Biden is about to blow up your tax bill and crush the economy. In this episode, I debunk ridiculous liberal myths about the Trump tax cuts and other tax cuts in the past. I also address a stunning retraction by the fake-news.
News Picks:
Biden is about to crush the economy with a massive tax hike.
The Heritage Foundation report on tax rates and tax revenues discussed in the show today.
The article about the Bush tax cuts discussed in the show today.
Taxes are a “deadweight” loss. Here’s the evidence.
The Washington Post’s fake Trump quote is a lot worse than you think.
Washington Post “fact-checker” humiliates himself in botched “fact-check.”
Joe Biden is getting ready to shove a massive tax hike down your throats.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to steal an election, yet the liberal media remains silent.
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.
How is it that we found 535 of the least intelligent people in the entire cosmos, this world and other worlds, who all managed to get elected to Congress and the Senate at the same time, work up at Capitol Hill and dictate what's going to happen in our lives?
How exactly did that happen?
What are the chances of that?
You know, I did an appearance this morning on Fox and Friends and I really just kind of went for it because I can't take it anymore when it comes to issues, right?
Issues that matter.
Taxes, how much, you know, of our money is the government going to steal?
Immigration, like who are we letting into the country?
How we always manage to avoid the common sense questions for these 535 dunces up on Capitol Hill who can't get their heads out of their own collective cabooses.
I'm going to do a thorough debunking for you on this show of the tax debate because Biden wants to hike your taxes.
Maybe touch on immigration.
And I want to get to the Washington Post fake news story.
It's going to be a loaded show today.
Please don't go anywhere.
I promise you'll be better for it when you're done.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet?
Get a VPN.
Protect your data from prying eyes.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Let's get right to it.
This is going to be a loaded show with information.
On the other side of it, you'll be able to destroy your liberal friends' dopey arguments about Biden versus Trump on the economy.
All right?
I promise you, you have my word on that.
Today's show brought to you also by our friends at iTarget.
Many state and local governments have used coronavirus to trample on the constitutional rights of millions, simultaneously defunding law enforcement while the mob and dangerous criminals roam free.
We don't like that, obviously.
That's why iTarget was invented, to give law-abiding citizens an effective way to train in the safety and privacy of their own home with their firearm.
You don't need any more inconvenient trips to the range, no more expensive practice ammunition.
Just download iTarget's proprietary app, Super easy.
Load the laser round into your firearm and start training.
It's that simple.
The feedback I get on this product is amazing.
iTarget Pro comes in all the major calibers, including .223 for your AR.
You can be sharp with almost any firearm.
Obviously 9mm, the other calibers as well.
Today you can save 10% plus get free shipping with the offer code Dan at checkout when you go to itargetpro.com.
It's the best way for you to practice and it pays for itself in a day.
I get tons of amazing feedback about this product.
Improve your proficiency with your firearm right quick.
That's the letter I, itargetpro.com, itargetpro.com, offer code Dan.
All right, producer Joe, let's go.
Alrighty then.
After, whoa, a little excited today.
After five or six false starts on the show due to various technical mishaps, we're getting right into it today.
So again, I did a Fox and Friends hit this morning and you know, typically, let me give you a little behind the scenes.
Well, you know, when you're on Fox and Friends, uh, you know, they send you the stories and you're like, Hey, give us your POV.
What do we, you know, so everybody has an idea where we're going with the segment and all that other stuff.
Right.
Great.
So they sent me the stuff this morning and they want to talk about immigration.
And I went on just a, I don't know, three, four minute rant about how I can't believe, I'm not kidding, not a joke, I can't believe how the country's just so rapidly falling apart in front of our eyes.
I think it's salvageable.
I don't want to be Debbie Downer for you today, but how it's falling apart so rapidly, and yet we've elected 535, again, of the most ignorant dunces in the history of humankind to all try to save the place.
They must be laughing at us up on Capitol Hill, really.
They must be laughing at us because everything they're telling you is fake.
It's a lie on immigration, on taxes, everything.
So where's this all coming from?
Saw this article pop yesterday in the Washington Times, how Joe Biden is planning on hiking your taxes.
And I thought to myself, is this, is this even sane?
Washington Times will be in our newsletter today if you want to check it out.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Wealthy Americans and corporations are about to learn Joe Biden's definition of the fair share of taxes.
Here we go, Joe.
Here we go again with the fair share debate.
Yep.
Again, totally devoid of reason or facts.
I'll get to what the Washington Times said a minute about this tax hike, but The fair share debate is so devoid of reason because whenever you ask the left what the fair share is, they never really know.
Right.
So you have the top 20% of earners in this country, earners, people who earn money, pay 80% of the tax load.
Actually more than that, I'm being generous.
80% of the tax load.
And yet when you ask these dunces on the left, You say, well, okay, you want the wealthy and the rich to pay their fair share.
What exactly is the fair share?
You get clips like the one I'm going to show you in a few minutes of Al Sharpton, who doesn't even know what the fair share is.
And when he says it, he embarrasses himself.
And I found it.
I found the clip.
Does this make any sense?
On one hand, they pass a porculous bill.
That is going to give you a $1,400 check after you paid over $5,000 in taxes per family or are going to pay to finance the $1,400 check.
And then the same government is going to increase your taxes to take away the same $1,400 check you got after paying over $5,000 in taxes to get the $1,400.
Do you wonder why this morning I'm so animated and upset and why I was so upset on Fox & Friends?
On what planet does that make sense?
Now, liberals will twist themselves and knots to try and get that to make sense, but we're going to untwist them and provide actual facts and data today.
Let's go to the Washington Times piece first so we see what they're actually proposing.
Well, we know what Biden campaigned on, so we have an actual idea of what he's looking at.
Quote, Washington Times, Biden campaigned on increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent.
And raising the top individual tax rate from 37 to 39.6.
Also increasing capital gains taxes on people who earn more than $1 million a year.
Now, I know liberals are watching this and they're like, gosh, this makes a world of sense.
This makes as much sense as opening up the border to illegal immigrants in the middle of a pandemic.
I mean, why not, Joe?
It's both liberal logic, you know, that's their thing.
Liberal logic, meaning no logic at all.
So I ask you just a common sense question again.
When is raising taxes work to either, one, grow the economy, or two, to even boost federal tax revenue?
Assuredly, if you're a liberal watching this show right now, you're like, okay, Dan, you know, at least if we boost the tax rate, we'll get more government tax revenue.
Hold on to that.
So that's argument number two.
Argument number one is this, the liberals constantly argue that the rich and us, the wealthy, whatever, and again, the definition of who's wealthy always changes depending on when the liberals lick their fingers and see where the wind blows, right?
Right, right, right.
When you ask liberals, you say, okay, well, what's the fair share of taxes the rich should pay?
You get segments like this absolute classic with the legendary John Stossel, who interviewed Al Sharpton, I believe this is back in 2006, on an ABC show.
And on the ABC show, the segment was called Myths, Lies, and Outright Stupidity.
So, set this up a second.
Stossel knows that the fair share argument, liberals should pay their fair share, and he's smart about it, and he asks Al Sharpton what the fair share liberals should pay.
Watch the answer, because this will be every liberal, because they have no idea what the fair share is.
Check this out.
The rich do not pay their share.
That's a widespread belief.
But do the politicians even know how much of the income tax burden the rich pay now?
The top 1% in this country pays very much less than 10%.
Very much less than 5%.
So what's fair?
The top 1% should pay 10% of America's income taxes?
20%?
They should pay somewhere around 15%.
They don't pay 5%.
Anybody could see that as unequal and unfair.
So they should pay 15%, he says, and the richest 1% now pay less than 10%.
Then he said less than 5%.
But that's so silly because, and I bet most of you don't know this, the IRS says the richest 1% of taxpayers already pay 34%, twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.
The Reverend barely reacted when I told him.
They're already paying 34%.
No, I think that if you deal with the quality of their lives... He quickly changed the subject.
He never would admit how far off he was.
The greatest clip.
I told Guy this morning, Joe, I said to him, put that in the evergreen library, stuff we're going to use forever, because I'm always trying to find that clip and I never can.
This morning it took me, I'm not kidding, like a half an hour to dig that thing out of the interweb.
Oh man.
It's hard to find.
I know, I know.
I probably should have sent it to you and be like, Joe, can you find this?
But it's, we keep that forever because it is, it's so beautifully sums up Why I'm so offended at the stupidity coming out of Washington, D.C.
They talk in soundbites about things that are going to dramatically affect your life.
No sarcasm here.
Somber note of seriousness.
They're talking about things, Joe Biden raising the corporate tax.
You saw the Washington Times piece, the income tax and the capital gains tax.
They're talking about very serious things, which could have a dramatic impact on your business, your investments, your employees, and your personal income.
You would think it would be grounded in some metric or number that they had some evidence to back up.
I mean, it just makes sense, right?
Think about it.
If you're a business owner or even remotely involved in a business, you don't have to have an MBA to figure out that if you wanted to raise the price of your Ribeye steaks in your steakhouse and you're a restaurant owner, that you'd probably look for some evidence that there's some price sensitivity or lack thereof and you can make some more money by raising the price.
And if you found out, Joe, that raising the price of the steaks cost you a significant number of business and you lost money, you would probably then cut the price back.
You would base it on some research, ladies and gentlemen, and especially to our liberal friends listening to the show who are probably not our friends, but whatever.
Is anything I said there Out of line, outrageous, is it silly?
You would do that in a business.
No, in any business.
So, ask yourself this.
If Joe Biden is talking about a massive, economy-wide, enormous tax hike after just giving people back their tax money in the form of a stimulus payment, now we want to take some of that money back.
You would think it would be based on data.
But the data you get, when you give it to liberals, they do what Al Sharpton did.
They ignore it.
Stossel says to Al Sharpton, well, what percent of the tax burden should the wealthiest 1% pay?
Sharpton says, they don't pay 10%.
They don't even pay 5%.
I think they should pay 15%.
In 2006, when this was recorded, the rich paid, the richest 1% paid 34%!
More than double what Sharpton was recommending, and what does he do?
He does what Biden will do, and any other liberal, when you ask them what the fair share is, they will ignore the question and pretend you didn't even talk.
Is it not a fair question?
What's the fair share?
Where did you get that?
Where did you come up with that number?
Well, let's give you some actual data.
And hopefully our liberal friends will watch and listen to this segment and be like, okay, well, I may not like Bongino's show, but he's right.
He produced actual data.
Here's one of my favorite articles.
Again, debunking dopey, silly myths about tax hikes and tax revenue.
This is an oldie but goodie from 2010 by a guy named Dwyer from the Washington Times.
This will be in the newsletter.
Save this article.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Go there.
Save this article.
What have you been told, Dee, Joe, a thousand times by your liberal buddies, if you have them?
Joe, what'd they say?
The Bush tax cuts.
George W. Bush cut taxes, and look what happened.
It cost the government a fortune.
We lost all this money.
We did?
We did?
That's right.
I know Joe gets to cheat, because he's seen this article a thousand times.
We've used it in the show before.
This goes to the Evergreen file, too.
And you should keep it in your Evergreen file.
Well, let's look at this article by Dwyer.
Headline, Dwyer, Washington Times.
Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue.
That can't be!
That's not possible!
You've been told by your Al Sharpton-like liberal friends who don't know anything about the numbers that Bush cut taxes and the government lost a whole boatload of money.
And you believe it is fact.
I'm sorry you believe that.
It's not true.
I'm sorry you believe in things that are factually incorrect.
But it is, in fact, accurate that George W. Bush cut the income tax rate and tax revenue went up.
You don't believe me?
Well, let's read from the Dwyer piece in the Washington Times, which you can read yourself.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 2003 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts?
Gosh, that's strange.
I hadn't heard that before.
Liberal.
They told me the opposite.
I'm very sorry they did that.
It goes on.
From 2004 to 2007, after the tax cuts, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion.
It was the largest four-year increase in American history.
Gosh, that sounds really weird.
According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40% in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
And, added bonus, the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years.
Here's the kicker.
This last line is the kicker.
This is the coup de grâce.
This was news to the New York Times, Joe, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the tax revenue gains as, quote, a surprise windfall.
Come on, man.
Come on, man.
Wait, Joe.
Wait, there's more, Joe.
Oh, OK.
Wait, there's more.
There's more.
There's more.
So again, Focus?
Focus, because I get very excited talking about this topic.
You were told by Joe Biden the rich need to pay their fair share.
You watched in the Al Sharpton video, and I could play that video five or six times with other politicians.
They'll never tell you what the fair share is.
When you ask them, they get the fair share wrong.
When you ask them what the rich should pay, like Al Sharpton, they actually pay twice what Al Sharpton thinks they should pay.
And then when you cut taxes on people and earners, what happens?
Revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts.
Not only did it go up, it went up in the largest four-year increase in U.S.
history.
Now you may say, Dan, come on.
That was just unique to the Bush tax cuts.
Every other time we cut taxes, those evil rich people really made out.
Tax revenue went down.
The poor got screwed over.
It was raining cats and dogs.
Remember that scene in Ghostbusters?
Cats and dogs.
Remember that scene?
Well, no, no, that's not true either.
Either.
I have another great piece.
It's from 1996.
But man, is it worth your time?
It's by the Heritage Foundation.
It'll be in my newsletter today.
And it'll again debunk every silly liberal myth you've heard about tax cuts in the past as well.
In case you're under the illusion, it was just the Bush tax cuts that led to a gusher of new tax revenue.
Here's this piece by Heritage.
How to Measure the Revenue Impact of Changes in Tax Rates.
August 9th, 1996.
Let's go to other tax cuts, Joe.
Let's go back all the way to the 1920s.
All right.
And see what happened after those tax cuts.
Because assuredly, if liberals are correct, those tax cuts led to a dramatic decrease in government tax revenue.
Uh, not exactly what happened.
Heritage Foundation, the tax cuts of the 1920s.
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, falling from 73% to 24%.
My gosh, that's a big tax cut.
What happened?
The economy boomed, grew at an average annual rate of 6% between 1921 and 1929.
between 1921 and 1929. Personal income tax revenues increased substantially,
rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1.160 million in 1921.
This was a 61% increase in tax revenue, which occurred at a time of no inflation.
These results, not surprisingly, would not have been predicted by static analysis, let me add, or liberals.
Dan, that's 1920.
So you got the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue went up, 1920.
Surely there are other examples of major, major tax cuts where revenue just collapsed.
Well, we'll get to those in a minute.
Let me get to my second break here and I'll show you other tax cuts as well.
Tax cuts to show you how taxes down.
Down for our liberal friends, down.
Tax revenue, up.
Taxes, down.
Tax revenue, up.
Apparently Capitol Hill, nobody's seen this up there.
Or, let me give you the more likely scenario, they have seen it and they're laughing at you because they think you're idiots and won't do your homework.
Sadly, that's what's going on.
Hey, let me get to my second sponsor, our friends at Magic Spoon.
This is an empty box from our house because my daughter keeps eating the Magic Spoon.
This is the delicious strawberry and putting the empty boxes back on the shelf.
I'm not kidding.
This is our, we have like four or five empty boxes.
Growing up, cereal was one of the best parts of being a kid.
I had to give it up because it was full of sugar and a lot of junk I don't eat.
So a healthy breakfast doesn't have to be boring.
No more.
Throw that out.
Magic Spoon is here.
It solves your problems.
They have amazing flavors you love without all the bad stuff.
Zero grams of sugar, 13 to 14 grams of protein, and only four net grams of carbs in each serving, but a whole lot of deliciousness, only 140 calories a serving.
It's keto-friendly, gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, low-carb, and GMO-free.
We've got great news, too.
Magic Spoon will be releasing two amazing new flavors this month for a limited time only.
We're talking about cookies and cream, Send it Magic Spoon immediately!
I need that.
If it isn't the most comforting, indulgent combination, then I don't know what is.
This is the ultimate treat yourself combo.
So you can make sure to get some now when there's a limited time, make sure, move now,
build your own box if you want.
The available flavors to build your own custom bundle are cocoa, fruities, my mouth is watering.
Frosted, peanut butter and cinnamon.
If you're listening from Canada, Magic Spoon now ships there as well.
Here's how you get this delicious cereal.
Go to magicspoon.com slash Bongino, don't wait.
Grab the new limited edition cookies and cream maple waffle or a custom bundle of cereal and try it today.
Be sure to use our promo code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O at checkout to save $5 off your order.
This offer's good anywhere in the U.S.
or Canada, but only when you use our code at checkout.
Magic Spoon's so confident in their product, it's backed by a 100% happiness guarantee.
If you don't like it for any reason, they'll give you your money back.
No questions asked.
Get your next delicious bowl of guilt-free cereal at magicspoon.com slash Bongino.
Use code Bongino to save $5 off.
For Canadian shipping, please note it's the same URL.
It will auto-switch the Canadian version of the site per user.
Thank you, Magic Spoon, for sponsoring this episode and for feeding my family, even though they leave empty boxes, because they love it so much, in the food closet, which I refuse to call a pantry.
All right, I hate that word.
Getting back to the show, many of you old-time listeners know that.
I can't, the word pantry, I don't like it.
I'm just, I have something with that word.
I can't say it.
So Biden's talking about raising our taxes, not basing it on any data, research, anything.
He just wants to screw you over and take more of your money because that's what they do.
So again, do you think they do the homework I'm doing now for you?
He said the Bush tax cuts.
We raised more money after cutting taxes because the economy grew, which created more taxpayers.
The tax cuts all the way back to the 1920s?
Ah, let's bump it up a bit.
Let's go to the JFK tax cuts.
JFK, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, by the way, I'm sorry, but there are some liberals listening who may not know that.
He was in fact a Democrat who realized high tax rates really weren't cutting it for the economy.
So they cut taxes from 90% to about 70% at the top margin rate.
Well, what happened after that?
Well, let's look at the Heritage Foundation piece.
Lower taxes on saving and investment were approved in 1962, followed by an across-the-board tax rate reduction in 1964.
What happened after that?
Economic growth picked up.
GDP increased at an average annual rate of 5% between 1961 and 68.
The Kennedy tax cuts triggered the longest expansion in America's history, And revenues, listen folks, listen up, especially the liberals have a tough time with this, and tax revenues grew by 62% over the seven-year period.
As seen in chart five, which you'll see in the piece if you choose to check it out, wealthy taxpayers wound up paying significantly more tax revenue after their tax rates were reduced, exactly as dynamic forecasting would have predicted.
Folks, why does this keep happening?
Why does the evidence point overwhelmingly, not to zero tax rates, we need to fund our military, post roads, our court system, you understand the constitutional roles of government, but why does the evidence keep pointing to the fact that extremely high tax rates, when they're cut, actually generate more tax revenue?
This is not hard for the same people.
By the way, I'm not done with the examples.
This is not hard for the same people.
So if you're, you know, again, if you're on the other side of the political aisle and you're not interested in facts, tune out now.
Because when you cut confiscatory taxes, you encourage people to not engage in deadweight loss activities.
Stand by, I will get to that in another great article.
Remember this, keep this in the back of your head.
When taxes are extremely high, wealthy folks, business owners, they engage in activities to get out of paying the high taxes that destroy the productive capacity of the economy.
and wind up, ironically, having the effect of a smaller pizza pie for everybody to eat.
You raise taxes, you actually get less tax revenue.
I know it's hard for people to believe, but it's true.
You want another example?
We're just bringing it today.
What about the 1978 capital gains tax cut?
They cut capital gains taxes.
Surely they lost money on that one.
Well, in 1968, legislation was approved raising the capital gains tax from 25% to 49%.
Not surprisingly, capital gains revenues were sluggish through the 70s.
In 1978, however, the capital gains tax rate was reduced to 28%.
The very next year, revenues jumped 45%.
Capital gains tax revenues continue to rise, climbing even more when the Reagan tax cuts lowered the rate even further, down to 20% in 1981.
Folks, we're piling on the examples here.
Piling, piling the Bush tax cuts, the 1920s tax cuts under Coolidge, the JFK tax cuts, the 1978 capital gains tax cut.
Do you need another example here?
Well, let's go to another piece.
We're going to remove ourselves from the Heritage Foundation piece for a minute because, you know, leftists and all, they're probably like, the Heritage Foundation, they're definitely lying.
OK, whatever.
Facts aren't your thing.
Then there's nothing I can do about that.
Remember the Reagan tax cuts?
Second term, Ronald Reagan cut the income tax, the highest income tax rates, all the way down from 70%.
So follow me.
JFK cuts the top rate, tax rate, from 90 to 70.
Reagan, obviously decades later, cuts it from 70 all the way to 28%.
You must be saying to yourself, again, if you're a liberal, you probably are because I can read your minds.
You're probably watching the show saying, well, that's the first time I heard a lot of this.
Okay, good.
Welcome to the party, as Bruce Willis said in Die Hard.
Welcome to the party, pal.
You probably think it's because you believed also the Bush tax cuts cost the government money.
Falsely, you believe that.
You probably believe the Reagan tax cuts cost the government money too.
70 to 28%.
How much did we lose the government?
Well, let's check out this article at TheBalance.com, just getting away from the heritage piece just for a second, where they have an actual table of government revenue by year.
It says, who really pays Uncle Sam's bills?
U.S.
federal government tax revenue by year.
So I took a little clip of the Reagan years from this.
This is by Summer G. Anderson.
And let's see what happened after Reagan cut taxes dramatically from 70 to 28%.
Again, if you're a liberal, and you've heard that it costs the government a boatload of money, surely the data would back that up.
So here's data taken from the US Treasury.
So Reagan gets into office, Joe, in 1980, and the federal government takes in $517 billion in tax revenue.
Reagan cuts taxes throughout his second term, Reagan leaves office in 1988.
And what happens, actually, into 1989?
Government tax revenue after Reagan cuts taxes more than in half the tax rate.
Tax revenue is, am I reading that right?
Yeah, I can't see that.
I'm just kidding.
I actually kept my eyes closed.
That looks like it says, Joe, $991 billion.
Am I reading that right?
In 1989?
Yeah, your eyes still work.
I am.
I'm not crazy, right?
Thank you.
Joe's eyesight's a little bit better than mine.
So he gets into office, Reagan.
The government's generating $517 billion in tax revenue.
Reagan dramatically cuts taxes from 70% to 28%.
And the tax rate to the government, excuse me, tax revenue to the government, nearly doubles to $991 billion by the time he leaves.
That just doesn't sound... By the way, inflation adjusted.
Tax revenue still went up dramatically.
I think it was about 23%.
Guys, ladies, I know I'm a little sarcastic and I know sometimes... Guy was telling me sometimes people don't like that I go after liberals so much on the comments.
I get it.
Fair enough.
I do.
But do you understand why I get so emotional about this?
Because I believe in the real world.
I became a converted independent.
I was never a liberal, but I was independent largely throughout my 20s.
Because I'd heard things and I believed them.
I believed things like, oh, you know, we gotta hike taxes to pay off the national debt because if we do, we'll generate so much tax revenue and then we can spend more money.
Well, what if I told you none of that's true?
And that the data backs none of that up?
That we've cut taxes before and revenue went up.
Let me show you the one, one downside to the Reagan tax cuts.
We're going to go back to the heritage piece here in a second.
Reagan did hike the capital gains tax rate in 1986.
So your liberal friends, I'm giving you the counter arguments now.
Folks, this is going to become a hot topic in the next few weeks.
I did not just randomly pull this topic out of my caboose this morning.
Biden is going to push for a dramatic tax hike and you're going to hear all the dopey arguments.
We need to raise more revenue.
Really?
Because when we cut taxes in the past, we've raised more revenue.
When you bring up the Reagan tax cuts, you'll see it on the air.
I guarantee you.
The liberals will say this.
Yeah, but folks, the reason revenue went up after Reagan cut taxes is because he raised a few taxes too, including the capital gains tax rate.
They're not wrong.
They are right.
Reagan did raise the capital gains tax rate, but what actually happened with those capital gains revenues after Reagan raised it?
Well, let's go to the heritage piece where we have actual numbers.
The 1986 capital gains tax rate increase quote, As part of Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, policymakers increased the capital gains tax from 20 to 28%.
Two noteworthy things happened.
Capital gains realizations and revenues soared before the tax rate increase took effect, and then collapsed by more than 50% when the higher tax rate took effect.
Telling you again what.
That your liberal friends who will make the argument to you that, oh, no, no, no.
Revenue went up in the Reagan years despite his tax cuts because he raised other taxes.
Actually, that capital gains tax hike lost money.
It lost money.
So you're really just making that up.
Capital gains tax revenues went down by 50%.
Please, please.
Facts.
Just try it.
One more piece, I wanna move on to the Washington Post, just stunning retract, well, not stunning, because we know they're generally fake news, but a really shocking retraction.
I wanna just end on this note, and we'll get to my third sponsor, and then the Washington Post fake news story.
Another great article in my newsletter today, Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Please read all of these, they're all in there.
The Dwyer article, the Heritage piece.
You'll have all the ammo you need to argue this in the future with your friends on the other side of the aisle.
This one's great.
It's by David Henderson.
This was from just 2019.
The Case Against Higher Tax Rates, Hoover Institution.
This is a very long screenshot.
I'm not going to read the whole thing because the article was so great.
I honestly couldn't figure out like what part of it was great.
So I just kind of took a screenshot of the whole thing.
He's like, this could be the longest text screenshot we've ever seen.
He talks about this, how economists come up with these cumbersome terms to describe important concepts.
He says, but the best way to think of taxes is like a deadweight loss, right?
He said it beautifully describes one of the big harms from taxation.
The deadweight loss from taxes is the loss imposed on some that is not a gain to anyone.
So, for example, he says, a typical estimate of deadweight loss from taxes is 30% of revenue raised.
That means if the government takes a million in additional taxes, there's an additional $300,000 cost imposed on players in the economy.
He goes on.
He says, well, where does this deadweight loss come from, this 30%?
This is brilliant.
It exists because people try to avoid taxes.
So, for example, an increase in the marginal tax rate might cause people to work less, or it might cause them to buy a more expensive house so they can deduct the additional interest from their tax bill and the mortgage.
So those are just two of the ways people adjust their behavior.
They might also evade taxes by understating income or overstating expenses and deductions.
Why do they call the result a deadweight loss?
Because in each case, the tax system, ah, this is it, gives people an incentive to do something they would not have chosen to do at a lower tax rate.
The increased tax rates cause them to engage in behavior that would be otherwise inefficient for them.
Bingo!
The jury is in.
Nice job, David Henderson.
When you have extremely high tax rates, people do a lot of things they wouldn't ordinarily do that add absolutely nothing to the economy, causing massive deadweight losses.
Beautifully stated.
Beautifully stated!
Read that piece, it's a good one.
Bongino.com slash newsletter to access the piece.
All right, let me get to this Washington Post story next, but let me get to my third sponsor here.
What a retraction.
You know, I know it's not a Project Veritas retraction.
Oh, do we have retraction?
Hold on, folks, stand by.
If I may, Project Veritas.
I know it's not a retraction directed at James O'Keefe and the excellent Project Veritas, but if I may, they have the Retraction Alpaca.
Retract to the Correction Alpaca!
I can't sing the song as good as the creator Gary Eaton, but if I may, Project Veritas, I'm gonna Ceremonially, give the retraction correction alpaca to the Washington Post after this.
Is that okay, Guy?
Can we do that?
Joe, is that all right?
Can we do a ceremonial?
I don't think James will mind at Project Veritas.
All right, let me get to my third sponsor, our friends at Gen Yourself.
Dry, irritated, red, blotchy skin all over your face and won't go away?
You struggling with stress breakouts and uneven skin tone?
All gone thanks to Zotique Deep Correcting Serum by Chamonix.
Here's Catherine from Fort Wayne, Indiana.
I'm a doctor working on the front lines of the COVID pandemic and the endless wearing of face masks ruined my face.
I used several other products without success until found Chamonix.
The promises are real.
Very quickly, my face seems on the mend.
These products have started healing the mask creases.
Thank you.
Sotiq uses the power of liposomal technology to deliver the healing, rejuvenating powers of vitamin C to the deepest layers of the skin for results you can see, and it's yours free today with your order of GenuCell for bags and puffiness.
How do you get it?
Go to GenuCell.com and enter promo code DAN40, that's DAN40, at checkout for an extra special discount.
That's genucel.com, genucel.com.
Order today and get the classic Genucel jawline treatment and luxurious Genucel XV anti-wrinkle moisturizer free with your order.
Every order is upgraded to free priority shipping.
Don't wait, order now.
Genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com.
That's genucel.com.
Use promo code DAN40 for that great deal.
Check it out today.
All right, moving on.
So folks, we covered this story yesterday, and it's really blown up since.
I can't get over how big of a retraction by the Washington Post this really is.
If you didn't watch yesterday's show, in sum, it's very simple to understand.
A story went around, promoted by the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, and others, that after the 2020 election, President Trump had called an official in Georgia And said to that official on the phone, quote, find the fraud.
The story was reported on endlessly.
President Trump is pressuring Georgia election officials to find fraud.
The liberal media spin was, there's no fraud.
This is scandalous.
President Trump could be obstructing justice.
He needs to go to jail.
A minimum of 25 to life.
No question.
Prosecute it immediately.
Matter of fact, let's throw out habeas corpus and just put him right in prison.
He doesn't even need a trial.
So obviously if your whole case was bedrocked on a phone call where President Trump allegedly told a official from Georgia, quote, find the fraud, Joe, you would think if you were a sane, rational person that if you built your case around it, it would require President Trump to actually have said, find the fraud.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm just, I, I, I, I just had a, you know, I'm just checking there that Find the fraud, huge scandal.
So did President Trump, you think you would ask before the fact, not after the fact?
Yeah.
Did he actually say find the fraud?
Well, it turns out he didn't, that that's just made up, because now we have the audio as you saw yesterday.
So there's a great piece in my newsletter today by Matt Margo, it's also headlined at BonginoReport.com by the way.
If you wanna check that out.
PJ Media, Matt Margolis.
He brings up a great point about this made up quote that President Trump never said.
Made up, meaning it didn't happen.
Headline, PJ Media, Matt Margolis.
The Washington Post, look at you, quick on the draw there.
Ha!
Keep getting good.
He saw I didn't read that late, went right back.
Very nice, I like that.
The Washington Post fake Trump quote scandal is a lot worse than you think.
Matt Margolis.
Now, you would think, Joe, the big scandal would be that they made up a quote about President Trump he never said.
But no, it's actually worse than that.
Why?
Here we go.
I didn't even think of this.
Margolis says in the piece, the most scandalous thing, Beckett Adams from the Washington Examiner, that's who he's citing here, argues, is that several different newsrooms claim that they independently confirmed the original scoop with anonymous sources of their own!
Here it goes.
Here.
Here.
Here's the evidence.
In the PJ Media piece.
In case you think, again, I'm making this up.
So, President Trump never said this at all.
We have the audio now.
NBC News reported it, quote, confirmed.
They had confirmed the Washington Post characterization of the December 23rd call to a source familiar with the conversation.
Well, it gets worse.
USA Today claimed, quote, a Georgia official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
Confirm the details of the call!
It goes on.
ABC News.
President Trump phoned an investigator in Georgia asking the official to, quote, find the fraud and telling this person they will be a national hero for it.
An individual familiar with the matter confirmed, confirmed to ABC News.
One more, one more, last one.
I'm sorry we're piling on, but this is almost hilarious in its stupidity.
PBS NewsHour and CNN likewise appeared to claim they independently, quote, confirmed the story through their own anonymous sources.
Do you understand that, what is that, five, six, seven, I don't know, what we would call mainstream media outlets, they're not mainstream, they're liberal activists, managed to confirm a story that was fake.
It was fake.
You know, I literally hate the word literally, but it's literally fake.
We have the audio.
No one ever said, find the fraud and you'll be a national hero.
Someone just made that up.
Someone made it up, told the media out the story, they printed it despite doing no due diligence on it, and in other media outlets confirmed to other anonymous sources the same fake quote.
Now, you think, okay, Dan, this story's bad, right?
The Washington Post makes up a fake story about Donald Trump.
It's then confirmed by other media outlets who confirm the fake story.
So you would think to yourself, well, the Washington Post has fact-checkers, right, Joe?
I mean, we get fact-checked all the time on Bongino.com on their nonsense fact-checks that aren't actually accurate.
You would think the Washington Post fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, that's his name, would chime in and say, hey, guys, We really blew this one.
There is no such quote.
I am going to be a responsible citizen at the Washington Post.
Fact check my own paper.
And you know what?
Sometimes you wind up with egg in your face.
One of my favorite songs is The Gambler, right?
By Kenny Rogers.
You got to know when to hold them.
I love that song.
Sometimes you got to know when to fold them.
Know when to walk away.
This is when you gotta know when to run.
You should run from this.
Don't you think so?
Glenn Glesser should say, Washington Post, it's time to run.
We screwed this up.
Yeah.
I know.
Go.
No, no, that's not what happened.
Of course.
Shame on you, Armacost.
That's not what happened.
TheGreatTwitchy.com.
They got receipts, folks.
I know you hate that word.
So does my wife, but she's not here today, so it's okay.
Guy, do you mind the word receipts?
He doesn't mind.
My wife prefers the term evidence.
I'm saying receipts.
If she sees the show, she's going to get mad at me.
Twitchy has the receipts.
This article, again, will be in the newsletter today.
It says, but Trump!
Washington Post's own fact checker weighs in on Donald Trump's response to the Washington Post's fabricated story.
So did Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker, correct the story?
No.
Here's his original tweet from January 9th.
This is all on the Twitchy story.
Where Kessler, Joe, this is hilarious.
He's the fact checker at the Washington Post.
This is him on January 9th, pumping the fake story on his Twitter account.
Glenn Kessler, quote, find the fraud.
Trump pressured a Georgia elections investigator in a separate call.
Legal experts say it could amount to obstruction.
Problem is, it didn't happen.
So again, You got to know when to hold.
You think Kessler would be running from this?
Hey guys, I screwed up.
I make, I have one job, literally one job.
I'm a fact checker.
I screwed that up.
There's no such quote.
Fact check.
I'm going to show my integrity.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is not what happened.
Here's Kessler from yesterday.
Responding to President Trump's statement about how the Washington Post got the story wrong.
Kessler says, Let me translate that for you.
reporting on Trump's call to the Georgia Secretary of State, undisputed, as the audio tape was obtained from the star,
was the article cited in the impeachment article.
Trump naturally pretends otherwise.
Let me translate that for you.
Instead of apologizing, Kessler, for promoting a fake, documented fake story,
he takes a shot at President Trump 'cause Trump said, if this gets confusing,
you two ombudsman guys have to stop me here.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Trump put out a statement saying, hey, not only is this fake news story about me saying find the fraud fake, the Democrats actually use this fake news story to impeach me a second time.
Kessler, instead of apologizing for using the fake quote, says, no, no, that's not true, basically.
They didn't use that quote in the impeachment thing.
To the rescue!
To the rescue!
The great Henry Rogers at the Daily Caller.
Who says, hey Glenn!
Again, this is all on the Twitchy piece.
Here's the actual impeachment brief!
There's the fake quote, folks!
Right there!
There it is!
Right there!
Find the fraud!
It's right there!
It's right there!
Eyes!
Eyes, fucker!
That's an O for our terrestrial listeners.
That's an O!
Your eyes!
Eyes!
So, to sum up here, to sum up here, I'm going to go to page two because I got a Pelosi video in a second, you're not going to want to miss.
Kessler pumps a fake quote by Trump in January, never corrects it or his paper.
He's a fact checker.
He may have corrected it today.
I'm going to have to look.
I got to check it out.
If he did, I'll put it on the show tomorrow.
Kessler, you're welcome to come on the show and respond.
He pumps a fake quote that never happened.
The Democrats used said fake quote to impeach the president.
Then instead of Kessler correcting his paper and fact-checking, he may have corrected himself by now, I'm not sure, he doubles down and gets a fact-check wrong again by suggesting the Democrats didn't use the fake quote in the impeachment despite it being in the actual impeachment brief.
This guy's the fact-checker.
He's the fact checker.
Do you understand why Americans, I get this email all the time because everyone now knows that if you get fact checked by a liberal, it means what you probably said is true.
And they just don't like your opinion.
I get emails all the time for Americans across the spectrum on this, who tell me they go to Facebook and they block all the fact checker accounts because they can't take the stupid.
This guy's the fact checker.
He can't check himself.
He can't check the Washington Post.
Has he even, has he apologized for this yet?
Let me get to my last sponsor.
On the other side of this, I got a video of Nancy Pelosi.
Joe, I know we heard we're not allowed to talk about stealing elections.
That's verboten.
You talk about that, you'll be banished into the phantom zone.
I heard that.
This is weird.
So why is Nancy Pelosi talking about stealing an election right now?
And yet I still see the clip on YouTube and elsewhere.
It's strange, right?
Weird.
No, no, seriously.
I'll play that video in a second.
Our final sponsor today are friends at Startmail.
Free email services like Gmail and Yahoo aren't really free.
You pay with your privacy.
You're being sold, folks.
I got bad news for you on those air quotes, free services.
Those companies have access to every email you send and receive.
Big tech can sell your data to the highest bidder.
It will target you with intrusive ads and put you at risk of phishing attacks.
That's why I'm using now Startmail to secure my email.
Start with StartMail.
Start today.
Makes me feel safe again.
StartMail keeps my email private, period.
Every email's encrypted, even if the recipient doesn't use encryption, which means Big Tech can't read, scan, analyze, or sell my personal information, ever.
You know my obsession with Big Tech watching us all the time.
That's why I'm using StartMail.
Not even Big Brother can snoop around your email.
With Startmail deleted.
Joe, you know what deleted means with Startmail?
It actually means deleted.
When you delete an email with Startmail, it's gone.
Forever.
It's not in the phantom zone.
It doesn't exist.
Done.
And Startmail uses their own servers, which means they can't be put out of business.
Startmail's backed by some of the most stringent privacy laws in the world.
You get unlimited anonymous aliases.
The feature protects your main email address from spam and phishing attacks.
So when you're giving your email to a company but want to protect your identity, Startmail can generate a shareable alias email so people can't sell your information and they can be deleted at any time.
Listen, I'm done with big tech.
You should be too.
They're the worst.
Start securing your email privacy today.
Don't wait with Startmail.
Sign up today and you'll get 50% off your first year.
Go to startmail.com slash Bongino.
That's Startmail with a T, like start today with Startmail.
Startmail.com slash Bongino for 50% off your first year.
Again, startmail.com slash Bongino.
Go today.
You won't regret it.
All right.
Doing good on time here.
So, you know, again, we were told by the bow tie wearing snob crowd, the elites in the media and elsewhere, you're not allowed to talk about stolen elections.
God forbid you do that.
We will banish you from the interweb everywhere.
Well, then why is Nancy Pelosi talking right now this week?
And this just happens.
This is with Stephanopoulos.
She was interviewing, I think it was on ABC with Stephanopoulos.
And she's asked a question about why House Democrats are trying to steal The Iowa 2nd Congressional District seat back from the Republican who won.
The Republican won.
That race is over.
Just so Joe, Guy, just so everybody's clear.
It's over.
The Congresswoman now swore in.
Raised her right hand and swore in.
Copy.
Am I right?
Already swore in.
Pelosi is talking about stealing the race.
It's already been certified.
You doubt me?
Listen to, listen to her interview here.
She cites now, I didn't know this was, there was a caveat that you're not allowed to talk about stolen elections, Joe.
I didn't know.
We talk about what we want, of course, but apparently according to Pelosi, Joe, there are two conditions.
You can, you can steal an election now for people.
Number one, As long as the victor in the election, if they only win by six votes, then you can steal it.
I didn't know that.
So let's write that in.
Hold on.
A little asterisk.
I need to know that in the future for other congressions.
Joe, if you only win by six votes, Democrats can steal it.
I didn't read that in election law, but this is, she makes two points.
And her second point is as long as the candidate that loses asks for you to steal it, then it's okay.
You got the two rules?
I know it makes perfect sense.
I know you get it now.
So let's listen to Nancy Pelosi describe the two conditions where it's perfectly okay to not only talk about but actually steal elections.
Check this out.
I want to ask you about the controversy bringer on Iowa's second congressional district.
The GOP congressman Marjorie Miller Weeks won a razor-close election, six votes.
The votes were counted, recounted, certified by the state, But the House Administration Committee began a process this week that could lead to unseating the Congresswoman.
That has Republicans accusing you of hypocrisy, including Jim Jordan.
He put out this tweet.
Speaker Pelosi says she's open to unseating Republican Congresswoman Miller-Meeks.
Translation, you're only allowed to object to an election if you're a Democrat.
Why investigate an election that was certified by the state?
Well, it was six votes.
It was six votes.
And our candidate, Rita Hart, the Democratic candidate, asked for this process to begin.
So, uh, has everyone taken notes at home?
Apparently you're allowed to steal an election, again, as Nancy Pelosi says, if it's only six votes.
Now, the obvious question, Joe, is, okay, remember the Republican congresswoman is already sworn in.
Right.
The elections, I'm going to, I'll show you the evidence in a second that this was already reviewed, already certified by Democrats as well in actual Iowa.
The race is over.
Right.
So I'm curious, Joe, the logical question here is if Democrats are saying it's okay to steal an election from a Republican congresswoman because she only won by six votes, what's the next question?
Well, what about seven?
Yeah.
What's the actual number?
Joe, fair question, right?
Yeah.
If Stephanopoulos was an actual journalist, that's the question I would ask.
Nancy, what if it was 10 votes?
11?
What's the number?
What do you have to win by before Nancy Pelosi says, no, we can't steal it?
Again, to our liberal listeners, is that not a fair question?
What if you win by one vote?
What's the... Geese, is this fair?
Is this fair?
Okay, I'm getting ahead of... Joe, is that a fair question?
That's a fair question, yeah.
What's the number of a... 15?
20?
You gotta win... No, you gotta win by 100.
And second, her condition to steal the election for the Democrats... The race is over, I can't say this enough.
Is, oh, don't worry, the Democrat who lost is now asking for them to steal.
Oh, okay.
Joe, there it is.
I didn't know that.
I didn't know that.
As long as the candidate asks for you to steal it, it's okay.
So again, six votes is the cutoff, and the candidate who loses has to ask for it.
That's just an asterisk there.
That's really good.
That's good to know for the future.
A little background on this case from our friends at the Wall Street Journal, in case you think, uh, no, maybe Nancy Pelosi has a point.
You know, clearly the Republicans stole it, so Pelosi's just stealing it back.
That's not exactly what happened.
Here's the Wall Street Journal from, I think this is last week.
Democrats move on Iowa's 2nd District.
The House takes the first step towards overturning an election.
I thought we weren't allowed to do this or even talk about it.
The race was certified by Democrats, too.
Look at this, from the journal, and I quote.
This is Zoe Lofgren, who's a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, who's marshalling this effort to steal the election from the Republican congresswoman who won, Miller Meeks.
Lofgren, the Democrat, said, the American people deserve to know who actually won this election.
As if the outcome hadn't already been certified by a 5-0 vote of Iowa State Election Board, Joe, composed of three Republicans and two Democrats.
The precursor to the committee on House administration had held that the results are, quote, presumed to be correct until they are impeached by proof of irregularity and fraud, which nobody found!
Yeah.
A unanimous three Republican, two Democrat board in the Iowa State Election Board said, The results are good!
The Republican won!
But again, don't worry.
If you only win by six votes, you're a Republican.
And the Democrat you beat asks, asks for the seat to be stolen, you should worry, because then they can steal it from you.
Those are the new rules.
As long as we're writing these rules all down.
Watch this story.
This is going to be a big, big controversy.
All right, we're going to have to hold the police.
So we are going to get to the Florida one.
Guy's been kind of making fun of me a little bit because I get these great stories and I hold them forever.
So he had a good idea, Joe.
He said we should do like a land of misfit toys show where we take all the stories we really loved, but never made it.
And we just do one show where we bounce right through them all.
The rent control story, this police story.
I'm going to get to the police story.
I promise this week.
All right, update from sunny Florida.
I talked about this yesterday.
Folks, we're in a little bit of a mini crisis here in Florida.
Not kidding.
The place is blowing up.
You cannot, I live down here.
I have to move because we need to expand our studio and I don't have enough space.
You can't find a house down here.
You Floridians listening, well, you don't want to be ridiculous.
You can find a house, but you are going to pay through the nose.
I bought our house in Palm City, our first studio, for about, what, $500,000 or something?
The house now is fetching like $700,000.
I've only been in Florida for six years.
You can't find a house.
People are, the bidding wars are insane.
I have a friend who moved to Boca.
She bought her place, I think five or six months ago.
It's an expensive place.
The place, the same exact model home is on the market down in her neighborhood for 400,000 more than she bought it just in the fall of last year.
And to get into the neighborhood, Real estate people aren't even taking new clients unless you're going to buy that day.
I'm not kidding.
There's a lottery to get into the neighborhood to bid on the house.
It's turning into a little bit of a mini-crisis down here.
You can't find a house.
I took my daughter to the Blaze Pizza.
Pizza's like the Chipotle of pizza.
I take my daughter there, she loves it.
They get a little dough and you like, it's like the Chipotle of pizza.
Get me to some meatballs, that's a very, and they put it in that thing.
As whoever thought of it, it's a great idea.
I took my daughter to the Blaze P, what does that have to do with anything?
Because ladies and gentlemen, we're supposed to be in the middle of a pandemic.
Florida's so hot, it's like the pandemic never happened.
The place was packed!
We couldn't even get in the joint.
You couldn't even get in the joint.
I ran into my financial advisor there.
Great guy.
He paid for my pizza.
You couldn't even get in the joint.
Florida is smoking hot right now.
Smoking hot.
En fuego.
You can't find a house.
Businesses are booming.
But it is turning into a little bit of a mini crisis because we're not used to this down here.
I'm not a lifetime Floridian, but I've been down here six years.
The snowbirds usually leave right around Easter because it gets hot in Florida and they go back.
The snowbirds aren't even leaving anymore.
The place, the traffic down here is getting pretty, pretty heavy too.
Why?
Why is all this happening?
Well, look at this Wall Street Journal piece I pulled the other day.
New York's hot export.
People!
By Mark Kingdon, Wall Street Journal.
Why are people leaving New York?
Because again, tying it back to the beginning of the show, liberals tell you they want higher taxes and they want you to pay their fair share, although they don't know the economic results of higher taxes because they haven't done their homework and can never cite what the fair share is.
And the third part of the prong to tie the whole show together is the fact that liberals say they want higher taxes despite the fact that when the higher taxes hit them, they come down to Florida to escape the higher taxes they told you they wanted but knew nothing about.
You don't believe me?
Here, Wall Street Journal, please.
Albany legislators in New York considering two tax bills that would damage New York's economy.
A wealth tax and a stock transfer tax.
The top tax rate and the top federal tax on capital gains will increase to 40%.
The combined New York state and city rate may reach 15%.
So if New York enacts this 2% wealth tax, a wealthy New Yorker could wind up paying, wait for it, A 77% tax on their short-term stock market profits.
Oh!
And by the way, that's a conservative estimate.
If they actively trade their portfolio, the tax would be more than 100%.
Now we know what a fair tax looks like.
The peace ends.
I'll end the show on this.
I'm just asking you, to the liberal viewers and listeners of the show, to think through this logically.
If what you're saying is so rational and reasonable, that higher taxes work, we need higher taxes now, and it'll lead to a better life for all of us, why, when you vote those policies in in New York, do you then escape the life you claim would be better in the place you voted in the policy you said would lead to a better life?
Why do you leave to come to a state that has an income tax rate, a state income tax rate, of zero?
I thought you said higher taxes were a really good thing.
So why are you trying to escape them?
Why are you filling up Lay's Pizza?
Why are you clogging up our roads?
Why are you buying up all the houses down here?
Great, come down here.
But why are you coming down here and bringing the same economic stupidity you tried to escape and trying to bring it to the great state of Florida?
Why are you doing it while simultaneously being totally uninformed about what tax cuts have done in the past?
They've raised revenue, not lost them.
and being totally uninformed about what the fair share actually is.
Are you proud of not knowing anything?
Are you proud of saying something and doing the other?
We call that being a hypocrite.
All right, folks, thanks for tuning in.
Hey, I usually promote Rumble at the end of the show, which I'm gonna, of course, do today.
Please follow our account, rumble.com slash Bongino to watch the show, but I just wanna leave you with this.
I've got some more exciting news coming, different from my business stuff, You know, I'm building out my parallel economy, and I do have some exciting news about that, too.
But Joe knows.
We got some big, big he knows now, too.
Big, big stuff coming.
Huge.
Make sure you follow the show.
I'm hoping to be able to... I'm limited what I can say until, like, next week.
And thanks to our buddy Cat Turd!
Sent me a mug.
I told him I'd wear his shirt.
I will eventually.
Our buddy Cat Turd on Twitter.
We do all love Cat Turd.
Sent me a shirt, too.
A couple of his books.
Some little bumper magnets, too.
We all love our friend Cat Turd.
Thank you very much.
My new go-to mug.
It's the best.
Check him out on social media.
All right, folks, thanks for tuning in.
I almost shut off the audio of the show, Joe, before.
