisis of the millennia, and you're doing the same thing now, how is it not a crisis now?
The answer is because Joe Biden's the president and the media doesn't care anymore because they don't want to make anything Biden does a crisis, even though the exact same thing was a crisis under Trump.
Bingo is right.
Bingo to Joe's bingo.
Double bingo.
All right, so that was block two.
If 100,000 illegal crossings are not a crisis, then why not 500,000?
Be five times Z not a crisis.
Of course, they can't answer that question because we're using logic and reason.
They're not.
Again, I can't hammer these points home enough.
Simple, logical questions liberals will never be able to answer you.
Government spending is good and illegal immigration is good, then why don't we do more good and just spend limitless amounts of money and open the border?
Why not?
What's the numbers?
Oh, we don't know any of that.
Of course you don't.
You're just making it up.
Let's move on to another gem.
The whole minimum wage argument.
Again, folks, Simple logic here.
If-then equations.
Commodore 64s used them.
Now I'm really aging myself, right?
Everybody's like, the young men and women are like, what the hell's that?
Put it in your search engine.
Check it out.
Those were high tech back in the day.
So they used to whole operate on if-then equations, right?
Basic programming.
Here's our next one.
After immigration and government spending.
If a $15 hour minimum wage is going to create more wealth and prosperity and make us all better off, then why not $25 an hour?
No, no, Dan.
Reductio ad absurdum, yet again.
Is it?
Is it?
How is it absurd?
If randomly, randomly meaning non-specifically, randomly for everyone, if randomly throwing out there this number $15 an hour, despite not knowing any of the circumstances behind the companies that pay less than $15 an hour.
If that's a good thing, then why not just make it $30?
Why not double it and make it a doubly good thing?
Why not, why not $60?
Why not $100?
Oh, that's ridiculous.
How is it ridiculous?
What's the number?
Have you put any research whatsoever into that specific number?
And if that number is good, why not $16 an hour?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, because this is all magical thinking.
We'll get to that, hopefully, later with the coronavirus, too.
If not, maybe tomorrow.
Who knows?
Maybe never, the way I go with content.
It's magical thinking.
It's not logic.
It's not reason.
They just invented this $15 an hour, I think, because it sounds nice in a slogan.
Fight for 15.
There's three Fs.
I think they just made that up.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not joking.
I really believe union leaders needed a slogan because it's a long story, but their wages go up if they're indexed to minimum wage, so they want the minimum wage to go up.
Union leaders, I think, thought of something that sounded slogany, and they're like, I don't know, 15.
Fight for 18 doesn't sound as good.
Fight for 12 sounds terrible.
Fight for 15.
Three Fs!
Three Fs.
Fight for 15.
There's no... This is magic.
There's no science here.
It's all magic.
You don't believe me?
Watch this cut by magical thinking Michael Moore.
On MSNBC, and I want you to pay attention to two things here.
He says, why am I underlining?
I'm underlining my own stuff as if I don't know I wrote it.
For what?
Like, I'm not showing it to you.
Are you seeing me doing it if you're watching on Rumble?
I'm like, I'm underlining.
I want you to pay attention to two points in this video audio.
First, he talks about it being free money.
Money's free.
There's a money store, Joe.
It's free.
Everything's free.
Free money.
And second, he talks about the magical minimum wage increase as being, this is just unbelievable.
Why would anybody fight against this?
They just doubled your salary.
I want you to listen to those two things.
And on the other side, I'm going to explain to you.
The seen versus the unseen.
Some of you economics majors already see where I'm going to go with this.
But if you don't, stay tuned.
Play this video.
Here's Michael Moore about the free money and magically doubling people's salaries.
Check this out.
Explain to me how Republicans are gaining support among the working class even though they're not getting behind a bill like this one that is largely very beneficial to the working class.
I know it's crazy, isn't it?
It's so... You would think they would just latch themselves onto this.
Free checks.
Children being raised out of poverty.
Making sure that... God, just to tell anybody that if they're working for $7.25 an hour, and then tell them the next day, hey, we just doubled your pay.
It's now $15 an hour.
Wow, that's really going to turn the voters off.
I mean, this is just so insane on their part that they're doing this.
But here we are.
And when I say it's been a good year, obviously it's been a very bad year on so many levels.
But I'm just so happy to be in this moment here.
You know, folks, I know I make these shows personal.
I'm not going to pretend I don't, that I'm higher on the moral totem pole than you.
I don't get into the personal.
I do.
I just can't help it sometimes.
This guy's just a dunce.
I mean, ignorance is absolutely bliss.
And let me tell you something, this guy is as ignorant as it gets.
It's free money, and they're magically going to double your salary.
Doesn't ever ask the if-then questions.
Well, if it's free, where did it come from?
And if money's free, why not just give people more of it?
And then secondly, if we're magically doubling everybody's salary, why not double everyone's salary?
No, no, I'm serious.
Why not do a national law saying whatever you make now, you make $50k, $75k, $100k, you'll now make $100k, $150k, and $200k, respectively.
We're gonna double everybody.
Why not?
It's free!
If it worked for minimum wage, why not do it for everyone's wage?
Because he's not a smart guy.
He's a dunce.
And he doesn't understand what Bastiat talked about A very long time ago, when people were smarter than Michael Moore, the seen versus the unseen.
I'll get to the seen versus the unseen in a minute.
I have a great article you must read because you will be smarter than people like Michael Moore who say stupid things like, it's free money!
Let me get to my third sponsor, my friends at Teeter.
You know I love their inversion tables for my back and shoulders, but now Teeter is bringing it.
What are they bringing?
A full body, zero impact exercise machine with one simple machine called the FreeStep Recumbent Cross Trainer.
This is my new go-to.
They said, can we send you one?
I'm like, yeah, give it a try.
I gotta tell you, I have a high standard for exercise machines, no joke.
I can't run on the treadmill anymore because of my knees, but I need a workout, like a serious workout.
I don't mess around.
I like to do my Tabata sprints on everything.
So I checked it out.
Fitness has always been my go-to.
Keeps me sharp.
I love it.
I'm always talking about it.
My wife and I love the Freestep.
It's super easy to use, zero impact for me.
That means I can walk away without my knees, my hips and my back screaming in pain.
I can't do that anymore.
The Teeter FreeStep is totally unique to anything else out there because it's truly low-impact.
But it's not low-intensity.
You will get a just absolutely awesome workout from this.
With technology licensed from commercial PT equipment, you'll experience a smooth, linear stride.
It protects your knees, hips, back better than any other cardio machine.
I'm working all my muscles without wearing my body down.
You can dial the resistance down to warm up your joints or crank it up like I do for an amazing calorie workout.
I've been doing two separate workouts on it.
Tabata's and I've been doing the on the minute.
10 seconds of crushing it, 50 seconds down.
The free step is proven to burn 17% more calories than a recumbent bite.
Plus you get access to trainer-led workout videos on the free Teeter Move app for personal training and motivation from the comfort of your own home.
So what are you waiting for?
Get moving and feel great in 2021.
Guy's gonna throw up a picture of my machine in my garage with the FreeStep Recumbent Cross Trainer.
Teeter has an exclusive offer for you.
Get the Teeter FreeStep Recumbent Cross Trainer for $100 off when you go to teeter.com slash Dan.
FreeStep has over a thousand reviews with a 4.6 star rating.
With this exclusive deal, you get $100 off at teeter.com slash Dan.
Also free shipping and a 60-day money back guarantee.
No reason not to try it.
Remember, you can only get the Teeter FreeStep Recumbent Cross Trainer and save $100 by going to teeter, T-E-E-T-E-R.com slash Dan, teeter.com slash Dan.
Check this thing out.
It is fantastic.
It's my new go-to.
I love it.
And I don't have to spend days screaming in agony because my joints hurt afterwards.
Check it out.
All right, so getting back to the show, obviously Michael Moore exposes his own ignorance and his own magical thinking.
Free money!
Everybody's salary's gonna be double.
That's really terrific, isn't it?
Well, Michael Moore, because he doesn't understand economics and hasn't done even a basic level of reading, doesn't understand what's called the seen versus the unseen.
This is an article from March of 1974.
But my gosh, is it worth your time.
What is seen and what is not seen by the Foundation for Economic Education.
I'll get to a screenshot in a second here, but what Michael Moore is ignorant of is he's blind to what he doesn't see and overestimates what he does see.
In other words, Joe, and tell me if I'm not explaining this right, I'll get to the screenshot in a moment here, because it's important, but Michael Moore sees a number.
He sees $15 for people who are making, say, $8, and he's like, my gosh, that's great!
That's really wonderful.
People are making more money.
And there's no reason for him not to see that.
There are going to be people who will get a raise if the minimum wage goes up.
There are people who are going to get a $1,400 check from the government.
Michael Moore's going to be like, my gosh, it's free money.
The problem is Michael Moore's unaware of what he doesn't see.
And how is this explained?
Well, Bastiat explained it a long time ago from this piece.
They say, hey, look at all the good the government spending does.
Look at these public works.
Consider, if you will, the many jobs these public works create.
Surely you wouldn't suggest that government spending be reduced when so many jobs depend on it.
The concrete results of government spending are what is seen.
But what is not seen is what would have happened to the taxpayer's money if it hadn't gone for taxes.
See, Michael Moore doesn't think about that.
Michael Moore doesn't understand that.
The piece goes on.
The money would have been spent or saved if taxpayers kept it.
If it had been spent, then it would have created jobs in the private sector, just as jobs were created in the public sector, except that people would have been spending their money on what they wanted, not what the government wants.
If it had been saved, then directly or indirectly, that money would have been invested and turned into factories, machines, and tools.
That is, the money would have been converted into capital goods that create jobs for millions of workers.
Ladies and gentlemen, again asking simple questions like we started block C of this break.
If a $15 hour minimum wage is good, then why not $20 an hour?
Liberals don't see that.
They would answer that question probably, yeah, $20 sounds great, how about $50?
Because they don't understand the money has to come from somewhere.
But where does it come from?
I used CNBC for this article for a reason, so it wasn't Bongino.com.
Our site is reputable, of course, but I don't want you to think there's any bias here.
Here is a left-leaning site, CNBC.
Well, what happens when you actually raise the minimum wage?
What is the unseen component of it, Joe?
You see a lot of people getting a raise, but what do you not see?
You don't see this.
Headline.
Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour, this is CNBC, would cost 1.4 million jobs, the Congressional Budget Office says.
Yep.
That's what you don't see.
Michael Moore doesn't see that, because Michael Moore hasn't done his homework, and just candidly, Michael Moore's not that bright.
Michael Moore's not capable of processing the unseen, because he's shallow and intellectually vapid.
And he looks and he sees the simple stuff, but doesn't ask, and then what?
Well, where did the money come from?
Well, the money came from companies who had to pay their employees more, money they didn't have, so they had to fire other employees.
Oh, I didn't think of that!
I didn't think, of course you didn't, you're not smart enough.
You're not smart enough.
Liberals, do you think the CBO is lying?
The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office.
You trust them for everything else, but when they tell you hiking the minimum wage is going to cost 1.4 million jobs, you don't pay attention to that.
You unsee it on purpose.
I don't see nothing.
To Sergeant Schultz, I don't see it.
Bastiat's example of the broken window.
You ever hear it?
Broken window.
Guy in a bakery shop, his front window is broken, right?
A glazer has to go and install new glass.
Everybody looks around and goes, Joe, look at the economic activity.
The broken window is great.
The glass guy made a fortune replacing that glass.
Look at the economic activity.
It's wonderful.
I see it, Joe.
I see it.
I see it, fucker.
I see it.
That's an O on terrestrial radio.
Yes.
You get the... Before Robert De Niro went crazy.
I see it!
But what do you not see there?
Well, what you don't see is the baker, who had to pay, whatever, $100 for the new window that's broken, and you see everybody working, and you think it's such great, profound, fantastic economic activity.
The baker, the day after the window's installed, has the exact same thing he had the day before.
A window, he just had to replace it with a new window, and he's now $100 poorer.
But it didn't matter.
You saw the glass guy working.
You just weren't smart enough to think how much worse off the baker is.
He has nothing new.
He has a window he had the day before.
And he's a hundred dollars broker.
I know these if-then equations are hard, folks.
I get it.
But it requires, not talking about you, my conservative, I'm talking about, they do listen to my show, I get their hate mail, and every other nasty thing they said.
I'm just asking you for logic!
If $15 an hour is great, if government spending's wonderful, and illegal immigration's a net positive, then why not just open the floodgates and do it all?
Why not $100 an hour minimum wage, $75 trillion in government spending, and open borders?
And if you can't answer that question, and you say, that's absurd, okay, then give us a number that's not absurd.
What level of government spending isn't absurd?
Fair question, right?
What level of illegal immigration is not absurd?
What minimum wage is not absurd?
Is 15 great, 16's bad?
How do you know that?
What happens at $15.01?
Oh, I don't know, I haven't done any at-home work.
Maybe you should.
Maybe you should.
Kind of a good idea, no?
All right, this is my last one.
In our if-then equations.
That's the first time I did the fliparoo like that.
If higher taxes are wonderful and beneficial and they lead to net wealth, then why not the highest taxes?
No.
Reductio ad absurdum.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
If high taxes are a good thing, then why not higher taxes?
And at what number are taxes too high that they're not a good thing?
Is that not logic?
Joe, again, simple calculations and questions like businesses go through every day.
If producing X number of widgets will make us money, then why not produce 10 billion widgets?
No, that's too many.
The market can't absorb that.
We'll lose money.
Why doesn't government do the same thing?
No, high taxes are good, Democrats say.
How high?
How high are good?
And what happens on the other side of that how high number?
No, no.
How high?
90% is good.
Okay, 90?
Well, what happens at 89?
What happens at 91%?
Of course, Democrats haven't asked any of these questions and won't.
Remember that interview with Al Sharpton from a long time ago we played on the show, where they ask Al Sharpton what percentage he thinks rich people pay?
He's like, I think they pay something like, what did he say, 30%?
They actually pay like 80% of all taxes.
And Al was confused because he doesn't know.
They don't think this through.
He's like Michael Moore.
They're not that smart.
So again, if high taxes are beneficial, then how high?
Why do I bring this up?
Article in the Epoch Times.
Again, be in the newsletter.
Bongino.com slash newsletter to subscribe or follow.
I can't get that out of my head.
The Biden administration eyes raising the corporate tax rate to pay for the stimulus.
Gee, Joe, are you guys not picking up the irony of this headline?
Oh, sure.
So the Biden administration wants to give you back a $1,400 check to your family, despite taking $69,000 from your family.
And then in order to pay for the money they took from you to give to you, they want to tax the money back.
Yeah.
Where are you going to get this money?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Stop asking stupid questions.
Excuse me, sir.
I don't know.
I'm kidding.
I love Joe.
You know I'm just kidding.
I don't know.
I don't know how liberals go through life being this stupid.
Unbelievable.
I really don't.
I'm sorry.
I know you're taking it personal and you're zoning me out, but I can't help it.
I'm literally losing self-control here.
How do you go through life being this stupid?
You want to take money from the American people to pay to give them less money back, to pay for it by taking back the money you gave them after you gave them less money than you took from them.
How does that make sense?
On what planet does that make sense?
You are an idiot!
The judge has spoken!
You want to give people money you took, but less than you took from them, a lot less, to go and tax it back later?
What planet do you live on?
You want me to give you their counter-argument?
Their counter-argument's gonna be this, because I can predict liberals, because they're dunces.
We're only taxing the rich!
Companies!
Corporations!
As if corporations are made up of space aliens.
That's what they're gonna say.
That's why Biden's gonna say, we're promoting the corporate tax.
Here, from the Epoch Times piece.
Who cut the corporate tax?
Oh, Donald Trump, who reduced the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%, beginning in 2018.
It also reduced the tax rates for pass-through businesses and individuals.
So Biden wants to hike the corporate tax rate because he's going to tell you it's a progressive tax, Joe.
It only hits those evil, awful, terrible, awful rich people.
Well, is that really what they're talking about doing?
Because if you look at this article at the Epoch Times, this other article about the gas tax, you'll see they're talking about raising other taxes as well.
Pete Buttigieg is, there's, by the way, there's no human being who says less by saying more than Pete Buttigieg.
Epic Times, again, article in the newsletter.
Biden's transportation nominee, Pete Buttigieg, says the gasoline tax hack is, the gasoline tax hack, a tax hike, tax hike is possible.
Spit it out, Bongino.
That's weird because the gas tax, Joe, is regressive.
Meaning it impacts the poor and low-income folks among us the worst.
Because the portion of their income they spend on gasoline if they make $30,000 a year, by simple math, liberals, this is logic, is far greater than the percentage people who make $500,000 and $600,000 a year spend on gasoline unless they're driving to the moon and back every day.
So just to be clear again, to walk through this liberal exercise here, if taxes are good, then why not more taxes?
What's the limit?
What's the number?
What happens on the other side of that number?
And if taxes are good, then why are you giving people the money back that you already taxed from them, and then taxing them again to take the money back you already took?
I'm just asking a question.
Now, quickly, I know they'll respond and say, well, the Trump tax cuts, they were all about the rich, too.
I've already thought of this, of course.
Alex Hendry, Washington Examiner.
That's actually false.
Let's do this thing called facts and data.
Liberals, again, will have a tough time with this.
Dan, it's because we're only taxing the rich people.
Wrong!
From the Washington Examiner piece.
Again, you can find this in the show notes.
You'll see that is, in fact, highly inaccurate.
Those tax cuts were about you.
I got a screenshot from the piece which describes some, you know, data, facts and the like.
I know these are troublesome things for you.
Quote, "Because of the Trump tax cuts, the unemployment rate dropped to 3.5% in 2019,
a 50-year low. In that same year, median household income increased by $4,440, or 6.8%,
the largest one-year wage growth in history. After the Trump tax cuts, Libs."
I know this is hard.
This wage growth dwarfed the wage growth experienced under the entire eight years of Obama's presidency, which was just 5%.
Wow, that's fascinating.
Eight years of Obama, wages only grow 5%.
One year after the Trump tax cuts, they grow 6.8%.
That is really weird.
Again, if Trump's tax cuts were so terrible and higher taxes make us wealthier and more prosperous,
why not the highest taxes?
What's your number?
You gonna give us that?
Of course you won't.
That would require you to do some homework.
That's not gonna happen.
All right, let me get to my last sponsor.
On the other side of this, I've got another alert about the president.
You gotta watch, I'm sorry.
It's just, it gives me no joy to tell you this, but it's bad.
Folks, you know in this house, what's my thing, right?
Nuggets!
I love chicken nuggets.
I'm just a kid at heart.
I'm sorry, I don't have a fancy palate.
Really.
The only, well, actually yesterday, what did I tell you about the poke?
The poke?
I think it's called poke.
I do like the tuna poke.
I'm calling it poke.
I don't know what the hell it's called.
It's just good.
That's my only maybe fancy foo-foo thing.
Everything else, I like nuggets.
I'm a chicken nugget guy.
Who makes the best nuggets?
My buddies at Power XL Air Fryer.
I'm not kidding.
Your appliances, they take up a boatload of space.
Get rid of them all.
Replace eight kitchen appliances with the Power XL Air Fryer.
It's obviously an air fryer, but what else?
It's a grill, rotisserie, convection oven, pizza oven.
The pizza comes out of that is solid, solid.
A griddle.
Deep fryer and a toaster oven.
I reheat my pizza in there so you don't get that microwave- you know that microwave-y pizza joke that's not like a sponge?
No, no, no!
No, no!
Ixnay, the PowerXL Air Fryer.
Comes out nice and crispy.
The PowerXL, how does it work?
It cooks with hot air, not oil, so you can cook healthier.
We love that.
We're up to 70% fewer calories from fat.
They cook for the whole family.
It fits over four times more food than a traditional air fryer, and it cooks much faster to save you time.
If you ever come visit me at my house, you'll see it right there in my kitchen.
It's a staple.
The secret's the heating elements from above, the side, and below.
The grill plate, plus the turbo blades, and it distributes the heat evenly throughout the entire cooking surface.
Comes with a ton of accessories, like a nonstick grill plate, a crisper tray, baking pan, drip tray, and an oven rack.
They're all dishwasher-safe, cleanup is super easy.
That's why it's the number one brand of air fryers in the United States.
The PowerXL Air Fryer comes with a 90-day money-back guarantee.
You're not gonna need that.
They have it, you're not gonna, you're gonna love it.
Right now, they have an exclusive offer for Dan Bongino Show listeners.
If you go to try, T-R-Y, trypowerxl.com and use promo code BONGINO, my last name, you'll receive 10% off plus free shipping, excuse me, and a free cookbook.
So head to TryPowerXL.com.
Use our promo code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
One last time, go to TryPowerXL.com and use code Bongino.
And again, send me your reviews.
You're going to love this thing.
Okay.
On to some sad news.
And I mean sad.
I'm not kidding.
This is not some kind of dopey virtue signaling.
I don't need to do that.
I don't wish ill on any human being.
I don't think Joe Biden's a good man or a good president.
Obviously, I think he's terrible.
I think he was terrible before his deteriorating condition.
But again, I'm getting information that is becoming a legitimate national security threat, that Joe Biden is in really, really bad shape, that his cognitive condition is deteriorating, and the man has his finger on the nuclear codes.
Here's just another video of his staff just secluding him.
They won't allow the guy to take questions.
He always looks perpetually confused.
This is real trouble, folks.
This is not a joke.
There's nothing funny about this.
Check out this video from the other day.
Cress, let's go, you guys.
Cress, let's go.
We're moving out.
Cress, let's go.
Cress, let's go, you guys.
C'mon, Cress.
We're gonna move out.
Let's go, Cress.
You guys, let's go.
C'mon, Cress.
Let's go.
C'mon, let's go.
Cress is at the border, sir.
Let's go, you guys.
C'mon.
Folks, I gotta tell ya.
Can I give you a little inside baseball?
I have worked for three presidents.
Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
And I know pretty well the fourth.
I've never seen anything like this.
Everything that happens around the president is scripted.
Everything.
Why does this guy always look lost at these events?
I'm hypothesizing here.
That he forgets what the script is supposed to be.
Because he always looks lost.
Did you notice at the end of every event, he says something like, am I supposed to take questions?
He looks around confused like he doesn't know where to go.
He tries to open a door that's closed.
Folks, this is serious stuff.
It's not a joke.
I'm telling you from my personal experience, everything is scripted.
Walk here, go there.
Grabbed the door with the yellow tape on it.
Everything is scripted.
Why does he always look so confused?
Why is the press not concerned?
He's the President of the United States.
This is fair game.
It's not personal.
How is it if he's told, here's what you do, here's what you do next, in exactitude.
I just made that word up.
Why does he always seem confused?
He's told what to do!
Is he not remembering it?
Are we not entitled to know why he always appears so confused at these events, knowing there's some deficit there?
Folks, it's not a joke.
None of this is funny.
None of this is amusing.
There are foreign governments who are watching this.
This is serious stuff.
Wish the Democrats would address it.
They won't.
This story is very frustrating for me because I get a lot of information.
A lot.
And it only gets worse.
Really, every day it only gets worse.
It's the saddest thing I think I've ever seen here.
All right, I wanted to give you this one last piece.
Can we do that vaccine thing at the end?
We're going to have to skip the John Solomon, just the news stuff.
Yeah, but I want to do the New York Times one first.
You were right, but I just want to get to that one at the end.
Here's what's coming up.
We just got a few minutes left, but I'm going to pack this in.
What have I been telling you for eons now about leftist tyranny culture and cancel culture?
I've been telling you that it's going to eat itself alive because leftist tyranny culture, they've run out or almost run out of conservative targets because conservatives are starting to ignore them, the smart ones.
They tried to cancel Piers.
Piers Morgan walked up and said, Piers Morgan will be fine.
He didn't apologize.
He's not a conservative, but you get, he's, I'm talking about people who are leaving the far left and starting to see that he's not a conservative.
He's not our friend, but he is an ally and the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Piers is just going to come back on a new show.
Believe me, Piers Morgan's not going to go broke.
You're not going to cancel him.
So the only thing left is going to be leftists canceling themselves.
Mark it.
Mark my words.
Conservatives are figuring it out and going on to establish their parallel economy.
Let me do my announcement first because I don't want to forget.
Just quickly.
I told you I had an announcement I do.
I've established a company.
And this company I'll be announcing in the coming weeks and months.
A series of web tools for your website and organizing tools that are not cancelable that'll make it easier for you to organize, be an activist, and to engage in e-commerce without being canceled.
This is a big announcement for me.
This is my boldest step yet.
I mean that.
There's a lot of risk.
But I put my money where my mouth is.
I started with Parler, moved on to Rumble, with Video.
Now I'm moving on to an entire ecosystem here.
It's coming.
The company's been started and we are getting ready to rock and roll.
And I'm going to give you, conservatives, the ability to escape liberal tyrant culture and to move into an insulated conservative economy where we don't cancel each other for speech.
Stay tuned.
More coming on that.
Check out this article.
I rarely put New York Times links in my show, but this is what I mean by leftists canceling themselves because conservatives are just starting to ignore them.
This will be in the newsletter today.
You got to read this article.
It is, he read it three times.
I read it twice.
We still don't understand it.
It's really that, so why are you putting in the show?
Because it's so confusing.
You're going to be like, who canceled who?
And it's all leftists.
All.
The title of the article is called, What Really Happened at Reply All?
It was a podcast which was applauded for its reporting on embedded racism in the workplace, yet it never made it to the third episode!
Don't try to figure this whole story out.
So one of the people involved with the podcast is this woman, forgive me, her last name is Pinameni.
If I'm saying her name wrong, it's not intentional.
But here's the first screenshot from it.
So Alison Romans, this cookbook author, and she used to work at the New York Times, she was facing criticism for one of her recipes, which is a turmeric-infused chickpea stew recipe.
Apparently, she made the cardinal sinjo of not acknowledging the influence of South Asian curry dishes.
She was culturally appropriated.
Folks, don't try to figure it out.
So this other Woman, Miss Pinamaneni.
I'm not, again, I'm not messing with your name.
I'm Pinamaneni.
She came to the United States from India as a teenager.
She was interested then in exploring curry as a lens into the complicated concept of appropriation in food.
So Pinamaneni, I don't know, was she offended by This former New York Times woman use of turmeric in her chickpea stew, if you're trying to figure this out, don't.
You will be in Michael Moore's stupid time.
I'm just telling you, somebody was upset that someone culturally appropriated food, what you and I would call Eating.
That's not allowed on the left.
You're only allowed to eat foods from your culture.
And God forbid you cook them.
You are definitely a racist.
So, I guess Pinnameni had a problem with Allison and the podcast people because the cultural food appropriation.
Well, then Pinnameni gets cancelled too, apparently.
Here's the second screenshot from the piece.
In a Twitter thread, a few days after the release of the second episode of this podcast, Another guy, Eric Eddings, a former colleague of the podcast's creators, accused the project of hypocrisy.
Ms.
Pinamineni and Mr. Vogt had contributed to a, quote, toxic dynamic at Gimlet Media, the podcast's parent company themselves.
Don't!
Don't do it to yourself!
Stop trying to figure this out!
Why would I put it in there if I don't want to figure it out?
Because I just want to tell you that leftist cancel culture is so dumb and so cannibalistic, they can't even figure out who they're supposed to cancel!
Do you cancel the curry person who cooked with curry because they're not Indian?
Or do you cancel the person reporting on the curry-cooking non-Indian and then cancel the company that hired the person reporting on the non-Indian curry-cooking person?
Nobody knows!
They all get cancelled because they're eating themselves alive.
Just take your popcorn and just watch.
Just watch.
Because none of us in conservative America who are sane actually do any of this stupid.
We just do this thing called eating.
I enjoy cultural foods, and I don't have to ask leftists because I'm not a lunatic if I can eat rice and beans.
Rice and beans, Dan?
You're Italian.
Yeah.
My wife's Colombian.
She likes rice and beans.
And you know what happens when she makes it?
I eat it too.
You are definitely a xenophobe.
I don't play your games.
I give zero hits with an S in front of it.
What do you think?
It's leftists who play that, and they're all canceling each other.
Just catch your popcorn and watch.
All right, I just want to end with this, because on a totally, talk about the worst segue ever, because there's no way to switch gears from this, but just some quick numbers.
Because of my condition, I'm fine.
I'm always open and honest with my audience.
I never hide anything from you.
I took the Pfizer vaccine about a week ago.
Listen, it's your choice.
I'm not getting into any vaccine debate.
You decide on your own as an adult if you want it and which one you want, which one you can get.
There's Pfizer, Moderna.
There's the J&J one.
You decide.
You may not want it.
It's your call.
I'm not getting into the vaccine debate.
It's your business.
You're all adults.
But the science of the vaccine is interesting.
I'll give you quick my experience.
So I got the Pfizer one at the cancer clinic a couple of weeks ago or something.
I don't know.
I'm just being honest with you.
I had a little bit of a rough time the first few days.
Nothing horrible, but I did have a little bit of a response to it.
I got the second one coming soon, but it wasn't anything bad for me.
I obviously feel pretty good.
But there's some confusion about the vaccine.
In this article, Economics Observatory, which I found up on ginoreport.com, I might add.
Good job, Matt Palumbo.
People are mistakenly believing that the 95% Suppose that efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine means there's a 5% chance you'll catch COVID.
That's not what it means.
This article explains it quite well if you decide to take the vaccine.
It says, quote, What does 90%, 95% effective mean for the COVID vaccine?
By Daburum Bhattacharya.
Well, here's what it actually means.
It doesn't mean you have a 5% chance of catching COVID.
Quote, and they have a little chart there for you to show what the study looked like.
the 95% efficacy that Pfizer's reporting can be obtained as a percentage reduction of positive
cases in the vaccinated group versus the placebo. So in other words, it doesn't mean a 5% chance of
you catching COVID.
It's a comparison between who caught COVID in a placebo group, in other words, people who got just sugar water and an injection, and people who got the actual Pfizer vaccine.
What does it really mean?
It means the chances of remaining COVID-free with the vaccine equals 100 times the number of participants who got the real vaccine And the number of people who got the vaccine and caught COVID.
So the efficacy, you're like, well, just give us the number.
It's actually 99.96% effective based on that data.
And that's the number of the most potential recipients of the vaccine who you want to know.
Check out the piece.
I know I'm running out of time.
I didn't have enough time to go into really detailed statistics on it and how it works, but it's really 99.9% effective according to that research.
Again, your call.
You do what you want, but I want to responsibly give you the numbers and tell you I did take it because of my condition.
I have a very compromised immune system and I live in Florida where the governor here is really doing a great job.
All right, folks, that was a loaded show today, don't you think?
A lot of information, a little excited.
I'm going to go down and use my teeter and burn it off now, which I got a lot of energy left.
Please, if you wouldn't mind, follow our show at Rumble.
