The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 509 Why Can't We Have an Honest Debate About Tax Cuts?

Episode Date: July 24, 2017

In this episode I address some common misconceptions about tax cuts that are being used by liberals to propagandize the public.  Here is a table of tax revenue by source for those who are looking for source material: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source   I also discuss the Democrats' new Party slogan and the hypocrisy embedded in the planks within it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-attempt-rebranding-with-populist-new-agenda/ar-AAoJo7s?li=BBnb7Kz   http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-democrats-idUSKBN1A913M   Finally, I address the savings deficit in the U.S. and what it means to you. https://www.ai-cio.com/news/mercer-wef-report-warns-future-137-trillion-us-savings-gap/       Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Where did that go? The Dan Bongino Show It's time we take off the gloves, okay? Get ready to hear the truth about America. Right now we have a party that supports American values, and then there is a party that represents everything America isn't.

On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino all right welcome to the renegade republican with dan bongino producer joseph armacost how are you today up and adam adam ant here we go man the email bag this weekend was uh was hot so thank you to everybody who emails me it's daniel at bongino i read them all daniel at bongino.com should say with all the.orgs and all the other stuff. Tons of stuff. That death penalty show we did last week is still lighting up my email box. I appreciate all the feedback.

I told folks I was not a supporter of the death penalty, gave my reasons why. Some of the emails were a little edgy. I think that's a fair way to say it, a little edgy. A light? Hey, listen. Yeah, folks, that's okay. I mean, I get it. I respect your opinion. I value your opinion, but I just disagree. I feel like I can interpret the words I read out of the Bible as easily as others can. And a couple of people said to me, well, you're wrong, and that's not the way it's supposed to be. And that's okay. You're entitled to your own opinion i respect it i'm glad to have you here

as a listener and i'm glad we can both have different opinions we can read things uh differently so uh yeah that's lighting up the email box and i got another nice email yesterday from a liberal who listens to the show which is you're always welcome here about net neutrality all right who disagreed made a pretty passionate case himself that he thinks the government's necessary to get involved in the internet, to keep the internet open and free. I disagree. I would say to you that the government, whenever it gets involved in anything, works in the government's interest, not yours. They have zero interest in freedom and openness and more interest in gaining political power and political donations. And I think the proof is in the pudding. But again, respect your opinion. And thanks to everyone who has emailed me and reached out. All right. I got a lot to talk

about today. The Democrats have unveiled a new party slogan, which I think is absurd and ridiculous. They also released some party planks. And I'm going to get into that, break it down and show you how hypocritical that is. But before we get into that, Scaramucci, I want to talk about this a little bit to talk about liberal hypocrisy and related to an email I got over the weekend. So Anthony Scaramucci, who is a friend of Donald Trump's, he's been involved in the capital markets. He's a wealthy guy, all around pretty good guy from what I've heard about him. He is now the new director of communications at the White House. Contrary to public reporting, he did not replace Sean Spicer.

Folks, Sean Spicer was the press secretary. Sean Spicer was not the communications director in the White House. He was in some kind of an acting position there, but he did not replace him. Sean Spicer resigned when Scaramucci was appointed as the communications director. He did not replace Sean Spicer. Sarah Huckabee Sanders replaced Sean Spicer, and she was his deputy. But it's interesting about Scaramucci. There's a little bit of a, Joe, a Democrat, quote, scandal breaking out, which is quite hysterical when you hear about Democrat scandals, because it's usually BS nine out of ten times.

And one of the things Scaramucci did is when he was appointed to the position, he deleted some tweets from his personal account. Did you see this story, Joe? No, not this one, no. Yeah, hold on. I'm just looking for something. Don't tell me I did that again. Oh, here we go.

Good. Just want to make sure I had this article up. So, yeah, he deleted some personal tweets from his account, Scaramucci. Some of them are tweets about things like gun control. He's not been an ideological conservative on a lot of these issues. He was a gun control supporter, which I would say gun control, even the term is nonsensical. But he deleted some of these tweets, and he was open and honest about it and came out and said, Listen, I deleted these tweets because I didn't want it to be a distraction. These were

personal tweets. I'm now the communications director and he's moving on. Now, you know, listen, you're free to agree or disagree with that approach. But what I find ridiculous is the liberals are making this a big conspiracy while they have absolutely no problem whatsoever, Joe, with Hillary Clinton deleting 30,000 emails on an illegal server that could have potential national security information and criminality, a nexus to criminality. In other words, she could have been describing on those emails she deleted, and we'll never know, how she set up a private server to evade U.S. law

and Department of State regulations. It's okay. It's okay. Don't you know that? Of course it's okay. It's okay. Don't you know that? Of course it's okay. And the problem I have with it is from a larger umbrella perspective, and even some conservatives and Republicans have hit me on this, and it's a fair enough complaint. They'll say, Joe, well, what are you trying to say? That it's okay now that Scaramucci deleted some personal tweets because Mrs. Clinton deleted 30,000 emails and used Bleachbit to get rid of them that were held on an illegal server? Folks, it's not what I'm pointing out.

What I'm pointing out is the fact that there is no common set of ground rules for the political boxing match going on, and therefore the entire boxing match is discredited. What I'm trying to say is we're in a boxing match with the left over an ideology to take the country in a positive direction, right? We have one set of ideas, conservatives. Economic freedom, low tax rates, healthy business environment, jobs, patient-controlled healthcare, school choice, pro-life. This is ours. The conflicting ideology on the left is not the same.

They can't coexist at the same time. The party of JFK, where we had some common ground, the Democrats of yonder, you know, we had some common ground with them. We don't anymore. The boxing match now, both fighters can't survive. Okay? The boxing match now is between us, when I just laid out our platform, and a Democratic party that's absolutely convinced they need high tax rates. They need heavy government regulation. There's no social program they'll cut. Government spending is a good thing. We can't exist at the same time, folks. These are two completely conflicting ideologies. Come on.

Now, if this is a boxing match between these two fighters, and the boxing match is governed by a set of rules and a referee, no punching below the belt, no kidney punches, no biting off of ears. Oh, well, that already happened. But if you're Tyson fans, but no biting off of ears, no, you know, no head butting. If one side agrees to those rules and the other side doesn't, it's not a fair fight. And the entire fight is discredited. In other words, if Republicans go, OK, I agree with those rules.

And then the Democrat fighter goes, well, I don't. And gets in the ring and starts head butting and kidney punching and biting and kicking and double leg takedowning and getting the back and using a rear naked chokes on the guy the other guy in the other match is like well why am I bothering to fight by the rules right that's the point I'm trying to make right now with Scaramucci

and everything else when I point out these hypocrisies by the left not that deleting tweets is like we you know we should praise the guy for doing it or anything, but that attacking him for doing it is silly considering the fact that until the Democrats are willing to live by their own rules, I'm not willing to attack our guys for not living by the rules either. I'm sorry. I get it. And you know, you can say all you want conservatives and Republicans out there. Well, you know, we're sacrificing now our own morals and it's a race to the bottom.

It's not. We're already at the bottom. It's not a race to the bottom. We're at the bottom. The bottom is there's no rules. This is total chaos. We're living by banana republic rules. The left's making it up as they go along.

They're making up fake investigations, charges fake impeachment charges they're calling people uh all kinds of names are attacking people for false criminal charges that didn't happen in this trump russia debacle they're attacking people for deleting personal tweets by the way not even remotely a violation of any law joe i by the way just so you know, disclosure here for me. I delete tweets all the time. I have an app on my Twitter that deletes tweets less than a year old. And you know what? Don't care. Listen up, libs. Here's a double-barreled middle finger. Don't care. I will delete whatever the hell I want because it's my Twitter. People ask me why I do it because I want to. I'll delete my whole account and flip you off in a heartbeat.

I don't give a flying about what you think. And Scaramucci should come out and say the same thing. Uh-huh. That's my point. My point in this whole thing is until we get off the bottom floor and the Democrats are willing to act like human beings, Joe, and not complete total savages with this Trump Russia crap and, you know, forgiving Hillary. You know, I sent out a tweet this weekend. It was retweeted close to 8000 times where I said, well, Scaramucci delete some personal tweets. The liberals go wild. Hillary deletes 30,000 emails on an illegal server, liberals nominated for president. Until you guys are willing to fix that, libs, don't care. Remember Randy Macho Man Savage, the WWE wrestler?

Yeah. Yeah, but you remember him, right? Sure. WWF at the time, although they changed that name, right? Randy Macho Man. Don't know. Well, I'll tell you what. Liberals don't care.

Not one bit. Who cares what they say? And one more final point on this, I'm going to move on to another email story I got, which relates to this, how the liberals just, they're a disgusting party. They have no morals. Again, I can't say something.

I'm not talking about all Democrats. They're filthy. They're ideologically bankrupt. They are bad people. They are not good people. They're not good people at all. They're not. Now, unlike them, of course, who recommend violence against us,

I think we have to fight on facts and data and use dialogue and try to convince who we can. But they're filthy. They have nothing. They make stuff up. A final note on that. Trump, by the way, the Trump-Russia thing, he needs to fire Mueller.

This is ridiculous. Chuck Schumer said this weekend, the Democrats said it been early. Oh, that would be the breaking point for Republicans. Who cares? Joe, who cares? Right? Who cares? Oh, now we really care what Chuck Schumer thinks? Who cares? Fire this guy. It's a fishing expedition. There's no

there there. Get rid of him. Move on. Mueller, by the way, for those of you who don't know, is the special counsel investigating the X-Files, Trump, Russia, fairy tale, conspiracy theory, which is a total waste of the country's time. Fire the guy. Move on. Fire him. Just find my best advice to the White House. Fire the guy, move on. Fire him on a Friday night. Get rid of it. This is ridiculous. This thing is so stupid. All right. So I got an email this weekend. And I know it's tied to, but loosely to current events, but it's still important. I just addressed this quickly. An interesting email from a guy. He says, I think his name is Larry. In the context of the argument about tax cuts coming up joe because trump is proposing some big bold tax cuts he says you know i was in work

and one of my uh employees or employers or whatever said you know the the increase in revenue under the reagan years after the tax cuts notice i mean for those regular listeners you know i didn't say that wrong rate revenue increase tax revenue after reagan cut the tax rate from 70% to 20%. He said, well, one of my guys says it was due to high interest rates during the Reagan years. Joe, head, meat desk, hard, boom. Folks, this is, again, another example of why you can never argue with liberals. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because the argument about tax cuts is getting hot again right now because tax cuts are the next agenda item now that healthcare, after this healthcare vote this week, tax cuts are going to be up and you are going to see every

stupid article in the book from the dumbest liberals in human history. Now, to our friend who emailed us, thank you for the email, but when I woke up and read this, I read the email. I turn over. I look. I'm like, again, I daughter, my five-year-old, when she gets really pissed, she sits there and she goes, and it looks like our head's going to explode. When I read it, I'm like, liberals, can you be this dumb? Okay. So what I'm going to do for you as a favor to the public, I'm going to put in the show notes today at Bongino.com. And if you want the show notes emailed to you, you can join my email list at Bongino.com.

Thanks to everybody who joined, by the way. We had some explosive growth to the email list. I email a couple notes into your email box. I am going to send you a table for all of the stupid liberals out there who never heard of the thing called the interweb and can't go out there and actually Google stuff, okay? I'm going to put the tax policy center's table up. It's so easy to read, even a liberal can do it. And you will see clearly the breakdown of revenue by source under the Reagan years. You know how I know that, Joe? It says at the top, revenue by source, and it gives you a number. And it says income tax. And it gives you a number. Joe, what do you think that number is? That's the amount of money taken

in by the income tax. Really? Wow. And you're going to notice a pattern. You notice the pattern, Joe? The pattern is that after Reagan cuts the income tax rates, income tax, listen to me, stupid liberals and Larry's friend at work, who's clearly a moron. This is for you, Larry. You can play this for your dopey friend who couldn't even go to the internet and look this up before he talked to you. Go to the table. I will put it in the show notes for all the morons out there.

You will see the income tax revenue to the government after the tax cuts goes up oh my gosh this is not only that you will see corporate tax revenue goes up it goes down after interestingly corporate tax revenue goes down after reagan excuse me that was capital gains you'll see capital gains tax revenue goes down after Reagan hikes the capital gains tax. Corporate tax rates go up. Corporate tax revenue goes up. You'll see also, it'll say social insurance at the top. That's your social security payments and all that stuff.

That goes up. Why? Because people were making more money. So if the new liberal talk point, I don't know where this guy got this because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about at all. And he's not interested in even basic homework. If the new talking point is going to be that revenue to the government increased because interest rates were high, which they were under Paul Volcker, who was the Federal Reserve Chairman. Then how is it that the income tax revenue went up and the income tax rates went down?

It doesn't make any sense. Income tax revenue had to go up because people were making more money. You dopes. Oh my gosh. All you have to do is look at the charts, Joe. That's all you have to do, folks. This isn't complicated. They're like a bunch of parrots though.

You know, there's again and again, the same thing without knowing anything about it. Like a parrot. Oh, it's frustrating. It's like, it's not even like a, yeah, you know, it's again and again the same thing without knowing anything about it. Like a parrot. Oh, it's frustrating. It's like it's not even like a. Yeah. You know, it's like a stupid parrot, though, because if you're a parrot, you know, and you're in a house with a generally smart guy who says, you know, revenue went up after the Reagan tax cuts, the parrot will go revenue went up after the Reagan taxes. But you're in a house with a stupid person. You're in the house with an idiot who goes tax revenue went up but it was due to interest rates how is that how explain how that so let me get this straight interest rates went up

and what you give interest uh interest payments to the government went up well how come that's not where the money came from it came from the income tax i i don't know i don't know i don't know that's a stupid parrot You live with the stupid guy. So yes, you are a parrot, but you're just a dumb parrot, which is even worse. There was a parrot in a place. They used to get a haircut over in Naples when I was running for office. And he would repeat sometimes what people were said in the shop. But that's it.

It's not the parrot in the shop. It's a parrot with the stupid liberal parroting dumb liberal talking. But it's just sickening. I want to throw up every time I hear. All right. Today's show brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply. Hey, thanks to everybody who picked up the supply of emergency food. You know, I know it sounds to many of you.

It sounds like something. What do I need emergency food for? You know, it's interesting. You'd say that because we again, we ensure our health. And most of us, thankfully, will never come down with a terminal disease. We ensure our car or the likelihood of being in a car accident, thankfully, again, is pretty low. We ensure our homes and even in a hurricane state I'm in, in Florida, you know, the chances of your home being devastated, knock on wood, are usually pretty low, but we ensure it. We ensure it because

we don't want to face those risks. Why would you want to face the risk of literally starving to death? I'm not kidding. Why would you want to face that risk? If the risk is one in 10,000 or one in 100,000, it's not worth the risk, especially if you have a family. Go out, get yourself a month's supply of emergency food. By the way, I had pointed out by a Burke who's a regular listener and emailer. He said, and he said, you should tell people that this one month's supply is only for one person. He's right. I have a couple. I actually have three boxes for four family members. I know I got to get another one soon. I got to talk to my Patriot Supply. But get your supply of emergency food. Go to, here's the website. It's preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com. Pick up your one month supply of emergency food today. It's only $99.

It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. All you have to do is add water. Store it. You can forget about it. Hopefully, you never need it, but it's better to have it, not need it, and need it, not have it. Facing starvation. You're only a few meals away from total chaos.

Make sure you get your one-month supply of emergency food. Preparewithdan.com. Joe, one more thing, not to labor on with this, but what really is bothering me lately, and I'm getting increasingly frustrated with dealing with liberals because the stupid is so strong with them, it's just amazing, is while we're willing to be intellectually honest

and credit Democrats for good policy, and frankly, I don't really care who thought of it or who didn't. If a Democrat signs it and advances it, oh, well, he did it at the urging of a Republican, I don't really care you know who thought of it or who didn't if a democrat signs it advances it you know you know oh well he did it at the urging of a republic i don't really care but democrats are not willing to do liberals are not willing to do the same thing right they just can't tell the truth about the reagan years ever that's what bothered me so much about that email it just requires you to not be a dope to be able to figure it out and they just can't do it you know how many times on this show have we said,

listen, there was no Clinton surplus, but the Bill Clinton years were decent economically. They were. Although there was no surplus, that's a myth. Again, regular listeners, you already know that. The Bill Clinton deficits, annual deficits, and the additions to the debt were historically small compared to the Bush years

and Obama years. You can tell me all you want. Oh, well, Newt Gingrich pushed him into it. I'm sure he did. There's no question he did. But I don't care. I'm not a doctrinaire party guy. I only care about good policy. Kudos to Clinton for signing a couple budgets where government spending was relatively controlled, Joe. It's not hard for me to say that but for for democrats for liberals like this guy larry you email me about his friend your friend's just an idiot i'm sorry i mean you know don't make it it is personal you're just dopey you're wasting everybody's time you're an intellectual blight on humanity you keep saying things that's not things that aren't true in an effort to persuade people that what you're saying is true even though it's false that makes you a

liar what what else what else could you pot you're either a liar or an idiot there's no third choice you either know you're not telling the truth and you continue to say it or you don't know because you don't do your homework and you're just dumb. Do your freaking homework. Gosh. All right. On that, I mean, did we sum that up, by the way? Yeah, I was going to say that's a hell of a choice. Yeah, it is, but it is.

It's true. There is no third option there. You're right. Okay, so the Democrats, here's a good one. They unveiled their new party slogan. This is almost comical. Oh yeah did you see this i've heard i've heard yes yeah their new party slogan which sounds an awful lot like it's pointed out by many the papa john's commercial what is it better pizza better delivery something papa john's uh the papa john's commercial this is it for the democrats i think they stole it from it. Their new slogan is a better deal, better jobs, better wages, better future.

I liked our slogan better by Dan Gedman, who is a winner of our contest. You scratch my back, I'll stab yours. That sounds bad. That's the much better Democrat slogan. By the way, I'll get that book out to Dan this week. He was the winner of the contest. I know we gave him a CRTV subscription for a year for free. So I hope he likes it. But they unveiled this new slogan, a better deal, better jobs, better wages, better future. But here's, this is important. They

unveiled their three planks as well. Let's see. I took a screenshot of this to make sure we didn't miss this thing because there was so much, the humor in this is hysterical. All right, here's their three planks for their new party platform going forward notice by the way i want you before i read these i want you to just keep this in your mind notice how of all of the three planks they're going to reveal today than a monday none of them involve using economic freedom capitalism or liberty to goal. It all involves big government, which is interesting because they want to increase the government monopoly. They want to increase government power while decrying the concentration of corporate power as if trading one power for another, you know, corporate power you can escape from. For government power, you can't. It's a better deal. So keep that in mind as I'm reading these. All right, here's number one. Lowering prescription drug prices.

Suggestions include, so that's their platform, Joe. They're going to lower prescription drug prices. So before I even get there, how would we do it, Joe? Real simple. We would allow competition, which has only lowered the prices of every single other item in economic history because that's how it works. You see a product, flat screen TV started at $5,000, $6,000, $7,000. I remember I had one of the original ones, HD. Now you can go to Best Buy, you can get a flat

screen, I kid you not, for $250, if not cheaper when you get a sale. How did that happen? There was no government bureau for televisions, flat screen televisions that did that people saw there were profits to be made in expensive hd televisions they started selling them they found ways to make them cheaper and out compete their their their competitors one guy sold it for 5 000 one guy sold it for 49 and a guy came in and sold it for 45 then you had a breakthrough in chip technology and it was sold for 44,000, $3,000, $2,000, $1,000, $250. It's called the free market. Now, that would happen with prescription drug prices as well. But what's the Democrat solution for lowering prescription drug prices?

I quote, suggestions include a new agency, Joe, that could investigate drug manufacturer price hikes. And they would allow Medicare to negotiate directly for the best drug prices. There you go. That's going to do do it that's what we need joe we need another government agency to go into the private sector and investigate price hikes ironically price hikes enforced and some of these price hikes are dramatic enforced joe because another government agency the fda gives some prescription drug makers a monopoly on their product so competitors can't lower the prices on their competing product because they can't compete with the product because the FDA gives them a monopoly. Let's not let economics and common sense get in the way of another stupid liberal talking

point. So their party platform, number one, lower prescription drug prices. The way to do it, institute a new government agency that I guarantee you will only investigate the competitors of people who lobby and give the government a lot of money to put their competitors out of business. Guaranteed that's what's going to happen, which will, I promise you again, only serve to reinforce the monopoly a lot of these pharmaceutical makers have on their product right now.

Man, is it frustrating dealing with these idiots. All right, number two. Cracking down on corporate monopolies. Oh, I love the language they used, too. This was definitely focus group tested, Joe. Cracking down on those evil corporate monopolies. Democrats would enact new standards to limit large mergers and create a new consumer competition advocate. Oh, this is now they love competition as long as it's a government employed advocate who's going to enforce competition.

Uh, come again. So this one that makes me laugh. So they would enact new standards because Joe, there's not enough regulations now. So if we enact new regulations that limit, quote, large mergers, then all of a sudden we're going to help the free market lower prices. What the hell is wrong with you idiots? Now, again, because I'm passionate about economics and finance, you know what's really interesting about this? They are right about one thing in this. There has been an increase in what they call M&A activity, mergers and acquisitions, over the last, say, eight years, the Obama years and up until recently. It's kind of slowed down a little bit since Trump got into office.

They're not wrong about that. Now, will a merger and an acquisition decrease competition? It depends. Who knows? I mean, a lot of mergers and acquisitions decrease prices as well. Now, why would that be, Joe? I mean, if you have a company like Apple and Apple buys out, say, Samsung and they use Samsung's technology and the technology allows Samsung to make their phones cheaper because they have this, say, whatever, assembly

line procedure that skips a few stages that Apple has to go through and their phones are cheaper. It may allow Apple to sell their phones cheaper and out-compete you know, and out-compete LG or someone else, right? So mergers and acquisitions, folks, don't always decrease competition. They may decrease the number of competitive players. I want to be clear on that. But that doesn't mean it decreases competition. Because I can tell you for a fact, from an economic perspective, I mean, a very simple one, it doesn't require, doesn't require economics PhD. If you have Coke and Pepsi competing at each other, cutting each other's throats, do you really need Dr. Pepper in there?

Coke and Pepsi can compete each other down to pennies on the dollar in profit just to stay in business and to try to take over market share in the industry. So don't mistake the number of competitors in the arena for competition. Does that make sense, Joe? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you don't need 6,000 cola companies. You really need two or three that are vicious competitors, and you will all of a sudden

see price competition. But what I was going to say about this whole thing is merger M&A activity did increase under the Obama years. And if you're a regular listener to the show, you know why. Mergers and acquisitions increased under the Obama years because there was a lot of easy money out there. The Federal Reserve was pumping money into the economy through quantitative easing. A lot of these companies took advantage of the low interest rates, essentially the free money, the monopoly money that was being printed, and said, you know what? We'd be crazy not to take a loan at these low interest rates.

The government's giving us free money, Joe. I mean, at some point, compared to real interest rates, they're almost paying you to take the money. So they took the money and Joe's t-shirt company bought Bob's t-shirt company. And they said, hey, let's get together because now we can fight back against the regulations. It's a twofer deal. We can get rid of one legal department because it's going to be one company now. We can save money on legal costs fighting back. We can also streamline the workforce. We may not have to be subjected to Obamacare if we can find a way to get around this and streamline our operations.

So there was a lot of merger and acquisition activity that ironically was a result of bad Obama policies. Now, I can't blame Obama entirely for loose money, but that is a Democrat. Democrats love loose money. They love loose money and the printing of money because it degrades the value of the dollar, which in turn degrades the value of a dollar of debt. And Democrats love debt. Democrats love debt. Therefore, Democrats love printing money because printing money degrades debt as well as degrading the value of the dollar you have now. So it's interesting that that policy was what

encouraged merger and acquisition activity rather than investment. And now it's the same merger and acquisition activity that's bothering the Democrats, Joe, who are, quote, cracking down on corporate monopolies. Do you see why being... Folks, I love doing this show, and I love my audience. Matter of fact, I told my wife last night, I said, if I die unexpectedly, God forbid, I don't mean to sound macabre, but if I have a heart attack or something, you have to do a final show and tell my audience what a journey this has been. Because I love you all, man. I love your emails. I love your tweets.

I really do. I mean it. That's not like stupid talk radio stuff. I think you know better than me. But I love it. But this is, being fairly candid with you, it's very frustrating sometimes to do what I do. Because when you read this stuff, like you read through these party planks, you're like, Joe, seriously, are liberals really this stupid? Do they do no homework at all? And what bothers

me is not the dopey liberals, not the 21-year-old with the nose ring and purple hair and Che Guevara tattoo. I mean, most of them just don't know what they're talking about. They'll grow up later when they start paying taxes. What bothers me is the educated liberals, the Jason Furmans. The Jason Furmans of the world who have not been in the Wall Street Journal today, and he knows better, who are just lying to you. You don't know M&A activity went up under the Obama year, mergers and acquisitions? So your new platform is you want to stop mergers, yet mergers were at almost historic highs under the Obama years, precisely because of Obama's bad regulatory policies and loose

Federal Reserve policies, which Democrats love. You don't know that, or you do know that, and you're just an idiot and you're lying to people. That's what Democrats do. It is intellectually dishonest. I'm a Republican. I can't stand the general establishment Republican Party, but I'm a Republican because I'm the anti-Democrat,

because I know how bad Democrats are. It's infuriating. Here's the last one. This one's hysterical too, Joe. This is the last party platform. So number one was lowering prescription drug prices, by the way, by a government cartel. Second, cracking down on corporate monopolies that they encouraged in the obama years the third one creating millions more jobs the agenda include yeah oh that's gonna happen the agenda includes

proposals for expanding apprenticeships and providing a tax credit to employers to train and hire new workers. Okay. So again, the tax credit is very telling. The tax credit is an interesting idea there because instead the Democrats, you may, you have to ask yourself here. Now this, this one is going to get complicated. So deal with me for a second,

but I promise it'll be worth your while. This explains a lot about how liberals are liars they are not intellectually honest the liberals who drew up this party platform are saying to you we need to quote create million more million more millions more jobs that's their that's their new party plank going forward with their new slogan better deal better jobs better wages better future which. Okay. Now it's interesting they would say that. Ask your liberal friends, why would a tax credit, not a tax deduction, by the way, a tax deduction is different. We discussed this on a prior show, but a tax deduction, you're allowed to deduct from your income, a tax credit, you will get that tax credit deducted from your income, even if

you have no tax liability at all. There's a difference. A tax credit's worth more. So if you're going to get a tax credit as a business for training and hiring new people, follow the economics of it. Explain the economics to me if you're a liberal. Well, they won't. They won't dare because if they explain the economics, they completely discredit liberalism,

Joe. Do they not well if a tax credit benefits a company who's quote training uh new people how would it happen well the company would have more money in its pocket because they would get a tax credit which would allow them to not pay that money to the federal government and allow them to keep the money to train people okay so why not just lower their taxes and what why joe why send the money to the government first to institute a program of tax credits to then send the money back in the form of a refundable tax credit to a corporation? What's the point?

I don't get it. What may not be refundable? Meaning if they have no tax liability on the personal side, there are refundable tax credits, meaning even if you have no tax liability, you could still get it back. I'm not really sure about on the corporate side, because they haven't released the exact specifics on it yet, so let me not jump the gun and be unfair to them. It may just be a tax credit, meaning if you don't owe taxes, you don't owe taxes. You're not actually going to get anything back. You know what I'm saying, Joe? But either way, it doesn't matter if your point is that by giving a tax credit we'll give

more money to liberals i mean if liberals point excuse me let me rewind that if liberals point is we'll give more money back to the corporations why not let the corporations and businesses keep the money themselves if having the money is essential to economic growth and training new people it this is do you understand what's frustrating? Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm not trying to be a sarcastic piece of garbage with you guys today. I'm really not. I'm always a little salty on Monday because I read this stuff over the weekend.

I can't wait to get back. I really, that's why I feel like we have to do something over the weekend sometimes. But it's just frustrating to read this. Your whole premise is that if corporations have more of their own money to spend, that it will benefit the company by training new people and will lead to economic growth. You just said it. It's your new party platform. But then when you talk about a tax cut where corporations are just not spending the money on taxes in the first place and keeping the money, it's bad.

So keeping the money is only good when it goes to the government first and the government can issue a tax credit. Now, Joe. Yes. The $64 million question here is why would they support that? Why would they support that? Now, if you are a regular listener, you may be putting two and two together right here.

Folks, they would support that because a tax credit can go to favored industries. And favored industries will do what? Will hire lobbyists to get into that favored industries category. So if you're Joe's t-shirt company and you fear about this program for tax credits for certain businesses that are going to hire new people, rather than you just getting your taxes cut and keeping your own money, that's not good enough for liberals, even though the premise is the same. Keeping money in the business would be a good thing, right? That's the premise. Tax credit, but tax cut. The tax credit is more beneficial to liberals because they get to say which industries get the tax credit. And if we engage in a corporate tax

cut show, everybody keeps their money. Do you see what I'm saying? You follow me here? Yeah, I'm with you. Yeah. Corporate tax cut, all businesses keep their money. Liberals don't want that. Even though they just acknowledge keeping your own money in the business is a good thing. They want to tax credit because they want to increase the power of government. And you can increase the power of government by making sure that there's no power in yes. As Chuck Ecker, the former Howard County executive used to say. He said to me one time, there's no power in yes.

There's no power in telling people, yes, you can keep your money. There is power in telling people no, but if you lobby us, you'll get the tax credit too. Then all of a sudden, you got all these industries lining up in Democrat congressman and senator's office.

Hey, I'll cut you a $5,000 campaign check if Joe's t-shirt company gets the tax credit too. Do you see the BS we have to deal with these people all the time, folks? Yeah. It's just nonstop garbage and junk all the time. Now, I'm going to put a piece in Reuters in the show notes today too. The headline of the piece says it all about the Dems' new party platform.

It says, this is the headline, Dems take aim at big companies and economic blueprint. What? That's the headline. So your economic blueprint is to attack big companies that hire big numbers of people and have big amounts of capital. That makes perfect sense. To Democrats, that makes a lot of sense. All right. Hey, just a couple of quick things to get through here. But first, have you signed up for CRTV yet? I'm asking you to give us a shot. I know a lot of you who are subscribers get ready to re-up.

We got a lot of great things coming down the pipeline. I promise you, the owner of the company and the management of the company is very focused on investing in the future of conservative television. I feel like we have the best product out there now for the money.

The bang for the buck is incredible. You get Mark Levin's show. You get Michelle Malkin's show. You get Steven Crowder's show. You get Steve Dace's show. And there's all kinds of additional content out there. You have John Miller's White House brief. You have the Capitol Hill brief. Folks, it's a really,

really... I wouldn't work here if I didn't think we weren't the future of conservative television. Get in there now. Go to CRTV.com. Get in early. Use promo code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O. You'll get $10 off the subscription fee. And I went to New York recently and I saw a sandwich. I think I tell the story all the time. You're probably tired of it, but it's true. A turkey sandwich for 12 bucks. Think about it. For the price of a turkey sandwich,

you get about a month of content. So pay for the year. For 12 turkey sandwiches, you get a great deal. So consider what you're paying for cable. It's a really good deal. Go to CRTV.com. Use promo code Bongino now. Again, getting back to how liberals will just lie to you and make things up.

There's an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. I'm not going to put it in the show notes because it's subscriber content. And I know people get upset when they can't read it. So it's kind of a waste of everybody's time. If you're a subscriber, you can read it there anyway. But Jason Furman was an advisor to Obama, an economic advisor. And he writes this op-ed in the Journal today. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.

But it just goes to harp, again, on this liberal fascination with lying to you and propagandizing people he's talking about how great obamacare is and and how it really just requires some tinkering and he makes two points joe first point is he defends the premium hike and he says well you know the premium hike uh you know it was a one-time hike not true uh it was, it was a one-time hike. Not true. It was a multi-year hike. The hike last year was just unusually big. And he says, well, you know, it's not that big of a deal because now the markets have stabled. Folks, but that was not the promise of Obamacare. Okay. I'm not going to go into all the broken promises because of allegiance of them. But Obama was crystal clear in his speeches that the policy proposal they put forward was going to cut a family's healthcare cost by

$2,500 a year. That was categorically not true. So just wipe that out. Furman's just lying or he's rewriting the past again. And then secondly, he makes a point about the premium hikes saying, but don't worry because a lot of those people subjected to premium hikes, the one in six people who are in the individual market choices, oh, don't worry because a lot of them are getting quote subsidies to pay for them.

Folks, again, for your liberal friends who keep bringing up the stupid talking point, subsidies are tax dollars. Your neighbor is paying for your healthcare while you pay for his. Subsidies are not created by the money fairy. The money doesn't appear from my little pony land. The money is your money. It's your money. How stupid do you have to be? Like, oh, no, the price hikes went through the roof. But don't worry. We just increased your taxes to take more money from you to give you back to pay for the health care costs that went up as a result of Obamacare. Oh, that sounds like a great deal.

Thanks, Jason. This guy's smart. This is one of the guys that bothers me. Because he's not stupid, Joe. Because he knows better. And he puts that in there anyway. Oh, we're getting subsidies? Oh, that's great. Where do they he's not stupid, Joe. Because he knows better and he puts that in there anyway. Oh, we're getting subsidies? Oh, that's great.

Where do they come from? Oh, us. Oh, so now I'm paying more for healthcare and more for taxes. Yeah, yeah, but... Shh, don't tell anybody that. Dopes. It's really infuriating.

All right, one final report story. I got an email from... It's based on a report, this Mercer report. I got a nice email this weekend. If you have stories, by the way, send them to me at daniel appangino if i read them and they're you know i think they're they're they're good for our audience i'll put them on here this was an interesting one i'm just going to wrap up with quick i was a mercer report about the long-term savings gap in the u.s and folks the only reason i'm bringing this up on the show

it's not an investment show it's not like hey we don't do stock picks here or anything like that but this is an interesting story because i not not to put you in a bad mood on a Monday, but we are in a lot of trouble with long-term savings in the country. And you should start to worry if we don't get economic growth on track. If we do get economic growth on track, if we can hit four and gosh, even 5% if we start motoring, we'll be in decent shape. And it's nothing to panic about. But there is a savings gap in the country.

And the Mercer report, which I'll put in the show notes today, you can read it yourself, says that the long-term savings gap in the country may grow, Joe, this is a really troubling number, to $137 trillion by 2050. Yeah, that's a lot of dough considering our annual GDP is only $20 trillion. And the savings gap now currently stands at $28 trillion. Now, when I say savings gap, what we're talking about is money we don't have to finance our quality of life in the future. We don't have it. There's a gap in savings. It's no different than you were looking at a savings

gap in your own life, Joe. If you need $100,000 a year or $50,000 a year to survive in the future at your current cost of living, and you only have 10,000, you have a savings gap. The country as a whole has a significant one, which currently stands at 28 trillion. But it's a short piece. It's only a couple of paragraphs, but it really sums it up nicely. It says the problem is being caused by defined benefit programs and the social security shortfall. I only bring it up to hammer home the point, folks. Again, it's not an investment show, but save your money. Because if you're counting on Social Security to be there, it's not. It's not going to be there, not at the current rates of growth. There's just no way.

And if you have a defined benefit plan, which is equivalent of a pension, a defined contribution plan would be a 401k, where you make a contribution, a defined contribution. And that contribution comes back to you later on in the form of your retirement savings and in a form of retirement income. Defined benefit plan is a pension plan where you get that amount based on a pension no matter what, or they define that benefit in the end, what that cash payment's going to be. Those plans are going broke because those companies can't meet that promise.

Folks, it's a big deal. So I'll put the report in the show notes. Give it a look. Check it out. I think it's a big deal. So just, uh, I'll put the report, give it, I'll put the report in the show notes, give it a look, check it out. I think it's interesting. And, you know, just a little warning that the, you know, if we don't save up, we could be in a lot of trouble. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. I will see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservative review.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7

at DBongino.