The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 558 Debunking the Democrats' Insane Lies About the Trump Tax Cuts

Episode Date: September 29, 2017

In this episode - The Republicans finally have a tax cut plan. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/09/27/trump-gop-roll-out-tax-plan-cuts-rates-doubles-deduction.html   And the Democrats are already lying about the Republican tax cut plan. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5592348251001/?#sp=show-clips   The truth about the mythical "Clinton surplus," again! http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16   The truth about the Bush tax cuts, again!  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/   The truth about federal spending. https://mises.org/blog/federal-spending-grew-more-under-bush-and-reagan-under-obama   The truth about federal tax revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary   Why are Americans being forced to pay for unions they don't want to join? https://m.forbes.com/sites/briankmiller/2017/09/28/compelled-union-dues-are-back-at-the-supreme-court-what-happens-next/?s=trending#bb0ccba13629   The NFL is getting pounded.  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-ticket-sales-plummet-179/article/2635955   Sponsor links: www.PrepareWithDan.com www.CRTV.com Promo Code "Bongino" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. I have an obligation to come on the air with data and material and research. I can't just say, trade stinks. Thanks for tuning in. The Dan Bongino Show. Let's jump right in because we have no time for nonsense. Get ready to hear the truth about America. When I was a young man, I don't remember it being sexy to want to allow a nanny state to control my life.

On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino. Alright, welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? Hey, I'm hanging in there, Mr. Fox and Friends. Yeah, yesterday up there in New York with my family for cooking with friends on the Fox & Friends set. And hey, a quick note for all the Facebookers, tweeters, emailers, and thanks to everyone who reached out. My wife cooked some empanadas on the set yesterday.

Really healthy, by the way, or a healthy variant. I don't know if there's some kind of like FDA rule or something, but a healthy variant of the empanada. And I got, Joe, I kid you not, at least I received probably 30 to 40 emails and probably another 40, 50 tweets and Facebook messages about the recipe for the empanadas. People are like, I want the recipe. So that was really cool. My wife was, a lot of you finally

saw her for the first time yesterday, if you don't follow me on Instagram. The recipe will be up at Bongino.com today. My wife will put it up. And believe me when I tell you, they are terrific. I don't just say that because it's my wife's cooking. If you've never had an empanada, it's pretty simple. You know what they are. It's in a crust or a wrap.

You put some meat and potatoes and stuff. My wife uses the egg roll wraps because they're just easy to go find and to make. But the recipe will be up there today, and I promise they're worth your time. So it will be up at Bongino.com today. Give them a shot. Let me know what you think.

Okay, I have an enormous amount of material today. I'll be in on Mark Levin's show tonight where I will continue the material, so make sure you listen in to Levin's show. All right. The tax cuts. This is obviously a huge issue right now trump released uh in conjunction with the gop congress they released their tax plan yesterday i'll be honest with you folks i'm not folks i'm not crazy about it um i i'm not it's okay it's not great it's just okay there's a couple parts of the tax cut

plan i wish were more robust and vibrant and more and as my daughter would say are more gooder on the income tax side, but it's not the worst thing in the world. So just starting out where we are now, let me tell you the effects on you so we can sum up just quickly where we are so then we can debunk

the liberals who are losing their minds already with Joe. They just roll out the same talking points over and over and over again. Fair share, tax cuts for the rich, Clinton surplus. It never ends. Democrats never have anything of substance to say about taxes. They just roll out this same crap over and over and over again. So your effects on you, who are basically the winners or the thumbs up people

and who are the thumbs down people who are going to maybe lose a little bit little bit on the lose a little bit now let me just say before i get into the effects on you so you understand i'm not speaking with forked tongue i'd like to see this pass if this is the best we can do i think we can make it better but this is not going to benefit me i don't think matter of fact i'm probably going to be a little worse off for this tax plan yeah so again i wrote my second book, The Fight. We all got to get big. For those of you who are going to email me like, oh, it's easy for you to say. You make a lot of money or whatever.

Folks, this is not going to benefit me at all, okay? I live in a low-tax state right now, and I itemize. Itemize a lot more than probably $24,000. So I'm going to lose a little bit of money on this. Now, who's going to win the thumbs up people? The non-itemizers will win. That's about 70% of people who file taxes do not itemize. What do I mean by itemize?

They don't claim the mortgage interest tax deduction. They don't claim, they basically take the standard deduction, which now is for married couples, $12,000, right? They just get a standard deduction. They don't deduct anything else. They just leave it. They take the standard deduction. Non-itemizers, that's again, about 70% of people out there, that's not me. I itemize, okay? That's not Dan Bongino. Non-itemizers, people who rent and don't own a home, you're going to benefit huge on this because the deduction you can now take is going to double from 12,000 to 24,000 if you're married, 12,000 if you're single. Okay. So if you're a married

couple out there and you're not itemizing, you just doubled the amount of money you can deduct from your taxes. That's going to be a big, nice little windfall for you. So you'll win huge non-itemizers. Second, if you have assets to pass on over around $5 million, $11 million or so for married couples, if you have assets to pass on, the estate tax is going away. What I call the death tax because it is a death tax. And a lot of people, I didn't invent the term, but it is an accurate term. It is a tax on death.

That's what it does, okay? If you have assets to pass on, those assets will now, you will now, they are taxed already, by the way. Remember, you taxed when you earned the money. You were taxed on it. But you will be allowed to pass those on. So if you have assets, you're a little bit of a winner on this one, okay? If you're a business, if you're a business, you

will win on this too, okay? Because the current corporate tax rate is 35%. If you are incorporated as a corporation, and I covered this a little bit on yesterday's show, I don't want to be redundant, but we got to know where we are so we know where we're going, okay? They're going to cut the business tax from 35% to 20%, and if your business is not incorporated and you handle,

you have like whatever, Joe's radio business, and it's just paid to Joe Armacost, not Joe Armacost LLC. Yep, that's called a pass-through. You'll pay a 25%, which I covered on yesterday's show, okay? The losers. If you are in a high-tax state, New York, New Jersey, which is usually a liberal state, 9 out of 10 times, right? Illinois. If you are in a high-tax state, New York, New Jersey, which is usually a liberal state, nine out of ten times, right? Illinois, if you are in a high tax state, you are probably going to be a little bit of a loser on this one.

Now, why is that? Because, at least in the tax plan now as it stands, although I think this is going to get watered down, the deductibility of state and local taxes goes away. So, you were able to deduct that if you paid $10,000 a year in Maryland state taxes. We don't have a state tax here in Florida, so I don't need that deduction. But if you were in Maryland and you're claiming that as an itemized deduction, that's now going to go away. You can't claim a deduction from what you've paid in state and local taxes, okay? So just to be clear on where we're going with that, if you were in a high-tax state, you may, in fact, pay a little more.

Also, the wealthy. The wealthy are not going to do very well on this. Now, again, that defeats a Democrat talking point that this is a tax cut for the rich. But don't let that get in the way, you know, liberals of your stupid talking points again. The 35% top tax rate, which I would like to see go back to the Reagan rates of 28%, doesn't change. So, basically, we're screwed. I mean, if you're at that tax rate, it's really close to 39.6 when you factor in everything.

That's not changing at all. So people, I am going to be next year, I'm guessing, depending on in that tax bracket, it's not really helping me at all. So now one quick note on this before we get into the debunking. Let the debunking begin. This is going to be, by the way, I promise you,

one of the most informative shows I've ever done on taxes. You can refer back to this show in years. I'm going to go through mounds and mounds of data that is going to totally annihilate everything your liberal friends have ever told you. So don't tune out for a second. I did a, I'm patting myself on the back, but I did a, this show took me a good solid four hours to put together. All I did a, I'm patting myself on the back, but I did a, this show took me a good solid four

hours to put together. All right. No, I'm not kidding. I've been up. That's why I sent you those clips, Joe, so early this morning, because I've been up since 530 doing this. Okay. Well, how you like this?

Gentlemen, start your debunkers. You're debunking. All right. Before we get into it, though, Trump's he put out a statement again. And just to dig back to my NFL thing. Remember what I told you about Trump with the NFL, that his expertise is getting liberals to show their asses and they keep falling into the trap. It's amazing. In other words, he calls them sons of bitches with the NFL. They should stand up for the anthem. And he gets the liberals to respond by doubling down on anti-americanism getting them to show their asses that was one of my favorite shows but he did it again on taxes he talked about

these tax cuts and we just had a really great quarter we had three percent gdp growth 3.1 in the second quarter of 2017 which is huge if we can get that over the year remember barack obama never hit three percent gdp growth in any fiscal year anytime he was president we'll be well on the way year, any time he was president, we'll be well on the way to solid growth. So he was asked about the tax cuts. He's like, hey, if we get these tax cuts, we could hit 6% growth.

Now, this is it. What did I tell you about the Trump strategy? When he's on, he's not always on. Sometimes he just misspeaks. Excuse me, just to be clear on this. Sometimes he just misspeaks. This is not one of those moments, though. He did it again.

Just like with the NFL, Joey makes a hyperbolic statement, and he gets liberals to show their asses. So what does he do? He comes out and goes, if we get these tax cuts, we could hit 6% growth. He's kind of in a way doing the 8-minute abs. 8-minute abs, right? He throws it out. Now, is 6% growth possible?

Yeah, but candidly, folks, the levels of debt we're at, it's going to be tough. I'm not an anti-growth guy. It's possible. Reagan hit it, but it's going to be super tough, okay? So he throws a really hyperbolic statement out there. We're going to get 6% growth. And instead of liberals, this is how dumb they are. They are such suckers for Trump. It's

incredible. What do they do, Joe? They come out with 6% growth. What are you kidding? The U.S. economy sucks. We're not going to grow in 60%. I mean, all right, I'm doing a little hype. But Paul Krugman and the other ones, they didn't say the U.S. economy sucks, but you get my point. He gets them to show their ass.

They are now on the side, and I've got sound cuts that Joe was gracious enough to put together from an interview yesterday of a Democratic lawmaker who's supposed to be a moderate, by the way. He challenged Nancy Pelosi. This guy, Tim Ryan, doing exactly that. What did he do?

They counter with, we're not going to grow at 6%. U.S. economy's not that short. Are you guys crazy? It's just so amazing to me that me, as a partisan observer, but I believe Joe a reasonably objective one regarding trump yeah pretty good yeah we try um it's just amazing to me that you liberals are so dumb and you constantly fall for this gee here's what you want let me give you a piece of advice okay i i know i know i'm gonna get emails i'll give a democrat's i'm sorry i just could for a second

just just please forgive me for a moment let me me do this. When Trump says the economy with tax cuts can grow at 6%, we're a powerhouse. We got great workers here. Just say, you know what? I don't agree with the tax plan, the way it's structured. But I do agree that the economy, the U.S. economy is a powerhouse and we should do more to power. And move on. Stop being stupid liberals. 6%?

Trump, you crazy? American worker's an idiot. There ain't no chance in 6% growth. Dopes, government, man. Racism, xenophobia. You look like fools. All right, I wasted way too much time on that. Okay. Now, Joe, do me a favor. Cue up cut one. This is Nancy Pelosi. Now, just to be clear, when the sound cut opens up, this was not Joe flubbing the sound cut. I took this off Fox, Fox News' website. It will be in the show notes the entire interview at Bongino.com.

Please subscribe to my email list. I will send it right to you. I've got, folks, please subscribe today. I get nothing out of this. I don't sell my email list. It's just you. I have some gonzo articles on there today

you're not going to want to miss. There's five or six ringers on there today that I dug up on the internet you're not going to find on Drudge today. Please subscribe to my email list. Or go to Bongino.com. You can see them there too if you don't want any emails.

I totally understand. But I have the entire Fox News interview I'm about to play on there. These are just two cuts because it's 12 minutes long. We don't have enough time to do it. But this the sound you hear in the beginning is the Fox News sound, you know, when they open up an interview. But play this quick 10 second plus cut of Nancy Pelosi responding to the Trump tax cuts. And remember, this is liberals showing their asses again. Dopes, play that cut. We on the Democratic side are pay as you go.

You want a tax cut? Pay for it. We want to fight their rigging the system even further for the wealthy and well-connected and against hardworking middle-income families. We're not there to be accomplices to increasing the deficit with a bill that does not create jobs.

Already. This is like epic humor. Nancy Pelosi is now all about, quote, paying as you go, and she's not going to be an accomplice to the debt deficit. Nancy Pelosi, is this serious? Was this a bad joke? Nance, I'm not kidding. Like, are you messing with us?

Her dad was the mayor of Baltimore. I was in D'Alessandro or something like that. Is this a joke? The Democrats are now worried about the debt. Now, Joe, on this show, we're fair here, okay? Yeah. And I want to just lay out the game plan. I am going to get into now

where the Democrats really are in debt, and I'm going to have some hard medicine for you, too. We're going to get some tussin'. Remember Chris Rock with the Robitussin? You get a cut, you throw the tussin' in there. He was right. When we were kids, Robitussin solved everything, right? Chris Rock did it cool.

We're going to get some tussin' here, okay? Republicans, the swamp rats, have not been any good on this either, the debt or deficit. But let's open up with a couple of honest kind of premises where we're going to go with this on the actual debt. Disregard Nancy Pelosi's a joke. What she just said is a total embarrassment. Barack Obama ran up a chaotic amount of debt during his time.

She loved every minute of it. She has zero credibility. But let's try to find some common ground with moderate, reasonable Democrats on this. Point one, Pelosi claims she's worried about the debt and deficit. So to the moderate Dems, I agree. I'm worried about it too. So point number one, yes, debt and deficits are bad. We have to make this simple, Joe.

I'm sorry, but there are liberals listening who you're so obsessed with your religion, and I mean your politics. I mean, for religion to me means one thing. Religion to you is your politics. That you can't see past your own ideology into facts and data. Let's just set that out there. Debt is bad. We agree, Nancy.

Okay? Debt, bad. Debt, bad. And debt is the accumulated debt deficit or the annual shortfalls. Okay. Point number two. Yes, the Republican Party swamp rats, not the conservatives, but the Republican Party swamp rats have contributed

greatly to the national debt too. Now, if that's the premise and we're being intellectually honest, because where does this come from? One, Pelosi's hypocrisy. But secondly, I'll be in for Levin tonight again, tune in. But whenever I'm on Levin, I don't take callers on my show, but I do on Levin's show. I'll inevitably get a liberal caller every time, and I'm sure we'll get one tonight. If you want to call in tonight, 877-381-3811 tonight to Mark's show. It's live.

Call in any time. But there are some liberals who always call in and joke, well, Bush ran up the debt too. Yep, point stipulated. You win. Move on. Moving on. So we agree debt is bad,

and George Bush spent a lot of money. And then they have nothing else to say because there's nowhere else to go after that like they they they can't get out of their heads that it's all about denver's republican what i'm telling you to be clear by setting up these two premises yet debt yes debt is bad point number two yes the gop has run up a lot of debt too i'm setting that up right away that immediately knocks out any of this Democrat versus Republican thing. I'm talking about debt and agreeing debt is bad. Okay? That's what we're doing.

Debt is bad. Okay? All right. Now, let's go by the numbers here for a moment. Let's give the real numbers. Here is the debt, the national debt run up for each president, Clinton, and I'll throw Reagan in at the end just to give a comparison, okay? Bill Clinton, during his time in office, ran up $1.3 trillion in debt. Now, I'm being generous here, by the way, to Obama at the end,

and let me tell you why. Not because I'm looking to give Obama a pass, but it is fair in some respects to not credit the sitting president with the first year of the last president's budget does that make sense joe yeah yeah like when obama came into office there still was a bush budget that was enacted that he had very little control over but likewise remember we're giving bush a pass on cl Clinton's last year of spending too. So to be clear, I'm being fair across the board here. Right. Because you're going to say, well, that Obama debt sounds a little low. It does because I'm not counting portions of his first year because it was a budget signed by Bush. I'm doing it to be fair here, folks. I get it. I know some people aren't going to like that, but it's being fair to everyone. So Clinton, 1.3 trillion

in accumulated debt. I thought there was a Clinton everyone. So Clinton, 1.3 trillion in accumulated debt. I thought there was a Clinton surplus. Well, we'll get to that in a second. I'm sorry, but we got to go back there because in that second sounder, we have a second, that interview we had at Fox News. He brings it up again. This guy, Tim Ryan, the mythical Clinton surplus, which doesn't exist. Clinton ran up 1.3 trillion. George W. Bush, $5.8 trillion. Ladies and gentlemen, a lot of money. Let's go back to our premises again. Yes, debt bad. Point two for liberals.

Yes, GOP has helped increase the debt. I get it. And it's bad. Okay? Obama, $8 trillion in debt. So it's clear now, just to go back, Reagan was $1.8 trillion. The Reagan administration ran up a lot of debt too. Now, again now, just to go back, Reagan was 1.8 trillion. The Reagan administration ran up a lot of debt too.

Now, again, to be clear on this, folks, Reagan was not a government spender. Reagan was a real fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, he was dealing with Tip O'Neill and liberals in the Congress and the Senate. And he was really forced that his back against the wall to find really expensive budgets.

That's it. Reagan ran up a lot of debt. But again, we can't just, I'm not going to play the game liberals do where I lie to you, you know, to manipulate you. I'm going to give you the truth and you can figure this out on your own. But by any reasonable measure, Joe, $8 trillion is greater than $5.8 trillion, which is greater than $1.3 trillion, correct? Yeah, that's correct.

So Obama ran up a lot of debt. So if Nancy Pelosi's point is accurate, which it isn Yeah, that's correct. So Obama ran up a lot of debt. So if Nancy Pelosi's point is accurate, which it isn't, that she objects so strongly to debt, why didn't she say anything when Obama ran up 8 trillion? And that's being generous. That's not factoring in the final Bush budget because she doesn't care. She's a hypocrite. Joe, you and I and every conservative who listens to the show has been consistent on this from day one. Government debt, bad, no good. Stop it. I don't care if you're a Republican, conservative, liberal, green, communist, it doesn't matter. Government debt's a bad thing. All right, now you have the numbers.

Don't let your friends lie to you about debt. When they bring that up, Bush ran up a lot of debt, go, yep, you got it, point stipulated, but Obama ran up almost twice as much. Does that bother you? No, no, it only bothered us when Bush did it. No, no, because for us, it did bother us when Bush did it. Phonies. All right, on spending, in percentage terms, okay?

Because now all of a sudden, you know what, I'm thinking, let's play that second clip first, the Tim Ryan, because this is, by the way, this is Tim Ryan. He is a democratic congressman he ran against nancy pelosi he frames himself as a moderate he's not a moderate he was on cavuto yesterday again i'll post the whole interview at the show notes and by the way

uh the percentage these percentages spending and the the growth in the debt under each president i have a mises.org article up at the show notes I will email to you, which describes Mises. These guys are Austrians. They do a great job, Austrian school economists. They do a really terrific job. They know what they're talking about.

Mises.org has great research, and they describe to you how bad the debt situation has been under Democrats and Republicans. Read the piece. It'll open your eyes to a lot of these people who went, oh, Bush did it good. Obama did it bad. No, debt bad. I don't care who did it.

But this is Tim Ryan arguing with Neil Cavuto. And he makes a couple of really stupid points. I'm sorry. I wanted to play that cut. Neil, let me ask you a question. George W. Bush cut taxes primarily for the wealthy twice. They were all across the board. I was here.

And tell me what happened to the economy in that decade. Well, I would tell you what happened. In 2000, the market was suddenly going in reverse. And then I think we had this little thing called 9-11. But you can refresh me. Go ahead. It's the most stagnant growth decade we've had since the Great Depression. It ended in a complete economic collapse in 2008. What about the last?

And we had the last decade. You have revisionist history. All I'm telling you is I don't know. Bill Clinton came in. Bill Clinton. OK, well, how about these better than the numbers we did in the last decade? You're quite right. Why are you yelling at me? me i'm not yelling i'm just trying to say all right folks again tim ryan that was a democrat uh accusing cavuto of yelling at him when he's really yelling himself but ryan again is just making stuff up he brings up three critical points before i get into the spending thing because there's so much i want to cover today he says these were tax cuts for the wealthy under the bush 2003 tax cuts folks that is not accurate okay there were tax cuts for the wealthy but they were not 2003 tax cuts. Folks, that is not accurate, okay? There were tax cuts for the wealthy, but they were not exclusively tax cuts for the wealthy. He's just making that up. The

Bush tax cuts cut the top rate from 39 to 35, the second lowest rate from 36 to 33, the rate below that from 31 to 28, and the rate below that from 28 to 25, which included people making $40,000 a year. Tim Ryan is lying. He's not telling you the truth. And this is the problem I have with these interviews. And I get it. They're going back and forth on TV. I get the benefit of going right to the numbers on a computer. But Tim Ryan is just making it up.

He's just not telling you the truth. How is $40,000 a year wealthy? They got a tax cut too. Not to mention Bush doubled the child tax credit. I mean, again, that is a benefit due to the AMT that does not affect the wealthy almost at all. That is a middle class tax cut. I don't like how it's structured, but Ryan is just making it up. He brings up another point that's totally nonsensical because these guys cannot tell you the truth. He talks about the slowest decade of growth, but what he's not telling you is the housing crisis occurred

during the bush administration after the bush administration warned about the coming housing crisis and who defended the status quo with fannie and freddie barney frank and the democrats do you understand joe we've played this before i can't do it again folks because i because I'm limited on time with you, and I want to take advantage of it. Remember the show we did, Joe, where we played Treasury officials, Bush administration officials, warning before the housing crisis that there was a housing bubble and something had to be done, and Barney Frank, a Democrat, screaming at them that they were idiots and trying to keep people from buying homes. How is that Bush's fault? I'm not. Listen, folks, Bush spent a lot of money. I'm going to get into that in a second.

I didn't forget where I am. I did cover debt. Now I'm going to cover government spending. Bush spent a lot of money. But this is ridiculous. Blaming the housing crisis on Bush literally after his administration said, we're looking at a housing crisis if something isn't done. Bush literally after his administration said, we're looking at a housing crisis if something isn't done. Folks, Fannie and Freddie were the backstop. These quasi-government agencies,

these government sponsored enterprises were buying up junk mortgages people couldn't pay. You ultimately paid them off as the taxpayer. The Bush administration warned for years about this. And the slowest decade of growth, Barack Obama, Bush had some great years. Folks, here's some numbers for you. Because we do facts. After the tax cuts in 2003, you know 8 million jobs were created?

You know median household income went up $20,000 after the Bush tax cuts? Did you know government revenue jumped $785 billion? You disagree with any of this? There's an article in the show notes today. Read it yourself from the Washington Times. It's from a few years ago. It's still relevant today.

They are just making it up. Federal government revenue jumped from $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion after the Bush tax cuts. I'll put a tax foundation link up. You can read it yourself. It's right there there clear as day the liberals won't tell you this because they lie we're telling you the truth

about our own shortfalls and about liberal shortfalls liberals don't they blame everything on Republicans and never take any blame themselves they're pathetic it's really sad okay

now let's get to spending man 25 minutes in this is one of my favorite shows I'm sorry I hope you like this stuff Okay, now let's get to spending. Man, 25 minutes in. This is one of my favorite shows. I'm sorry. I hope you like this stuff. On spending in percentage terms, because that's fair due to inflation, who increased spending the most during their term in office by president?

Well, the all-time record holder goes to a Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who increased it by 40% in the time he got into office and the time he left office. So, but, you know, again, don't let that get in the way of your argument, liberals. But again, I'm not here to tell you Republicans didn't, you know, didn't contribute to this either. Reagan increased spending 25% during his presidency.

We can debate, again, if he wanted to or not. I don't think he did. I believe he was a genuine conservative. But those are the numbers, folks. And they're, you know, they can hurt sometimes clinton 5.5 wait wait wait i thought there was a clinton surplus okay you know this is obviously one of my huge pet peeves okay yeah uh let's just i took a picture here let's do clinton spending every year to debunk for the seriously like 10,562nd time the imbeciles who believe in the Clinton surplus. Here's the national debt every single year and the accompanying deficit

of the Clinton presidency. 1994, national debt, $4.6 trillion. His deficit, $281 billion. 1995, national debt, $4.9 trillion. Notice it went up, Joe. It went up. $4.6, $4.9. His deficit again, $281 billion. 1996, the national debt, $5.2 trillion. You following me? How these numbers are going up?

$4.9, $5.2. National debt under Clinton, $250 billion. 1997, national debt, $5.4 trillion. Greater than $5.2, last time I checked. His deficit, $188 billion. 1998, $5.5 trillion. Up again! The deficit, $113 billion.

1999, $5.6 trillion. Deficit, $130 billion, under Clinton. Joe, is there surplus? Have I mentioned the word surplus yet? Not yet. Because, is it surplus? Have I mentioned the word surplus yet? Not yet. Because there is no surplus. Fiscal year 2000, 5.6 trillion. Stayed relatively stable.

Still ran a deficit of 17 billion. 2001, 5.8 trillion. A deficit of 133 billion dollars. Bill Clinton never balanced the budget. Not one year of his presidency. Now, I'm sure many of you will dispute this. Say, Dan, I need the source. I'm going to put up a blog from a guy named Craig Steiner.

This thing went viral years ago. It's old, but it links to government websites you can validate yourself. It's called The Myth of the Clinton Surplus. It will be in the show notes, and it's also at Debunk This on Bongino.com. Folks, there was never, ever a clinton surplus i just gave you the yearly breakdown i gave you the clinton increase in spending from when he came into office and when he left 5.5 and i gave you the clinton accumulated debt during his time in office of 1.3 trillion there There was never, ever a surplus. Why am I bringing this up? Because in that Fox News thing, I didn't have time to play the whole thing,

but it's really good. I encourage you to watch it. It's in the show notes. Ryan wants to, Tim Ryan, the Democrats, like, we need to go back to the Clinton years. Okay. Okay, great. So I took a note here. Oh, well, by the way, just in percentage terms, so I don't lose you. George W. Bush, 33% increase in spending. That's a lot, folks. Almost close to Lyndon Johnson at 40%. He's only seven percentage points behind. Barack Obama, 15.8%.

That may surprise you, folks. You may be like, wow, Obama's not in percentage terms. No, because of the effects of inflation. Believe me, Obama ran up the most debt debt nominal terms by far, $8 trillion. And he certainly deserves no award for fiscal prudence. He's a huge lib who spent a ton of money. But again, we have to be realistic about the numbers to be able to debate with our liberal friends. So you're saying debt is bad.

Okay, great. Debt is bad. So why are you acknowledging that? Why didn't you say anything during the Obama years? 15.8%. So I took a note here and I wrote, the bottom line is this. Yes. You think the Clinton years are great?

Okay, then can we go back to the last Clinton year of spending? You know what the spending level was the last year, Joe? It's about $2.4 trillion. We're spending $4 trillion now. So when your liberal friends say, theinton years man the clinton years were great economics is fantastic you know the economy's blowing financials great of the internet it when they say all that nonsense like crap just say okay because they don't really mean it i mean what they're saying isn't the economy we did do pretty well say to them okay i agree so you're

saying we should go back to 2.4 trillion dollars in government spending from the four trillion we are now. And they'll say, well, that's not fair. You're not talking about economic growth. OK, well, let's factor in economic growth during the Clinton years. Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Which is all that matters was 20 percent. It's 24 percent now and jumped up to 24 or close to 25 percent under Barack Obama. Either way, you lose. So either way, you're saying if you're talking about the Clinton years, you're suggesting we should cut government spending.

Oh, no, I'm not saying that. Of course you're not saying that. You're a liberal. I was going to talk about the inflation tax, but I'll have to get to that next week. The Mises piece addresses it a little bit. They address it in, I think, overly complicated terms. So here's what we covered so far, just to be clear. We covered the effects on you of these taxes,

the winners and the losers, the thumbs up and the thumbs down. We covered the debt, who ran up the most debt, the nominal amount of debt under each president, and we covered the amount of government spending under each president, at least in modern terms, as a percentage. And we're doing this just so you understand why I keep mentioning this, because liberals cannot make a consistent argument.

Argument number one, debt is bad. Well, you didn't say that under Obama. You only seem to care about debt when there's a Republican president. And secondly, well, we need to go back to the Clinton years. They don't want to go back to the Clinton years because they're talking about spending more money, which is what they always talk about. Okay. Today's show brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply.

Thanks to everyone giving me feedback on it. Hey, folks, I just want to mention something quickly. Early on a few months back, I mentioned about the plastic case that comes in. That was an order I made. So that's on me. That's not on the company. It was an order I made for a different product. And it came to me in a plastic case because I had ordered a different product.

So my apologies for that. The product does come to you in a box, but it's a cardboard box. I don't think it affects anything. But a couple of people had emailed me. They were looking for plastic case. That's a different product. So that was kind of on me. My apologies for that one. But either way, I'm a big supporter of this company. I love them. They do great things. They've been asking me about the hurricanes and how to get involved. So they're really a good company. I'm proud to be associated with them. But you have to prepare your family, okay?

I mean, I think this is obvious. Keep your food stocked. Keep your water stocked. Have a supply of gasoline. Have a generator, especially if you live in hurricane zones. You got to get your food supply. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. They will sell you a one-month supply of emergency food for $99. That's $99

at preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com. I ordered mine a couple of weeks ago. I just got it in the mail and I ordered their veggie fruit and veggie kit, which was great too. Go check it out. Go to preparewithdan.com. Prepare yourself. Have that food supply. Look at what's happening right now in these places that were hit by hurricanes. Food's getting scarce. You never want to be in that situation. Go to preparewithdan.com for 99 bucks. You'll get your one month supply of emergency food. Okay. We covered debt. We covered spending. Now let's move on to the tax issue too, because liberals have a really difficult time telling you the truth on taxes. It's really the mean, it's really the disingenuous lying

and manipulation that comes out of their mouths is deeply disturbing. Everything is rigging the system, tax cuts for the wealthy, housing crisis, which, you know, that was their stuff, not ours. Okay. John F. Kennedy signed the tax cut. He cut the, well, excuse me,

Lyndon Johnson actually signed it, but Kennedy was obviously tragically assassinated, but it was Kennedy's idea. So they're called the Kennedy tax cuts, Lyndon Johnson actually signed it. Kennedy was obviously tragically assassinated, but it was Kennedy's idea. So they're called the Kennedy tax cuts, even though Johnson signed them. It cut the top ratio from 91 to 70%, cut the corporate rate to 52 to 48%. Now, it's convenient when liberals talk about tax cuts, they never mention Kennedy.

Kennedy was a big tax cutter at the time. Now, what happened after that? Because liberals will tell you, oh my gosh, look at what happened. Government fell apart. They don't usually say it about Kennedy, but they could just as well because that's their argument. Government revenue collapsed. Well, unemployment fell from 5% to 3.8%, 1964 to 1968. Government revenue went up.

Listen, let me dial that back. Rewind the tape, liberals. Kennedy cuts taxes. Johnson signs it. Cuts the tax rate from 91% to 70%. A big cut, by the way. That's an enormous cut. Revenue to the government went up from $112 billion to $130 billion, 1964 to 1966.

Doubt anything I'm telling you? I will put the link to the Tax Foundation or Tax Policy Center, whatever it is. I will put the link. It is clear as day. You can't miss it. It'll have the link to the Tax Foundation or Tax Policy Center, whatever it is. I will put the link. It is clear as day. You can't miss it. It'll have the chart right there. You can look this up all yourself. You can show your liberal friends who will continue to tell you disingenuously and lie to you that tax cuts, quote, cost the government money.

It's your money, knuckleheads. What do you mean cost? The government doesn't rob me. I didn't cost them anything. Okay. Reagan tax cuts. Kids can't, what do you mean cost? The government doesn't rob me. I didn't cost them anything, okay? Reagan tax cuts. Reagan cuts the tax rate from 70% to 28%, Joe. Capital gains tax, he winds up signing a hike in the capital gains tax to 28% to even it

so people wouldn't hide their money. So he cuts the income tax rate from 70% to 28%, raises the capital gains tax from 20% to 28%. What happened? This was a net tax cut for most Americans. Unemployment fell from 11% to 5%. 1982 to 88, we hit growth targets of 6%, 5%, and 4% growth in 1984, 1985, and 1986. 6%. The figure Trump threw out yesterday, by the way, that forced liberals

to show their asses again. We're not going to hit six percent. That ain't possible. American economy's terrible. This is what, I mean, this is liberals. You guys show your asses every single time.

Also, government tax revenue jumped from 500 billion to 909 billion by the time Reagan left office. Again, don't let the facts, again, don't believe it. Go to the link. Look at yourself.

Look at yourself. Look at yourself. Show the liberals, your liberal friends, because they will still continue to insist that... Here's what they'll do. Here's the trick, Joe. They'll say, but the tax cuts. But Reagan ran up a lot of debt and deficits. He did. You are correct. I just gave you the number.

$1.8 trillion in debt run up by Ronald Reagan and spending climbed 25%. That was not due to tax revenue. Tax revenue went up. I don't know how clear I have to make this to you. And it says to me, you either don't want to know or you know when you're a liar. What I'm saying is true.

You can look this up. You can try the interweb. It works. The Reagan tax cuts did not lead to a decrease in government tax revenue. You're just making it up. It almost doubled. We just spent a whole lot of money, which says, Joe, if you're a reasonable person, which most liberals aren't, that this is a spending problem.

This is not a taxation problem. Okay. Finally, the Bush tax cuts. I went over the rates he cut before, so I'm not going to repeat them again. Doubled the child tax credit, but it's an important number to keep in your head. And please, again, look this up yourself. I know liberals won't because it'll destroy their whole worldview. The Bush tax cuts did not cost the government money.

The following four years, from 2003 to 2007, federal revenue jumped, Joe, by a record $785 billion. The New York Times was quoted as saying, and this is in the piece in the show notes, it is a surprise windfall. That's a quote from the New York Times. And the federal revenue went from $1.7 to $2.5 trillion. Again, liberals, don't let this get in the way of your hard and fast approach to lying to the american people about tax cuts you want to say bush ran up a lot of debt and spent a lot of money touche you are absolutely correct you want to lie to people and tell them it was due to the tax cuts you are a liar nothing more that's all you are or you're just really i'm sorry

you're just really dumb i i mean i'm not trying to be a jerk you're just really dumb. I mean, I'm not trying to be a jerk. You're just that dumb that you just don't do any homework and you just say things that make no sense. My apologies. Okay. That's a lot of numbers. I know that was a lot and I'm sorry to throw that all out in one show,

but I've been itching to do this show for a long time because it gives you the intellectual material you need to go forward. All right, I got a couple other stories I want to knock out here. Before we get to that, hey, have you signed up for CRTV yet? You know, we just added Gavin McGinnis.

By the way, we got a lot of surprises coming. I'm not allowed to say what, but I'm super excited about it. Outside of obviously my show, which you already know about, which is coming, we're just building the studio, folks. I'm sorry for the delays.

It's complicated. You know, running a business here like we do, it's not as easy as it sounds. We want to make sure everything's right. But we added Gavin McGinnis' show. We got a lot of surprises coming. Go to CRTV.com. Use promo code Bongino for $10 off.

Listen, it's like the cost of a turkey sandwich. I can't say that enough. Probably more. I think a turkey sandwich in New York, I just got back, is like 12 bucks. So with the promo code, it's less than that per month. Go to CRTV.com.

Put in promo code Bongino. You get Michelle Malkin's show, Mark Levin's show, Gavin McGinnis' show, Steve Dace's show, Steve Crowder's show. It's quite a lineup over there. It's a peanuts compared to what you're paying for cable.

Go to CRTV.com and sign up today. Use promo code Bongino. All right. What are the two stories I wanted to... Oh, this one. This is important. It's in the show notes today as well. There's an article in Forbes about this.

Liberals are losing their minds right now over a Supreme Court case that's pending, that is about to hit. The Supreme Court case is Janus versus the... It's a representative of unions, AFSCME, or whatever it's called, A-F-S-C-M-E. Yeah, AFSCME. There's a Supreme Court case that they agreed to hear yesterday.

This case was deadlocked 4-4, and it is about what's called agency fees. I'm not trying to bore you to death. This is a very, very, very important case because it exposes the liberal agenda I've been talking about on this show for a very long time, and the liberal agenda, Joe, is control. Yeah. Liberals are obsessed with control they are not all but the extreme left are bedrocked in marxist ideology marxist ideology is bedrocked in the idea that communists should control the economy should control the health care system because people are too stupid themselves. People ask me all the time, what do you mean by control? It's that simple. Communist ideology, which is infiltrated liberalism, is bedrocked in the idea that you are simply too dumb to monitor and maintain your own life, your own wallet, and your own health care.

You know, Thomas Sowell wrote a whole book on it called Vision of the Anointed, how communists believe like smart people and planners. That's why you hear that term in the liberal lexiconists believe like smart people and planners. That's why you hear that term in liberal lexicon all the time, planning and planners. They should plan your life and you should basically shut the hell up. Now to get control, what do you have to do? You have to institute confiscatory tax rates. You have to take over healthcare through single pay. You have to run public schools where you have all the control and the parents don't. This is important. But one of the things you have to do in order to advance this agenda is you have to fund it. Now, how do you fund it if you can't control where the money goes? Well, what you can do is you can take money from people who support

your cause and organized labor. I'm not knocking union workers, by the way. I'm knocking the bosses who take your money and do this. Organized labor, labor unions have for years, Joe, taken people's money who don't want to be involved with the union at all and used it to fund Democrats to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to advance things that people who are working for the union may not agree with. Minimum wage hikes, heavy regulations, all kinds of things, right? So I saw a tweet this morning, hat tip to Derek Hunter over at WBAL, but he retweeted this guy from ThinkProgress, a guy named Ian Milhiser. His tweet exposes the whole left in one tweet. I don't even think he knows it. Here's his tweet.

This is a quote. Just so we're clear what's going on here. The GOP is using its stolen Supreme Court seat to devastate a major source of democratic political power. What do you mean by that? Well, here's what the lawsuit's about. The lawsuit's about these agency fees where unions get to take your money, whether you're in the union or not. Folks, I'm not kidding. Some of you may be a victim of this. And they take it under the guise of an agency fee.

Now, they say, oh, well, we're not using it for politics, but folks, money's fungible. We all know that. If they use it for something else, which frees up more money to spend on politics, it goes to show you the stupidity of saying we're not using it on politics. So this guy Janice in Illinois

in the Janice versus AFSCME case is suing saying, listen, I don't want to give money to the union. I'm not interested. By law in Illinois, he has to. He has to give that money over. Now, folks, this is to me, and they're going to lose, by the way. They deadlocked 4-4 in the last time because Scalia obviously died tragically.

But I can't imagine Gorsuch is going to vote for this. He's a free speech defender. How you can be compelled to give money to an organization you don't want to give money to is a cut and dried to me free speech case uh it's it's no more complicated than wait i don't i don't that they don't represent i don't want to be forced to finance it i'm pretty confident they're going to lose this case of the supreme court but this guy mill heiser exposes the entire democrat agenda he says this is going to devastate a major source of Democrat political

power. What is the power? Control of your money and forcing you to give it over to unions who, in turn, are going to turn it over to Democrat candidates. You know, it's kind of shocking to me that he, a guy who, I'm sure this guy is pretty bright. He may not, you know, ideologically, he may be wrong. And of course, I think he is. He writes at ThinkProgress. They're wrong about just about everything. But it's shocking to me that he wasn't bright enough, Joe, to figure out that he just exposed the whole enchilada here. A major source of Democrat power is what? You forcing me to give my money to a union I don't want to give, who then gives it to the Democrat Party? You think he would have been a little more nuanced? Folks, the reason I bring it up again is because the Democrats' love affair with force permeates everything. Forcing your kid to go to a school you don't want to go to.

Forcing you to pay union dues you don't want to pay. Forcing you to go through a government-run healthcare system you don't want to finance. Forcing you to pay more money in taxes you don't want to pay. This is what liberalism is. And it's all beautifully summed up in one piece. I got that article in the show notes. And also for your reading pleasure, I tweeted out, if you're on my Twitter, an article about Bitcoin today. I know a lot of you are interested in Bitcoin,

but the problems with some of the exchanges over there, it's a pretty fascinating article, how if you're on an exchange like a clearinghouse, Joe, for Bitcoin, be very careful, man. There's been a lot of, a lot of these places went out of business, took people's money and ran. So be careful about that. I'm a big Bitcoin and blockchain supporter, but I tweeted it out. It's on Twitter, but go check that article out too.

All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. Make sure you listen to Mark tonight. I'll be in for him from six to nine Eastern. You can check it out at marklevinshow.com. And thanks for joining my email list at bongino.com. It means a lot to me. And thanks to everyone who picked up my book.

Appreciate it. I'll see you all in a month. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.