The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 782 The Costs Are Mind-blowing

Episode Date: August 10, 2018

Summary: In this episode I address the explosive costs of the "democratic" socialist agenda. The costs are unfathomable. I also cover the developments in the Spygate operation and the information-laundering operation.    News Picks: This piece debunks common myths about “democratic” socialism.    This Vox piece destroys the myth of affordable “Medicare for all.”    Prominent liberal calls for more socialism.   What does Julian Assange know?    Is China getting ready to buckle in this trade dispute?    Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today it's a beautiful friday dan yes it sure is yes we love friday yesterday's show did fantastic numbers for you i sensed a uh it was a detailed show I know a lot of you may have listened twice. I understand the complications. I understand a bit of the confusion. But I think we summed it up nicely at the end. Touch on that a little bit today. I also want to touch on the absolutely unaffordable Medicare for All ridiculous proposals put out there by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new darling of the left who can't seem to understand even basic mathematics. Andrea Ocasio-Cortez, the new darling of the left who can't seem to understand even basic mathematics. So I want to do a little bit of that. My wife loves shows like that, by the way, where we destroy these myths. So today's show brought to you by our buddies at We The People Holsters.

Folks, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been blasted on social media and liberal news outlets as the man who will steer the Supreme Court towards broader firearm rights. Hate to break it to you liberals, but your old friend Barack Obama actually opened the floodgates of gun ownership sales during his presidency by wanting to increase restrictions on gun ownership. Did that backfire or what? Yes, it did. He was actually the perfect firearm salesman. A perfect example is our friends over at We The People Holsters.

Our holsters are selling like hotcakes because they're terrific. We The People Holsters custom makes their holsters in-house. They make them in Las Vegas. They don't use any third-party molds. They fit these holsters perfectly towards firearms out there right now. They update their models every day, and they fit every single nook and cranny of that firearm perfectly. Now, you can adjust the cant on these holsters. You can adjust the ride.

It is the most comfortable inside the waistband holster I've ever used. I love mine. I actually have two of them. You don't like the comfort level of it? Adjust the cant. Adjust the ride. They have their own clip there with the four screws in it. You can adjust it.

You can also adjust the tension inside the holster to retain the firearm. Tighten it up a little bit. You get more retention. Loosen it up a little bit. A little bit less retention. You also get that click sound when you put the firearm in the holster to retain the firearm. Tighten it up a little bit. You get more retention. Loosen it up a little bit. A little bit less retention. You also get that click sound when you put the firearm in the holster, which is terrific. Oh, boy. They have custom

printed designs in-house. Thin blue line. We've had a busy couple days. You don't even know. Constitution, camo, American flag, and more. Their holsters start at just $34 plus. They come with a lifetime guarantee. These are really great holsters, folks. They also ship free. If it's not a perfect fit, send it back for a refund.

Here is the website. wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan. That's wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan. wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan. Listeners of the show can use promo code Dan and get $10 off your first holster. You won't regret it. It'll just be $24 with the promo code DAN. wethepeopleholsters.com slash DAN.

Okay. So yesterday's show was mind-blowing. Yesterday's show excited me. I got off the air and wanted to listen to it because I'm finally, things I've told you for months now, things we were pretty reasonably confident were going to happen,

are now all coming out. And as I've said to you, there's a number of different people behind the scenes who are aware of all of this stuff, who are aware of the investigations going on. How do you think all this information about Bruce Ohr and his contacts have been exposed? They've been exposed

because people are working on these cases now. Some of it's been leaking out to John Solomon. John Solomon at the Hill has had a number of incredible reports, and he's been focusing pretty heavily for a long time, interestingly enough, on Bob Mueller and Mueller's ties to Deripaska, Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch, when he was the FBI director.

Now, if you listened to yesterday's show, a couple things I want to take out of this thing before I dig into the socialism stuff, because this is important, too. There were three big takeaways on the information superhighway. The information superhighway is this information laundering operation, folks, to take down the Trump team, take information and shuttle it through multiple sources and make the information coming from Christopher Steele, which was paid for by Hillary, seem legitimate. What we found out yesterday in a number of different reports is that the FBI and their connections to some shady actors, three specifically in this case, shady actors, we don't have the full story on that. I believe that

story is paragraph one of this case. In other words, how a major intelligence investigation into a presidential candidate started, started with connections to three shady people. Adam Waldman, number one. Adam Waldman is a behind-the-scenes player in this.

A lobbyist. A lobbyist connected to Christopher Steele. A lobbyist connected to Deripaska. Very, very, also connected to Christopher Steele. A lobbyist connected to Deripaska. Very, very... Also connected to Democrat Senator Mark Warner. Trying to communicate with him. Also, Deripaska. Deripaska now seems like he's being represented by Christopher Steele, too.

Christopher Steele keeps emailing Bruce Ohr and the Department of Justice about trying to get back in after he is terminated as a source because the FBI deemed him, quote, not suitable for use. So the FBI gets rid of their primary source in the case on this negative Trump information, Christopher Steele. He makes his way back in by connecting with a guy named Bruce Orr, whose wife is conveniently working for the company Steele's working for, Fusion GPS. And as Steele tries to wake his way back into the picture, he keeps trying to reconnect with Bob Mueller. Let me read this to you.

Christopher Steele is the source of the fake dossier used to target the Trump team and investigate him. Steele's represented by a lobbyist, a guy named Waldman. The lobbyist is also representing a Russian oligarch. Steele, when he talks to the Justice Department after he's been fired to Bruce Ohr, is lobbying on behalf of Deripaska. The Russian that Waldman is representing too, who's also talking on behalf of Steele.

Steele texts Bruce Ohr. This is insane. Whenever convenient, I would like a chat. There's a lot going on and we are frustrated how long this re-engagement with the FBI and Mueller is taking. Anything you could do to accelerate the process would be much appreciated. This is, ladies and gentlemen, do you understand this is an FBI source that has been entirely discredited, who is still emailing upper level people in the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, an upper level person,

who works for Sally Yates, who then signed one of the warrants to spy on the Trump team. He's trying to re-engage with Mueller? Now, there's one text where he talks about, this is a suspicious text too, Steele again texting Ohr, where he talks about having to reach out to the SC. Now, there's a number of folks out there who think assumes I think automatically assume that meant the special counsel. Because remember, Steele's trying to reengage. The source has been discredited, is now trying to reengage with the FBI, is now for some reason lobbying on behalf of Deripaska, who's connected to Putin.

Steele also talks about trying to re-engage with the SC. Now, everybody thought that meant special counsel. I'm not sure, Joe. I'm not sure he's not talking about the Senate committee. The Senate committee on intelligence that the guy Steele's working with, this Waldman guy who's representing Deripaska, who steals lobbying on behalf of two, is already reached out to Warner on the Senate committee. I'm not so sure that doesn't stand for Senate committee.

Either way, it's bad. It means one of two things. And I'll try to wrap this up here because I got a lot of stuff to get to. I missed a lot of stuff yesterday. Either way, this is bad. Because a couple questions come up. Was a discredited, no, there's no question about it, a formerly discredited FBI source deemed not suitable for use,

still working with Bruce Ohr, which now seems clear at the Department of Justice, to continue to pass information used to spy on Trump team while Ohr was working for Sally Yates, who actually signed a warrant to spy on the Trump team. What? Wait, come again? Secondly, was Christopher Steele trying to reconnect with both Mueller, the special counsel, and to reestablish himself as a source and to the Senate committee as well.

He'd already been talking to, stacked with Democrats and anti-Trumpers and on that Senate committee, we already know one of the staffers over there was leaking information to the media and here's the kicker, the staffer on the Senate committee, Wolf, who was leaking information to the media, folks.

You've heard this on the show last week. Who does he want to call in his defense? Remember, it's alleged that he lied to a reporter about leaking information, a staffer on the Intel Committee that the source for the dossier is trying to reach out to. Drew Waldman, the staffer leaking the information on the Senate Committee, wants to call the U.S. Senators on the committee in his defense. What are you going to do? What are you going to do?

What are you going to do, Donnie? What are you going to do? Meaning what? Meaning it's highly likely that the staffer on the Senate Intel Committee may have been instructed to leak that information and is calling these senators in his defense. Remember, he's being prosecuted for lying about leaks. Maybe he's not lying. Maybe somebody instructed him to leak this information to the media and

this massive collusion scheme between the Democrats, the Senate Intel Committee, between the Democrats, the Senate Intel Committee, Fusion GPS, Steele, and the Russians through Deripaska. Now, I know this is confusing. I'm sorry. I just, I got to get this out there because it's all going to come together in time. Keep in mind what we're saying. We're talking about a scheme, a scandal to launder fake information into the government to spy on Trump. Steele keeps getting terminated by the FBI and kicked out, and he keeps making his way back into the government, and everybody's turning a blind eye.

Not only turning a blind eye, Bruce Ohr is actively soliciting information from while working for Sally Yates, who signed one of the warrants to spy on the Trump team. This now discredited source is also using a lobbyist who's contacting the Senate Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee to set up Joe meetings with the guy who's already been discredited as a source. Right, right. Folks, this is incredible.

You have a FBI source totally discredited for lying, who is now making his way through multiple layers of government. Again, a foreign source who's being paid by the Clintons, paid by the Clintons to generate information who can, they cannot seem to let him go. Why? Because they wanted Trump so badly, they were willing to forfeit away all their morals to get him.

Now, let me ask you, I'm sorry if I'm, again, spending a lot of time on this. It's just really important. Am I making sense with this, Joe? Yeah. Yeah. A discredited source keeps making his way back and people who are unquestionably supposed to be held to

a prior standard, excuse me, a higher standard, are supposed to be held to a higher standard, are now using sources discredited by the United States government to attack Donald Trump on information they cannot verify because the source can't be verified. Let me ask you this. This is the question I'm leaning in a direction on, but I'm not exactly sure yet.

Was Steele getting played by Deripaska the whole time? In other words, Waldman clearly has some relationship with Steele and Deripaska. They find out, Joe, that Steele gets hired by who? Fusion GPS is connected to Hillary. Seeming to allude to a connection there? Mm-hmm.

Right? In other words, okay, there's a connection. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele may, in fact, have contacts. Why? They're hired. I mean, that's a pretty public signal. They're hired to gin up information against Trump. Is it possible Deripaska gets wind of this? Deripaska needs what, Joe? He needs sanctions relief and he needs to stay off the Magnitsky list. He's a Russian

billionaire who needs to do business in the United States. Is it possible he links up with these guys, Steele and them early through Waldman. He's also using Assange for information. Using information is kind of maybe accumulating information to use as a commodity. In other words, Deripaska is a pass-through between Assange, between Steele, between Waldman, and between people in the Russian government. And Deripaska knows he has information. Deripaska is using this information, uses it to get to maybe to cozy up to steel knowing that you know steel has connections to hillary why because hillary's going to be what the next president yeah then as it becomes obvious that hillary's not going to become

the next president then we have an election all a sudden, the winds on Deripaska change? It would explain a lot as to why Deripaska is so eager now to testify in front of Congress, which he is. What does Deripaska know? Does he know about this whole scheme from the beginning

and the Democrats' efforts? Why do I say that? Because you would think a guy so intimately involved, Joe, right now with the entire scandal, would be welcome at Congress. But what did Congress say? Congress said, no, we don't want to hear from you because we don't want to abide by your conditions. What were his conditions? What were his conditions? Were they Magnitsky relief?

How much does this guy know? Folks, this is a fascinating, fascinating story. I'm telling you that the scandal, just to kind of re-up, redo again what we did yesterday just a bit so it makes sense. Paragraph one, how did the FBI start this case and did they start this case with a lobbyist connected to Russians

a Russian connected to Putin Julian Assange who was in possession of very serious CIA information that he was about to leak out and a discredited British foreign Intel source working for Hillary Clinton who had been deemed unsuitable for use.

Now, do you see why, you know, Mueller comes in and let's stay busy with this Manafort prosecution, Manafort who's connected to Deripaska, who has information, by the way, about Manafort. Oh, Deripaska. But Deripaska's not mentioned anywhere. Why? Why the effort to hide Deripaska? Oh, kind of information you get from him.

Let's keep the attention on Manafort. Keep the attention off the DOJ and the FBI. That is Bob Mueller's goal. Bob Mueller's goal is to keep the attention on Donald Trump and to keep the attention away from DOJ and FBI misfeasance and malfeasance. There's no question in my mind. Oh, boy, it's crazy.

Really, it's infuriating what happened. Their system has been just thrown down the toilet bowl. All right, today's show also brought to you by Truthfinder. Hey, did you ever meet someone for the first time? You feel like they're hiding something? Maybe more than meets the eye. Yeah, we have a good antenna for that. Maybe there's more than meets the eye.

You can trust your gut and walk away, or you can trust your gut and protect yourself with Truthfinder. With Truthfinder, access background reports for almost everybody in the country. Access government records like criminal records, past addresses, contact information, birthdays, and a whole lot more information. I did myself. I was actually shocked. I was like, what the heck is out there? It's crazy. Discover if someone has had a felony conviction.

Look up the address of an old friend or even find out if someone is lying about their age. Military veterans even use Truthfinder to get in touch with people they've served with. Visit truthfinder.com slash Bongino. visit truthfinder.com slash Bongino. That's truthfinder.com slash Bongino to get 15% off becoming a member today and receive unlimited background checks. You can pull 10 reports or a hundred. It's up to you as an extra bonus. You will receive truthfinder dark web monitoring,

and you'll know if you're at risk for identity theft, you're ready to discover the truth, protect yourself and your family. Just go to truthfinder.com slash Bongino enter a name to learn what the background report reveals about someone you know. That's truthfinder.com slash Bongino for 15% off.

I was like, whoa, baby. It was incredible. They do a really good job. Okay. The show notes. I'm going to say something about the show notes. It's going to blow your mind because you're going to be like no way I'm not going there there is a vox.com

piece yes far left vox.com piece yes it is at this it is in the show notes today where is it what did I do with it that is just incredible oh here we go it now it I know it's vox it's a far left side but it's written by it's written by a relatively conservative guy.

It's not written by a leftist, but it is definitely a piece worth reading. And it talks about the price tag for socialism. Joe, do you have that? The reason I want to talk about this is the darling of the left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, been out there and committing verbal gaffes upon verbal gaffes upon verbal gaffes. But she appeared with Chris Cuomo on the CNN program, on a CNN program the other day, and she said this. People talk about the sticker shock of Medicare for all. They do not talk about the sticker shock

of the cost of our existing system. You know, in a Koch brothers funded study, if any study is going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers. It shows that Medicare for all is actually much more is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now. And let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday Americans make is a tax. And so while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay a tax season if we don't buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange. So we're paying for this system. We Americans have the sticker shock of health care as it is. And we're also not talking about is why aren't we incorporating the

cost of all the funeral expenses of those who die because they can't afford access to health care you gotta see joe's face joe after the funeral oh man listen we're working on it now so get ready to see the live video soon if you guys want to watch this we're working i don't have all the details yet so i don't want to but joe and i were but you will get to see joe and all his elvis non-gravy sweat and elvis glory it's a younger good-looking elvis joe's face on that funeral line was priceless joe's like what you're gonna that it's like remember you know the chewbacca sounder he drives that's it was like that was the worst chewbacca ever joe was like what is this woman talking about? Guys, listen, with all due respect, and I mean it, congrats.

You did a nice job. You knocked on doors. You knocked off a guy in Congress who'd been there forever. But it is your responsibility now, Ms. Cortez, to say things that are not complete, total gibberish, and you cannot seem to get your foot out of your mouth when it comes to talking about the economics. What she says is nonsense.

Let me address some of it piece by piece, and it ties into this Vox piece, And you cannot seem to get your foot out of your mouth when it comes to talking about the economics. What she says is nonsense. Let me address some of it piece by piece. And it ties into this Vox piece, which I'm telling you is worth your time. I know it's Vox. You may not want to give them the clicks. But this is a wonderful piece by Brian Reidel. Very, very good. A couple of points. The Chris Cuomo, finally, they're starting to ask some questions of Casio Cortez.

It says, hey, listen, this Medicare for all plan, what is this going to cost you? So she says, well, you know, it may cost a lot, but we're already spending a lot on health care and this will actually save money. Ladies and gentlemen, no, no, no. The cost of Medicare for all. Oh, wait, one thing. First, she says it's a coke funded study coke brothers it is not a coke brothers study one of them was the mercatus center study which is as some money uh funded to it by the coke brothers the urban institute study which is a left-leaning outlet so let's be clear what we're debunking here. Her first point, let me take it piece by piece,

is that this study indicating that Medicare for All is very expensive was funded by the Koch brothers. One of them was. A study that came up with the exact same number is up at the Urban Institute, which is a left-leaning outlet. So let's be clear on this, folks.

This is why she's lying. I don't even know if she knows. Really, I don't know her very well, but I'm being candid. I'm not really sure she even knows she's lying based on some of her prior interviews where they ask her questions and she's just clueless on things. I'm not even sure she knows it. She may have just picked this up in Mad Magazine or something. I'm not sure.

pick this up in like mad magazine or something i'm not sure but the mercatus center study and the left-leaning urban institute study came up with the same number meaning you can be reasonably confident that the study is somewhat accurate so she says number one it's a coke brother's lie lie lie one of them was the other one which confirmed it was the exact same number at the urban institute secondly she says well the cost of medicare for all at 32 trillion for 10 years now folks put that number in perspective how much money we're talking about please the entire federal budget this year is around $4 trillion. Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders' proposal to give Medicare to everybody will cost $3.2 trillion a year itself. Almost the entire cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, discretionary spending,

almost the entire federal budget would be consumed by this program, which would require in taxes, if you missed the show the other day, it would require the confiscation of 100% of corporate profits in the United States, effectively putting american business and your job out of business but not just that wait there's more so i was like that's it what do you mean just just every amount of revenue from every business in america that

gets yes every bit yes it would also require the confiscation of the money of people who make $150,000 or more married couples, all of their money and assets to pay for this disaster. And all of these, actually, that's for all of our programs, Medicare for all, free college, the other stuff, right? Would also require an 87% VAT or an 87 percent vat basically a sales tax of 87 percent at every level of production or it would require a payroll tax just the health care portion of about 30 percent tacked on to the 15 you pay now ladies and gentlemen these are absolutely catastrophically expensive programs now

this is that let me give you the liberal talking point so you can beat them to the punch because i know what they're going to say here's their line their line is that well we already spend a lot of money on health care in the country so if we're going to spend it it might as well as might as well be spent by the government instead ladies and gentlemen how much are out-of-pocket costs in the United States for health care right now? $22 trillion over 10 years. How much are the costs of Ocasio-Cortez's program? $32 trillion. $32, $22.

$32, $22. So let me get this straight. What you're suggesting is $10 trillion more is the same number. It's not. One is $22 trillion. And by the way, the $22 trillion in out-of-pocket expenses over 10 years is high. It's unusually high precisely because the government is involved in healthcare and driving up the cost. What Ocasio-Cortez doesn't understand is the third-party payer effect.

I used to talk about this earlier in my show. Not so much anymore, but it's important. you're in my show. Not so much anymore, but it's important. When you remove the consumer of a product and the supplier of a product from the economic equation, and a third party pays for it.

So Joe wants a bagel, Joe's the consumer, the bagel store is the producer of the bagel. Copy? Copy. If Joe's not allowed to pay for bagels, and the government's going to finance all bagel purchases, there is a third-party payer effect. That third party is the government. Why every single time there is a third-party payer do we have the exact same problem?

Accelerating costs and decreased supply. Folks, the answer is very simple if you understand basic economics. In other words, what I'm trying to tell you right now, I'm going to explain to you this in a second, but the reason we pay a lot for healthcare now is precisely because of the government. And Ocasio-Cortez's solution is to introduce more government to fix the problem that the government caused. When the government comes in and pays for something and you're the producer of that product, you know the consumer, the guy buying the bagel,

is not paying for the bagel. So if he's not paying for the bagel, what do you care about the price? Someone else is paying. You jack the price up as high as you can because the consumer's not sensitive to it. In other words, the government's paying. So you walk into a bagel store,

hey, I want a bagel. That'll be $72. Yeah, that's okay, bill the government. That's what single payer is. So the supplier of the product has to up the price. The consumer of the product, this is important, the consumer of the product also doesn't care about the price

because he's not paying well what's the bagel uh five dollars for the bagel okay fine i'm not paying just bill the government prices go up it's called the third party payer effect when you look at the two areas and spaces and spheres of our economy joe where prices are absolutely out of control. What's the one thing they have in common? Heavy government involvement. Heavy government involvement. What are those two spheres?

College, education, college. The prices are out of control. That's because the government runs the student loan market. They've intercepted people from the cost by taking it over and not letting them bargain with the college themselves.

What else? Healthcare costs. They're out of control. That's because the government's involved. Ocasio-Cortez is either ignorant to basic rules of economics like third-party payer effects

or she isn't ignorant to it. She's just lying to you about what the costs are going to be. The $32 trillion number is a farce now there's another great part of this i'm sorry this fox piece i'm just uh hunting through it now i just want you to remember mr bongino that apacio cortez is the future she is the democrat yes thankfully for us she's the future because now at least we have someone being honest.

Now, when you include all of her programs, all of her programs, Joe. Yeah. The 30-year projected tab for these programs

is in this box piece is even more staggering. You want to hear this number? The 30-year projected cost for all of them is $218 trillion on top of an $84 trillion deficit we already have. Chess pains.

Oh! I'm coming for you. I'm coming for you, Elizabeth. Good. Folks. Golly. We already have an $84 trillion deficit over the next 30 years. We're going to add $218 trillion more?

This is crazy. According to the piece, what would be the effects of such an unprecedented spending binge? Federal spending, which typically ranges between 18% and 22% of GDP, which typically ranges between 18 and 22% of GDP, would immediately soar past 40% on its way to 50, which in three decades, if you include state and local government, spending would push the total cost of government to 60% of GDP exceeding the current spending level of every country in Europe. every country in Europe.

Folks, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders program will up government spending, the burden on your life of government to 60% of the value of every single thing we produce. 60% including state and local taxes. including state and local taxes. 60% of your life will be spent working to produce things only to pay off the debt of government on your back. Now, here's what they're not telling you. I took some notes on this, too. This single payer of Medicare for all, folks,

is not going to fix anything. Ocasio-Cortez keeps claiming some ridiculous things that, Oh, don't worry if we spend this 32 trillion over 10 years, Joe, it's going to save us money because we're not going to be paying personally out of pocket costs anymore. Number one. And number two,

it'll fix the Medicare, Medicare problems we have now. False, false. What's that line? is i was gonna kick out of this what was it is it wedding crashers what does he say vince vaughn oh it's gonna drive me crazy now i'll get a million emails on it he said he's like what is he serious or something like that oh man this is my friend brian's gonna kill me right now because it's the funniest thing ever. Vince Vaughn at Wedding Crescent, when he calls him out, everybody's going to send me an email.

But no, false on both fronts. We spend $22 trillion now, which is already an inflated number, as I said before, because of government involvement. Not $32 trillion. That's more. But then she says, oh, yeah, but don't worry. The stuff we owe for Medicare. Okay, the don't worry the stuff we owe for medicare okay the stuff we the cost we owe for medicare are not going anywhere ladies and gentlemen from the piece the single-payer health care program would not fix washington's current unsustainable health spending

as its advocates often claim medicare's existing six trillion dollar cash shortfall over the next decade, which soars to $40 trillion over 30 years, would not be reduced because Medicare is already a price-controlled single-payer system that would only become more generous. Perhaps advocates should pay for Medicare's existing does not mean the $40 trillion it owes now is going to go away. The costs, I'm telling you, are costs to expand it on top of the debt they have now. Do you see what I'm saying joe she's lying she's saying oh it's gonna it's the costs are lesser than the out-of-pocket cost which is not true they're more and then secondly she's saying oh but and it'll take care of all those other costs no no it's on top of it won't take care of no it is on top of the other costs. Now, what's even more disturbing about this is that these liberals like Ocasio-Cortez,

they claim to be champions of income equality and leveling the, I'm using the dreaded air quotes, leveling the playing field, fairness for all, equal outcomes. Folks, there are 77 million, think about it now, I'm just telling you from the report what this is saying. I think we should go to a free market healthcare system. I want to be clear on that. I'm just telling you that if you believe in redistribution and fairness for all, that Medicare for all is the worst solution possible. Why? Because as Seidel cites in the piece, the redistributive side effects are going to be devastating for people who are actually poor why is that you have 77 million people right now on medicaid look generally lower income folks who are paying almost nothing outside of some co-pays for a third-party payer insurance program which is not financially efficient but does exist so let's be clear what we're talking about here.

Liberals want a fairness, equality. That's their thing for everyone. Yet the program they're proposing will levy a 30% payroll tax on top of the 15% payroll tax people pay now for social security, the FICA tax as well, Medicare, Medicaid, you pay 15% now. Levied on everyone will be an additional 30%. There will be nearly a 50% combined payroll tax on everyone to pay for the health care that generally poor folks in the past had gotten at no cost to them directly, but to the taxpayer. I'm not telling you it's right.

I'm just saying, don't you find it a little bit, just a tad bit ironic that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, supposedly champions of the middle class and the poor, are advocating for a health care program to go nationwide that would levy a payroll tax effectively that will be absolutely catastrophic for people who are lower income and poor who have never paid that payroll tax before. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion. Your opinion, man. We haven't used a dude in a while. He is perfect for this segment. They haven't paid for their health care. Listen to me. If you were a

lower income individual listening to this show who is on Medicaid right now, there are other ways to fix Medicaid. Health savings accounts, a number of free market incentive-based ways to do it where we don't have to entirely rip apart the safety net they have now. There are a number of ways to do that using free market principles. I'm telling you, if you support Sanders and Cortez that understand what they're suggesting for you.

They are suggesting a massive payroll tax hike on you to pay for something in the past that you had paid for by others. Ironically, Joe, there may be some conservatives go, all right, well, what's the problem? People finally have to pay for the cost of government. No, folks, that's not the easy. The reason is the third party payer effect is a disaster for a number of reasons. It's not just the financial side and the cost control. Third party payer systems are also awful because they lead to rationing. Why do they lead to rationing?

Because the doctors and hospitals are paid by the government, whether you show up or not. Why would you see 100 patients a day if I can see 50? They're going to get paid the same amount of money. Remember what I told you in the show the other day? Peace up at Bongino.com. Be in the show notes today. The Vox piece will be there too. Please read them both.

This model Bernie Sanders is proposing is going to require a 40% doctor hospital salary cut. Payment cut. So doctors make less, hospitals make less, therefore they do what? See less patients for more money overall because these doctors and hospitals are being paid 40% less to see less people. They're going to see less people. They're going to see less people. As the population of people who are given free insurance by the government expands, and people who were being given, quote, free insurance by the government, Medicaid, are now going to have to pay by a payroll tax.

You're getting worked. Everybody gets worked. Why does everybody get worked? Because if you're wealthy and you had access to insurance you liked in the past and doctors you liked, you are now going to be stuffed by force into a Medicare for all program, into a government program

that will inevitably result in rationing. Why? Because doctors and hospitals will see less patients because that's what always happens when they're paid the same amount to do less work. This is not a mystery. Rationing happens in every single payer system everywhere in the world. There are only two ways to allocate scarce resources, including a doctor's time. What are those two ways?

What are those two ways? You can ration them. If I have five chairs, I can either price those five chairs to sell them and let people bid on the chairs, people who want them, or I can ration them. I'm going to pick five people out of 100 and give them away. There's no other way. Pricing has the benefit of when the prices go up, other producers come in to take advantage of the high prices and do what? Drive the price down. You're not going to have that.

So rich and upper middle class folks who would like their doctor, like their plan, and like their hospital get absolutely screwed because now they're stuffed into a government plan where they got to wait on lines and they have to be rationed. I'm sure the liberals, by the way, are celebrating. Good. You'll have to wait on lines like everybody else. Oh, yeah. That's a brilliant plan. We're talking about a race to the bottom. The program sucks so bad, but as long as it sucks for everyone, it's really great. Poor people get, so now you're tracking me, folks?

Rich people get worked because they will be stuck in rationed, government-provided, low-quality healthcare where the doctors and hospitals are paid no matter who dies or whatever. Poor people are going to get worked because you were getting Medicaid at the cost of other taxpayers. But now you're going to pay... How about that?

Now you're going to pay a 30% payroll tax. No, no, no. We'll go with the VAT option. Okay. You're going to pay an 87% sales tax. There's no escape here. No, the rich people are going to pay for it. You sure? Because I already told you what option one was. Every corporate profit in the United States and the income of people $150,000 or more or family. Who are you going to work for? There's not going to be any jobs left because there's not going to be any businesses left. There's no way out of this. You are going to get worked.

I still can't think, which is driving me crazy, of that Vince Vaughn line. What does he say? Spurious. Spurious. It's going to drive me nuts, all that. Oh, man. All right. Also, in the show notes today, I got a couple of other stories.

I missed them yesterday. I wanted to get to them, but they're really important. Hey, the Chinese are freaking out right now. I know we talk about these. I'm not a fan of trade wars. I think you know my position on tariffs. If you don't, I do not support tariffs. But I do support tactics to get to zero tariffs and i've got to tell you i'm uh quite impressed so far uh with the european union at

least with the efforts on the trump administration to move towards a zero tariff environment we can't get there quick enough now on the chinese front with the with china trump has been upping the anti what weekly daily joe on the chinese we're going to do 10 billion. We're going to do 25 billion in tariffs. We're going to do 50. We're going to do 100. It just keeps going up and up and up. And I'm hoping that Trump is following the same tactical exercise he did with the European Union, where enough threat of tariffs show and eventually the Chinese acquiesce and move

to zero tariffs. Now, there are a lot of people, free traders like myself, who are getting worried. I don't know how this is going to result. The Chinese do buy a lot of stuff from us, even though we buy more from them. This is going to have an impact, and it will. But here's some good news. I have a CNBC article. CNBC and Voxen, same show notes today.

No, they're worth reading. Listen, today they're worth it. It's a good article. About how the Chinese are starting to freak out, Joe. Let me read a quote to you. This is a great one. Because I've said on air talking about Trump and foreign policy, especially when I do my hits on Fox, I've used this term a lot, about Trump's strategic unpredictability. It's a fancy way of saying they think he's crazy. They do. How do I know that? I'm not insulting the man. I think it's great. Here's a quote from a CNBC piece about people in China who are read it on the program about the escalation of tariff wars

with the Chinese right now. Quote, in the trade war, the line of thinking in the propaganda has been that Trump is crazy. It's in the piece. Strategic unpredictability. It talks about how the Chinese have grossly miscalculated Donald Trump. It's a short piece, but it's definitely worth your time. The line of thinking when Trump got into office was,

sucker, we're going to play this fool. He came into office under the cloud of suspicion. Public didn't know. This is a Chinese. Read the piece, not me saying it. I'm saying what they thought. Came into office under this Russian scandal. Popular approval at home was low.

We got this guy. How about that? We got the Chinese thought they were geniuses. We got this sucker. Trade war, schmade war. We got this guy. All of a sudden, Joee a few months in they're like dude didn't playing around he wasn't kidding on those tariffs now there's a lot of popular discontent in china especially within the economic elites that

oh boy did we misread this guy he isn't kidding and now what's happening folks the chinese which unlike the united states do not have anything close to a free society what do they need joe to stay viable as a near you know tyrannical in some uh the state's government the governing system the way they rule over their people with an iron fist. They need apathy. They need the public to do what? To shut up. And the way the Chinese government

has kept the public quiet for a long time has been through pretty explosive growth numbers. Granted, a lot of them are probably faked, but they're not irrelevant. Well, I wasn't thinking apathy. You were thinking something else, else first. But they need the people to be apathetic and let it happen. The way they've had people distracted

has been through economic growth where they're like, all right, well, you know, our living standards are going up and maybe all of a sudden this heavy-handed police state thing isn't so bad. Discontent is brewing. Why?

Because they're getting played. They think he's crazy. Reminds me of that scene in Frozen. Olaf with the rock people. Olaf, you kids listening, listen you know he's crazy you know the seed i just saw frozen on broadway my daughters they think he's nuts now and now they're like hey we thought this guy was going to cave to public disapproval in the united states if you know that this trade war wasn't going to go over well now what what do we do? He's not kidding.

Folks, the stock market in China is tanking. Their currency is tanking. And there are people on the inside in China for the first time not speaking with at least a public unified voice in their propaganda saying, this was a bad idea. Again, I am not a supporter of tariffs. I have not had any change of position on it. However, I am a supporter of winning. Winning. Hashtag winning, babe. We haven't used Joe's babe. Babe, babe, babe, babe, babe, babe. Everything's babe, Joe.

I am a supporter of winning. The strategy worked with the EU. I think China is only maybe months if not a year away now there maybe is going to be an impact here let's not pretend tariffs are cost free they are not they are taxes make no mistake do not mistake them for anything else do not fool yourself. Tariffs are taxes, and you will pay them. But if this strategy is working like I think it is, we are maybe months away from a financial, economic, explosive victory to scales of which we haven't seen the depth and degree to which we haven't seen in a long time.

Nobody got scales from there. If we can move to zero tariffs, reduce intellectual property theft by the Chinese, and make it a free trade zone, and get them to buckle, oh man, you are going to see economic growth like you haven't seen before. Read the piece. The Chinese are terrified. They think he's crazy. We love that.

I hope the North Koreans think he's crazy too. Strategic unpredictability, it matters. Okay, one more story. It's important. Let me read you something from the Wall Street Journal. It was from the other day.

I took a screenshot of it. It's a subscriber only, but it doesn't matter. I'll get the point across. Wall Street Journal did a piece the other day. Folks, I've been talking about the, someone emailed me the other day, they weren't sure about the background

on the Alex Jones story. If you haven't heard it yet, Alex Jones has a website, InfoWars. He said some controversial stuff. Alex Jones has been deplatformed, has basically been removed from a lot of these promotional sites, YouTube and others.

And there's this this growing controversy, even shockingly within the conservative movement, people say, well, you know, he said some controversial stuff, so we shouldn't defend him. I'm not defending anybody. I'm only defending the fact that the government should not get involved.

These platforms, as I've repeatedly said, Twitter, Facebook, and others, are free to do what they want. The government should not get involved. And the point the other day i was trying to bring up as i was upset that senator chris murphy a democrat had tweeted out on his on his twitter platform this is a government u.s senator for the united states government incentivizing companies to do this using his position to bully them around this This is an absolute red line for me. But I have been a victim of Twitter's nonsense. Like I said, they prohibited me from running ads, never gave me a complete, even a remotely detailed description as to why, other than,

yeah, we just don't like your ads. I mean, I don't know. It was just so dumb. But I would never suggest a government solution to Twitter. But there is a solution out there. And what is it? From the Wall Street Journal. Look at this. For the parent of Snapchat. Snapchat's another one of these social media companies. The 2% drop in daily users to about 188 million in the second quarter

marked the first such slip since it was founded in 2011. And executives indicated that the near term could be bumpy as well. Oh, Snapchat. People getting off there. Oh, it gets better. Snap's results landed less than two weeks after Facebook and Twitter reported slowing user growth. Both companies suffered share price declines of more than 20%. In Facebook's case, the tumble shaved almost $120 billion in value from the company.

A one-day record for a U.S. company. From a journal piece I read the other day. Folks, this is why I keep saying with regards to the deplatforming of people do not fall prey to the the liberals are begging for you to get the government to inject themselves in this and i've still had people emailing me dan here's the reason the government should get involved listen you do what you want i do the show for you and i owe you the truth we're not going to agree on everything i appreciate your listenership more than you know. But I'm never going to lie to you.

I'm glad you don't lie to me. I'm just telling you, I know liberals. I study liberals. My entire life is reading their tweets, getting on their email lists. There is nothing they want more than for conservatives to join in in an effort to inject the government into the regulation of social media. I'm telling you this is a plot. This is a scam to get you involved, this push.

They want conservatives to echo the voice. No, no, the government should regulate them. They should make them fair platforms for everyone. Oh, okay, when the Democrats get in charge, how do you think they're going to determine what fair is? Fair is going to be making sure also that there's no hate speech, which will be unquestionably wipe out conservatives because everything conservatives say is hate speech to liberals. I read the Wall Street Journal piece for a reason. The market is clear. The market is already correcting these companies. Listen, Jack Dorsey went on Hannity, what is it, two days ago.

The CEO of Twitter. On Hannity, he was trying to explain himself away. Guys, trust me on this one. These companies are already feeling the heat. So my recommendation for you, because action matters. Listen, we can talk junk all we want. Log off. Now, this hurts me.

Because a lot of my stuff I spread through Twitter and Facebook. And I have to stay on there because I don't want to entirely cede the platform to the left at least when it comes to content production and I know a lot of some people out there don't want to log off and I owe it to our customers out there, you guys to stay on there even though I've been targeted by Twitter. Believe me, it's not that I want

to do more sometimes than cancel my account with all these places. I don't give them money anymore. Matter of fact, even if Twitter took my ads back, I wouldn't pay it. But if you don't like the way they're doing it, do what you're doing now. People are logging off in

mass. Don't go to YouTube. Go somewhere else. There's a lot of video sites out there. Dailies, like all kinds of these websites that do video out there. You don't like Facebook? Folks, get off it.

I know you say, oh, that's tough. I know it's tough. I don't use my personal Facebook anymore. I don't even bother because I don't want to give them any more business than I have to. And then, you know what? When they start to course correct

and they start to understand that, all right, you don't like Alex Jones, you don't have to listen. But maybe we should let Alex Jones' audience and non-audience decide. They want to be publishers? They want to be editorialists and determine what's worth hearing

and what's not? Good, log off. You know what? At least at this point, you know, with newspapers, you have a general idea. Like, we don't go to the New York Times because it's a publisher, and we know it's a far left-leaning outlet,

the New York Times and the Washington Post, so we don't go there. The problem I have with Facebook and Twitter is they're pretending they're otherwise. Now, people are emailing me, Joe, well, then we should regulate them as publishers. Please do not do that. It is a mistake.

It is a huge mistake. Liberals want you to do that. I'm just saying. Log off. Encourage your friends to log off. Deactivate your accounts. Sometimes when we get away from the screen, you know, a little better. I know I'm trying to put my phone down a little more at night. It's a little rough sometimes, you know, because I'm

not complaining, folks. I love my job and I love doing this for you. But I have to do this all day. I put together a lot of content. I do cable news at night. I hit the morning with you guys on the podcast and NRE TV. So for me, I'm on my phone a lot. And I have to tell you, sometimes getting away from it at night and putting down to Facebook and to Twitter and just looking at my six-year-old and watching her say, her new thing is she can climb on the couch in the back.

It's a skill. Yes, it's a very sophisticated skill. But watch me, daddy. Watch me. Instead, you're watching a phone screen. No good. So put it down. It won't kill you.

All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. Please pick up my book, if you haven't yet, Spygate, The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump. It covers all of this. You'll understand the whole setup after that. And also subscribe to the show on SoundCloud, on iHeartRadio, and iTunes. We really appreciate it. It's the subscriptions that move us up the charts.

So we really appreciate that. And watch me. I will be on The Five, guest hosting The Five today. So don't miss that on the Fox news channel. I'll see you all on Monday. 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 seven at D Bon Gino.