Speaker 1: A lot of fundamentals, I'll acts and an individual lots.
Speaker 2: This is the show.
Speaker 1: Oh right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
Speaker 1: this Saturday, January eighteenth. I hope everybody is after a
Speaker 1: great start to the weekend. And yeah, so, uh, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be talking today about the first hundred days and
Speaker 1: and kind of what is possible, and uh, talk about
Speaker 1: what I think Trump is going to do, and I'll
Speaker 1: I'll talk a little bit about and then I'll talk
Speaker 1: about what I would do in the first hundred days.
Speaker 1: First hundred days, of course, a time where Congress and
Speaker 1: the public supposedly gives you some lead way, some freedom
Speaker 1: to maneuver, the ability maybe to pass stuff that maybe
Speaker 1: outside of the hundred days you couldn't do because it
Speaker 1: is not that popular, more difficult politically. Whether that is
Speaker 1: true or not, I do not know, but let's make
Speaker 1: the assumption. What the hell? All right, what else do
Speaker 1: we want to say? Yeah, today is tomorrow. Tomorrow is
Speaker 1: officially in Puerto Rico, the end of Christmas season. I
Speaker 1: know for you guys, it's already over a long time ago,
Speaker 1: But in Puerto Rico they celebrate three kings and then
Speaker 1: they celebrate something called San Sebastian, and it's like a weekend,
Speaker 1: like from Thursday to Sunday. It's party twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: It's out in Old San Juan. The consequence of that
Speaker 1: is they basically closed all the roads leading to Old
Speaker 1: San Juan, which means all the roads outside our condo
Speaker 1: are closed off.
Speaker 2: It's a major hasshole.
Speaker 1: But there are hundreds of thousands of people round, millions
Speaker 1: of people in Olden One right now partying, and.
Speaker 2: They will be there all night anyway.
Speaker 1: Yes, Puerto Ricans have a very long Christmas season, starts
Speaker 1: before Thanksgiving and it ends tomorrow night, Monday morning.
Speaker 2: All right, So.
Speaker 1: Monday Monday, Donald Trump will be come the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. He'd be inaugurated almost certainly immediately on
Speaker 1: his way to the party. He will assign a bunch
Speaker 1: of executive orders to get things rolling. In the days following,
Speaker 1: you can expect dozens of executive voters almost a day.
Speaker 1: Roomors have it that in the first week there will
Speaker 1: be one hundred executive voters that that Trump will sign.
Speaker 1: They'll be all over the place, covering everything, and most
Speaker 1: of them will be think more than symbolic statements. Of
Speaker 1: stuff creating this group advisors and that group of advisors,
Speaker 1: and this thing or that thing, but some will be
Speaker 1: quite substantive.
Speaker 2: There certainly will be.
Speaker 1: Significant, significant executive executive orders relating to immigration, for example,
Speaker 1: and relating to tariffs, the two things that Trump is
Speaker 1: most seemingly most passionate about, immigration and tariffs, and I
Speaker 1: think those will get very early on. I think already
Speaker 1: tomorrow you'll get some kind of deportation executive order that
Speaker 1: are going to effect immediately and will require ICE to
Speaker 1: start going into particularly blue states and blue cities and
Speaker 1: and start arresting people and setting them up for the deportation.
Speaker 1: It is good to remember in this context of deportation,
Speaker 1: just so people don't freak up too much, is that
Speaker 1: in Trump's Trump's first term, the first the four years
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen to twenty twenty one, very little deportation happened. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Obama deported more people than Trump, and Biden deported more
Speaker 1: people to Trump.
Speaker 2: Now, granted more people came.
Speaker 1: Across under Biden, but Obama was pretty aggressive in deporting people.
Speaker 1: Is Trump literally going to be rounding people up and
Speaker 1: putting them in camps and making it I'm skeptical we'll
Speaker 1: see I mean he could be I think onemat more
Speaker 1: likely to see kind of an Obama level plus ramped
Speaker 1: up Obama levels of deportation, rather than kind of the
Speaker 1: the camp's scenario eleven million people being rounded up, as
Speaker 1: some people in Donald Trump's camp have suggested. So I
Speaker 1: don't think we'll get the worst case scenario from that,
Speaker 1: but but it certainly will. You know, that certainly will
Speaker 1: be one of the first things he does. Remember a
Speaker 1: lot of what Donald Trump does, a lot of what
Speaker 1: Donald Trump says is performative.
Speaker 2: It is for show, it is.
Speaker 1: To appease a particular group of people. I think another
Speaker 1: thing that will happen on Monday is there will be official,
Speaker 1: an official announcement on Monday that we now have the
Speaker 1: greatest economy we have ever had. That it is immediately
Speaker 1: recategorized from a really really bad economy to a really
Speaker 1: really good economy.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And uh.
Speaker 2: Might take a few days.
Speaker 1: To that one to happen, but but already, you know,
Speaker 1: people are people are reconsidering that. All right.
Speaker 2: Let's see.
Speaker 1: The other one, of course, will be tariffs. I do
Speaker 1: expect that we'll get tariffs right off the bat, pretty
Speaker 1: quickly here.
Speaker 2: It really does seem like he is committed again.
Speaker 1: Tariff's Anti trade is the one policy that Trump has
Speaker 1: held firm to since in nineteen eighty, so this is
Speaker 1: going on well into forty years. It's the one thing
Speaker 1: I think he really believes in. And so I do
Speaker 1: expect to see some form of, you know, maybe universal tariffs,
Speaker 1: so maybe a progression or maybe starting out with some
Speaker 1: increase in tariffs across the board, ratcheting up to some
Speaker 1: higher level in the future, so that he can pretend
Speaker 1: that he's going to use this for leverage. And so
Speaker 1: we will see, we will see exactly what he has
Speaker 1: in mind in terms of starting out our tariffs and
Speaker 1: in terms of launching his tariff agenda. But those two
Speaker 1: certainly will dominate. At the same time, Congress will start
Speaker 1: putting together this mother of all bills, the biggest, greatest,
Speaker 1: most amate amazing, beautiful and wonderful and stunning, and I
Speaker 1: don't know, just the greatest bill ever. And it'll be
Speaker 1: big that will try to capture a lot of Trump's priorities.
Speaker 2: It will include provisions.
Speaker 1: It will include immigration provisions, primarily at the level of
Speaker 1: just allocating budget for immigration.
Speaker 2: It will also.
Speaker 1: Include tax provisioning sort of include the extension of the
Speaker 1: two thousand and seventeen tax cuts into the future with
Speaker 1: some changes and adaptations.
Speaker 2: We'll see. It'll this will this is going to.
Speaker 1: Take a while to all come together. It will also
Speaker 1: include significant UH spending priorities, to include a budget which
Speaker 1: will include a number of spending priorities. My guess is
Speaker 1: that there will be a few bones thrown in the
Speaker 1: direction of Dodge, so there will be something in there
Speaker 1: around a greater government efficiency, and maybe maybe some budgets
Speaker 1: will be cut symbolically, But overall, this will be a
Speaker 1: massive spending bill, massive tax bill, a hugely, hugely deficit
Speaker 1: will be clearly UH. This this bill will be a
Speaker 1: deficit spending bill, but it will have it will have
Speaker 1: It might include kind of an expansion of the president's
Speaker 1: authority visa the tariffs. I don't know whether the Trump
Speaker 1: people think they need that, but they might just throw
Speaker 1: it in there just for just to be safe, so
Speaker 1: give him more authority than he even has right now in.
Speaker 2: Terms of tariffs. I don't think it'll have explicit tariffs
Speaker 2: in there.
Speaker 1: We'll see, but I think it'll have some provisioning there
Speaker 1: again on the immigration.
Speaker 2: It'll have.
Speaker 1: There will be no And I'll make this prediction right now.
Speaker 1: Goverment spending under Trump every year will be higher than
Speaker 1: the previous year. Goverment spending under Trump will be higher
Speaker 1: than goverment spending under Biden. The growth, the rate of
Speaker 1: growth might slow, but gom and spending will.
Speaker 2: Not be cut.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: There will be a big.
Speaker 1: Grand, beautiful, amazing, stunning, greatest in all of history, proposals
Speaker 1: submitted by the Elon Musks of the world before the deadline.
Speaker 1: When there's the deadline sometime in twenty twenty six that
Speaker 1: argues for eight bunch of cuts and a bunch of
Speaker 1: streamlining and fiving people, and some people will be fired
Speaker 1: and everything, and Trump will say, this is magnificent, is
Speaker 1: exactly what I want, This is amazing, I love this,
Speaker 1: this is fantastic. He will send it to Congress and
Speaker 1: it will die slowly because Trump won't fight for it
Speaker 1: and pressure group politics will not allow it again. A
Speaker 1: few symbolic things will happen here and there, but government
Speaker 1: spending will be significant higher four years from now than
Speaker 1: it is today. Trump will spend more money than Biden.
Speaker 1: And that is my prediction.
Speaker 2: And you know.
Speaker 1: I'd be known to be wrong, to be wrong and uh,
Speaker 1: but I'm betting that. Am I betting against Elon Musk? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I'm betting against the loan Musk.
Speaker 2: I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to tell you what I think the
Speaker 1: price of Tesla is going to be or how much
Speaker 1: money SpaceX is going to make. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: bet against Trump against Elon Musk and business. But yeah,
Speaker 1: when it comes to politics, I'm betting against Alan Musk
Speaker 1: without a doubt. They might also be an attempt by
Speaker 1: congressional Republicans to pass or to come together around a
Speaker 1: immigration bill A a immigration bill that restricts restricts immigration
Speaker 1: and uh, and there's and and so it'll look very
Speaker 1: much like the bipartisan bill there were is that it
Speaker 1: was brought in front of the Senate, what it was
Speaker 1: a nine months ago, and that Trump basically said to
Speaker 1: Republicans not to even consider It'll look very much like
Speaker 1: that something like that will pass. They might even include
Speaker 1: in there some streamlining of H one B for for
Speaker 1: uh for extraordinarily talent. I don't know, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that could pass, but they might include something like that.
Speaker 1: But there will be some kind of immigration stick to
Speaker 1: immigration bill, again very similar to the one Democrats agreed
Speaker 1: to under Biden, but that Trump would not let Republicans consider.
Speaker 1: And I think in this case what a uh Trump
Speaker 1: will will will sign off on that bill. Here's here's
Speaker 1: here's what Here's what trump mindlessness syndrome does to people.
Speaker 1: So Jones Wright, Yeah, we should have elected Kamala instead.
Speaker 1: Is that your point you're on, No, it's not. My
Speaker 1: point is this is what Trump is going to do.
Speaker 1: I didn't make any opinion about who should have been elected.
Speaker 1: All I'm saying is Trump will spend a lot of money.
Speaker 1: You know, you like that?
Speaker 2: Great?
Speaker 1: You don't like that?
Speaker 2: Fine?
Speaker 1: I mean, why is everything about the last election? Last
Speaker 1: electures finished? Trump one celebate, you've celebrated. Now let's talk
Speaker 1: about what he'll actually do and whether any of it
Speaker 1: is good. My prediction very little will be good. Some
Speaker 1: of it will be good, but very little will be good.
Speaker 1: And when it's good, I'll mention it. But right now,
Speaker 1: my prediction for the first ninety days, for the first
Speaker 1: one hundred days of his administration, most of it would
Speaker 1: be shitty.
Speaker 2: What choice did we have? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't care it's over, it's finished. Why are we
Speaker 1: hashing the past? Why why debate the past? We're debating
Speaker 1: the present in the future. That's what's important. The past
Speaker 1: is the past. It's over. He won. You guys got
Speaker 1: what you wanted. Yay, we're celebrating, and now we're talking
Speaker 1: about what will happen. I have no interest in rehashing
Speaker 1: who should have won the previous election, because it's irrelevant,
Speaker 1: not compared to the perfect. I'm comparing to Biden. Biden
Speaker 1: was horrible, terrible, one of the worst in all of history.
Speaker 1: I'm comparing to Biden. Will Donald Trump spend more or
Speaker 1: less money than Biden? And I'm gonna I'm my guess,
Speaker 1: and you guys can bet against me, and we can
Speaker 1: in four years, we can we can adjudicate this. My
Speaker 1: guess is he'll spend more. But you know what other
Speaker 1: predictions do you guys want? We can, we can do
Speaker 1: other predictions. That's fine. Will Will he raise tariffs? Yeah?
Speaker 1: He raised tariffs. Will that be bad for the US economy? Yes,
Speaker 1: that'll be bad for the US economy. He will raise
Speaker 1: tariffs h more than Biden did. Biden kept Trump's previous tariffs,
Speaker 1: raised some tariffs on on batteries and and I think, uh,
Speaker 1: solar panels, Trump will raise them even more. What other issues,
Speaker 1: you know, go fit whatever whatever you guys want.
Speaker 2: Will he go to war, No, he will not go
Speaker 2: You will not go to war.
Speaker 1: He won't exactly bring the troops home. He never has,
Speaker 1: but he's not going to go to war. He will
Speaker 1: let Ian be. He will negotiate a deal with Iran.
Speaker 1: Who who else is there to go to war?
Speaker 2: Worth?
Speaker 1: He's not going to go to war with China, all right.
Speaker 1: So so that's what I think Trump will do. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's what I think he'll do in the first hundred days.
Speaker 1: I think a big focus in the first hundred days
Speaker 1: in terms of fun policy will be a deal with
Speaker 1: you on I think that he is very much aware
Speaker 1: that that a deal with Russia is not in the
Speaker 1: cards for the first one hundred days, so he'll probably
Speaker 1: let that one be for now.
Speaker 2: He will continue.
Speaker 1: To support Ukraine in spite of everybody's hating him on that,
Speaker 1: and and try to angle for some future deal with Russia.
Speaker 1: He will kind of deal. He will probably day one
Speaker 1: start negotiating with the Ranians.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That that that is that that is fall and policy.
Speaker 1: He will put a lot of pressure on Israel to
Speaker 1: kind of deal.
Speaker 2: With with Ramash.
Speaker 1: I don't not think Trump wants the war and gods
Speaker 1: that get reignited under his under his watch, I don't
Speaker 1: think he wants UH to see a war there. Once
Speaker 1: Phase one of the cease fire expires. I think he'll
Speaker 1: put a lot of pressure on the Israelis to negotiate
Speaker 1: a phase two, in a phase three. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I don't think he wants wars. I think part
Speaker 1: of his stake again is no wars. Even if I
Speaker 1: have to sell out my allies, I don't want word
Speaker 1: was right, what.
Speaker 2: Would I do?
Speaker 1: And and and here the thing it's important to note
Speaker 1: that there's a real opportunity for Trump.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you paid any attention to serious people.
Speaker 1: Oh by the way, one of the things I do
Speaker 1: think will happen in the first hundred days, which is good.
Speaker 1: So this is the good is I do think you
Speaker 1: will get significant movement on energy right off the bat.
Speaker 1: I think the energy people are ready, you know, and
Speaker 1: they have a list of things they want to do,
Speaker 1: and I think they will do that very quickly. And
Speaker 1: I think on on energy, that is where the best
Speaker 1: stuff will happen on the Trump and it will happen
Speaker 1: really really fast. So and one hundred days will give
Speaker 1: them cover to do a lot of things that are exciting.
Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see, for example, whether they approve
Speaker 1: offshore drilling or not. But there's plenty of oil and
Speaker 1: natural gas on shore, so we'll see, we'll see exactly
Speaker 1: what happens. As I mentioned, Alex Epstein, who's the sponsor
Speaker 1: of the show, has a twenty five point what should
Speaker 1: be done to liberate energy? You can find it on
Speaker 1: a substack. You should go.
Speaker 2: There, all right.
Speaker 1: So what I do if it was me in terms
Speaker 1: of this, because I do think that the first one
Speaker 1: hundred days on opportunity, particularly when there is a change
Speaker 1: from democratic Republican, would particularly when the Republican being elected
Speaker 1: in this case, Trump is coming in as a disruptor,
Speaker 1: as somebody who doesn't play by the rules, as somebody
Speaker 1: who might be doing things completely different, might be doing
Speaker 1: new things, exciting things, an agent of change. Well, then
Speaker 1: I would say, let's really change, let's do major change,
Speaker 1: let's embrace change. All right. So I'm going to go
Speaker 1: run down a few things and then open it up
Speaker 1: to your questions.
Speaker 2: Let's start with tax policy.
Speaker 1: Since taos are tax and let me just say a
Speaker 1: few things that I think should be done. It could
Speaker 1: be done on tax policy starting on day one of
Speaker 1: a new administration. So first thing I would do on
Speaker 1: day one is i'd signed executive vote. Again, assuming you
Speaker 1: could get here, I think the president can actually do
Speaker 1: this unilaterally.
Speaker 2: I think you can.
Speaker 1: I would sign an executive vote basically lowering tais to
Speaker 1: zero unilaterally across the entire United States on every single
Speaker 1: product that exists out there, so all products taris down
Speaker 1: to zero. You know, I probably phase it in a
Speaker 1: little bit, just I like giving people the opportunity to
Speaker 1: adjust so that it's not instantaneous and things get thrown
Speaker 1: off KILTA. But I would say within six months, this
Speaker 1: one's easy, and it's easy to do and it's quick.
Speaker 1: Within six months, all tariffs in the United States will
Speaker 1: be zero. I will be declaring the United States a
Speaker 1: free trade zone. A. Please bring your goods to the
Speaker 1: United States, try to sell them here. You know, we
Speaker 1: are open for business. I also make it incredibly easy
Speaker 1: to invest in the United States. Oh. One of the
Speaker 1: things I would immediately do is reverse the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: decision about Nipon steel. Let Nipon steel buy US steel
Speaker 1: and encourage farn companies to come to the United States
Speaker 1: and invest by buying. By buying US US companies unilaterally
Speaker 1: means that I would reduce tariffs coming into the United States,
Speaker 1: whether the countries that are exporting to the United States
Speaker 1: had tariffs or not, or reducing the traffs or not.
Speaker 1: So I would make the United States a zero tariff unilaterally,
Speaker 1: zero SERF country in the US.
Speaker 2: I would also.
Speaker 1: Immediately sign an executive order, and if not it couldn't
Speaker 1: actually do this by executive order, I would submit a simple,
Speaker 1: straightforward up and down vote quick vote bill that would
Speaker 1: basically repeal the Jones Act. So the Jones Act would
Speaker 1: be a major priority for appeal again, all in the name.
Speaker 2: Of just let's just simplify.
Speaker 1: Let's just get rid of the low hanging food, the
Speaker 1: stuff that we don't need. We don't need voters and
Speaker 1: customs and all of that overhead. We don't need tariffs.
Speaker 1: We want to compete with the world. We want our
Speaker 1: businesses here in the United States to go into complete
Speaker 1: competition with the world. We want a free flow. I
Speaker 1: mean I'm not quite ready to make a free flow
Speaker 1: of immigrants yet. We'll get to them and later, but
Speaker 1: I want at least free fow capital into the United States.
Speaker 1: It's already pretty easy to invest here, but the idea
Speaker 1: that Nipon steel can by US steel is a major
Speaker 1: deterrent for capital to be invested in the United States.
Speaker 1: So we want to get rid of that and reverse
Speaker 1: that on day one. So those are things day one
Speaker 1: Jones Act, a repeal of Jones Act, a reversal of
Speaker 1: Nipon Steele and h and tariffs down to zero within
Speaker 1: six months. Then I would sit down with congressional leaders
Speaker 1: and I would encourage them to adopt a straightforward, simple
Speaker 1: tax legislation. And that is legislation that's already available in
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives.
Speaker 2: UH, and it is the tax, the Fair tax.
Speaker 3: UH.
Speaker 1: The fair tax would basically abolish everything. It would the
Speaker 1: fittax would abolish the income tax, the state tax, the
Speaker 1: capital gains tax, the dividend tax, the corporate tax. Basically
Speaker 1: all taxes on income, all taxes on production, all taxes
Speaker 1: on actual productive activity would be abolished immediately, you know,
Speaker 1: with within a year. Over the next year, completely abolished
Speaker 1: all again income taxes, well taxes, all capital gains taxes,
Speaker 1: dividend taxes, maybe most importantly, corporate taxes would be down
Speaker 1: to zero, would be eliminated completely. And by the way,
Speaker 1: as soon as you zero out the corporate tax, all
Speaker 1: the subsidies that have to do with I don't know,
Speaker 1: accelerated depreciation and you can deduct this are indeed, but
Speaker 1: you can't deduct that, and you can do this, and
Speaker 1: you can do that. All the attempts by the government
Speaker 1: to manipulate businesses into doing what they'd like, All that
Speaker 1: is out the window because there's no taxes from which
Speaker 1: to deduct them.
Speaker 2: So all that is out the windows.
Speaker 1: So copate taxes zero. And then I would put in
Speaker 1: place a federal state sales or vat value added tax
Speaker 1: across the board in the United States, again getting rid
Speaker 1: of all production productive income taxes, and uh, making the
Speaker 1: only tax in the land at the federal level a
Speaker 1: tax on consumption. And I would make it on everything everything.
Speaker 1: I would make it flat, and I think this is
Speaker 1: what the fair tax have. I would not have any
Speaker 1: provisions for poor people for you know, for bread, for fruit,
Speaker 1: for vegetables. No, the taxes on everything everybody pays exactly
Speaker 1: the same rate. You don't want help bureaucracy figuring out
Speaker 1: what your income is and should you get money back
Speaker 1: or should you get money back, and everything you deal
Speaker 1: with you deal with welfare separately. The tax code is
Speaker 1: just about revenue, and it's flat, and it's the same
Speaker 1: you're wide about old people. Old people give them money.
Speaker 2: It's better.
Speaker 1: It's better generally to rate a check then to try
Speaker 1: to control prices or try to manipulate taxes, or try
Speaker 1: to use the tax system to redistribute wealth. Don't use
Speaker 1: taxes for anything other than one function, and then it's
Speaker 1: to bring in revenues to the government. That is the
Speaker 1: only function, not to manipulate the behavior, not to control behavior,
Speaker 1: not anything. By the way, doing this with out encouraged
Speaker 1: states to eliminate their federal, their state taxes, income taxes,
Speaker 1: because now you'd have a whole You know that bureaucracy
Speaker 1: would go away. By the way, that means shutting down
Speaker 1: the IRS, not creating an EERS, but shutting down the
Speaker 1: IRS and shutting down the EOS right because taris would
Speaker 1: be gone, so you'd have no e R S. This
Speaker 1: this is Trump's new agency for External revenue services. Shut
Speaker 1: that down, shut down the irs. You'd save tens of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars by doing that. And you know, again,
Speaker 1: this is at the federal level, so I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about state. States will have to do what they have
Speaker 1: to do at the federal level. No income tax, but
Speaker 1: more importantly, no colporate tax, no no dividends, capital daines,
Speaker 1: none of that. You I mean, imagine, I don't know
Speaker 1: how many of you. I mean, some of you probably
Speaker 1: make a decent living and do quite well. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about how liberating that would be to just eliminate.
Speaker 1: Eliminate taxes as a concern is something you think about.
Speaker 1: When you go to the grocery store, you buys up.
Speaker 1: They add the fifteen percent whatever needs to be to
Speaker 1: get enough revenue so that we can balance the budget.
Speaker 1: Even if it's twenty five percent whatever happens to be.
Speaker 1: You pay it there, but you do not concern yourself
Speaker 1: anyway in your actions with taxes. This primarily the lowering
Speaker 1: the corporate tax to zero.
Speaker 2: Lowering the corporate tax to zero will.
Speaker 1: Immediately raise wages, lower prices, because that's really out corporate
Speaker 1: taxes are paid from, and increase investment.
Speaker 2: The fact that capital gains.
Speaker 1: Now zero on short term and long term will dramatically
Speaker 1: increase investment. And you will see you know, money flowing
Speaker 1: from overseas because now it won't be have to have
Speaker 1: withholding taxes.
Speaker 2: In the United States.
Speaker 1: You will see a massive, massive boom to economic growth
Speaker 1: to I mean free of You haven't even deregulated anything,
Speaker 1: you haven't done anything. You basically eliminated taxes, tariffs and
Speaker 1: income taxes and corporate taxes that in and of itself,
Speaker 1: that in and of itself will have such a huge
Speaker 1: increase to economic activity that somebody wanted to increase economic
Speaker 1: activity to five to six percent just that might have
Speaker 1: that kind of impact, particularly again taking the corporate tax
Speaker 1: on what is a twenty twenty one percent to zero, huge, huge, huge,
Speaker 1: And it's very workable because in most places businesses, retailers
Speaker 1: already have the infrastructure for state sales tax. What you
Speaker 1: have to do is overlay an infrastructure for federal sales tax.
Speaker 1: Of course, if that might be better, might be easier
Speaker 1: to put in place. It's also a little bit more
Speaker 1: hidden from consumers, so maybe maybe less honest, if you will,
Speaker 1: than a straight up straight up sales tax. Is workable. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: there's no economists of running numbers. There's actually a bill
Speaker 1: in Congress that every now and then a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks in the House of Representative bringing up for vote
Speaker 1: or don't because the leadership to the public company won't
Speaker 1: allow it to go to a vote and it fails.
Speaker 1: But there is a bill available. I haven't run the
Speaker 1: numbers on that particular bill to make sure that it
Speaker 1: all adds up. But it wouldn't be that hard to
Speaker 1: take that bill and tinker with it and make it workable.
Speaker 1: Make it workable. So step one would be that it
Speaker 1: would be a true revolution. I would also start as
Speaker 1: president in my first one hundred years the process of
Speaker 1: repealing the amendment to the Constitution that made income taxes legal.
Speaker 1: And I forget which amendment that was sixteenth nineteenth anyway,
Speaker 1: repealing the amendment to the Constitution that allowed for income
Speaker 1: tax would be part of this. But even if I
Speaker 1: can't repeal it, let's get that on the books. Let
Speaker 1: people see what is possible when you stop trying to
Speaker 1: control them, pulate them, and control the manipually business through
Speaker 1: the system of taxation. So that is step number one
Speaker 1: tax policy. Get rid of all of that. Step two
Speaker 1: is probably the most controversial of all of them. Step
Speaker 1: two is, uh would take on what Trump has said
Speaker 1: he would not and what Democrats have said they were not.
Speaker 1: It's a Step two would be to shame Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans into taking on immediately, immediately the issue of entitlements
Speaker 1: UH and UH offering dramatic, substantial, significant entitlement reform. And
Speaker 1: this or four means that you would we would immediately
Speaker 1: reform medicaid medicaid and UH and social security UH and
Speaker 1: so security might be the easiest of these to reform.
Speaker 1: So security is going bankrupt within about ten years or
Speaker 1: maybe even earlier than that. It goes it is already negative.
Speaker 1: That is, more money goes out than comes in to
Speaker 1: the to the system. So it's basically being paid off
Speaker 1: through the general general taxation.
Speaker 2: UH so uh uh.
Speaker 1: The way to do this, the way to do this,
Speaker 1: in my view is is a few things, a few
Speaker 1: kind of tweaks that are just required in order to
Speaker 1: sustain the system and.
Speaker 2: Then radical reform.
Speaker 1: The tweaks I would do is I would I would
Speaker 1: definitely mean test so security if you make over a
Speaker 1: certain amount of money or you you you're you're still
Speaker 1: making as you know, you you don't get it, or
Speaker 1: you or you get a fraction. This is just because
Speaker 1: it's it's not sustainable.
Speaker 2: And right now.
Speaker 1: You know general taxes are going to pay this. You
Speaker 1: don't have a saving account, it's not your money put aside.
Speaker 1: So I would definitely put in a means testing mechanism.
Speaker 1: One of the advantages, of course, eliminating the income taxes,
Speaker 1: so security taxes are no longer so security is no
Speaker 1: longer going to be taxed. Note also that by eliminating
Speaker 1: taxes the income tax I would also eliminate and this
Speaker 1: is important, mad care taxes and payroll taxes, so you
Speaker 1: will no longer be paid be paying into this system.
Speaker 2: The system would.
Speaker 1: Have to be funded through general tax revenue i e.
Speaker 2: The consumption taxes.
Speaker 1: So I would mean test soial security, if you make
Speaker 1: over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, you don't get it.
Speaker 1: If you have x amount of wealth, maybe you don't
Speaker 1: get it, and and you know, And it would have
Speaker 1: to be phased and done in a way that doesn't
Speaker 1: penalize people too much. Second, I would change to a
Speaker 1: time and age from whatever it is today sixty seven
Speaker 1: to seventy or seventy one. Again, this is just to
Speaker 1: by time, just to buy by some years. And then
Speaker 1: more fundamentally is that I would convert so security into
Speaker 1: a into a saving account. That is, I would you know,
Speaker 1: again nothing is nothing is taxed here, so you know,
Speaker 1: I would basically wouldn't convert into same accounts. I would
Speaker 1: basically phase it out. So basically what I would say
Speaker 1: is if you are if you are in your sixties,
Speaker 1: you will get everything promised, adjusted for the means testing
Speaker 1: and adjusted for the.
Speaker 2: Later a time and age.
Speaker 1: If you're in your fifties, you will get I don't know,
Speaker 1: eighty percent or seventy five percent. If you're in your
Speaker 1: forties you will get fifty percent. In your in your
Speaker 1: thirties you'll get twenty five percent. And hey, by the way,
Speaker 1: if you're in if you're twenty five and older, you
Speaker 1: will get zero and you will get zero and right.
Speaker 1: And there's a consequence of and that's fine because you're
Speaker 1: not paying payroll taxes anymore, so you're not putting any
Speaker 1: money supposedly aside. So something like that pretty aggressive. So
Speaker 1: within forty years the system is gone, there is no
Speaker 1: Social Security. Somebody says, what about IRIS, I was don't
Speaker 1: exist in this world, right, Why would you want IRIS
Speaker 1: for one k's any of that?
Speaker 2: They're no taxes.
Speaker 1: The only reason IRIS exists is to protect shield you
Speaker 1: from taxes. The only reason for one K exists is
Speaker 1: to shield you from income taxes. But there are no
Speaker 1: income taxes anymore. You pay no taxes. You write no
Speaker 1: check to the government except when you pay for your grocy.
Speaker 1: So for whatever it is that you're buying, so you
Speaker 1: get to choose how much to save and how much
Speaker 1: you consume. More you say, the better, I think for
Speaker 1: your own retirement, because nobody is there to bail you out.
Speaker 2: This is it you have to say for yourself.
Speaker 1: So that would be. That would be basically the program
Speaker 1: in terms of social security, Medicare, Medicare and Medicaid, and
Speaker 1: Medicaid is a little tricky because Medicaid today by law,
Speaker 1: is primarily given to the states. But I would so
Speaker 1: I would continue to do that. Maybe I think Republicans
Speaker 1: have always wanted a block granted to the states. Just
Speaker 1: give every state a block of money to use for
Speaker 1: medicaid and let the states decide how are they're going
Speaker 1: to use it. And I would say, Okay, we've promised
Speaker 1: to do this, we will continue to do this. Here
Speaker 1: it is, but from now on, every single year, the
Speaker 1: amount of money that you are going to get is
Speaker 1: going to go down by I don't know not not
Speaker 1: only is it not increase, but it's in terms of
Speaker 1: actual dollars, real dollars, not inflation adjusted, but actual real dollars.
Speaker 1: It's going to go down by five percent, seven percent,
Speaker 1: some number that you know allows the states to adjust,
Speaker 1: because it's going to go down over a long period
Speaker 1: of time, but it starts immediately. The numbers are going
Speaker 1: to be Medicaid is going to shrink, it's going to
Speaker 1: go down. Medicare is going to have to be part
Speaker 1: of White to healthcare reform. It's it's it's very difficult
Speaker 1: to do this, to do this independent of that. And
Speaker 1: I think the one law that I would try to
Speaker 1: get past Congress here is a law that basically federalizes
Speaker 1: health insurance, and it basically eliminates all regulation and health insurance.
Speaker 1: So today health insurance is regulated at a state level.
Speaker 1: It creates it's a disaster. The states have done a
Speaker 1: horrible job regulating this. Now they could be a way
Speaker 1: around that. They could be a way to create a
Speaker 1: federal charter for insurance companies, and then if they abide
Speaker 1: by the federal charter, if they sign up for the
Speaker 1: federal child, they are regulated at the federal level, not
Speaker 1: at the state level. So we can come up with
Speaker 1: creative ways to get around state regulation of health insurance policies.
Speaker 1: But basically, I want unregulated health insurance policies. I want
Speaker 1: a competition. I want a marketplace in health insurance.
Speaker 2: So that's step one.
Speaker 1: Step two is converting Medicare Medicares for people over sixty
Speaker 1: five into a voucher system where every old person Medicare
Speaker 1: will stop within one year. Medicare will stop buying health services,
Speaker 1: that is, stop paying hospitals, stop buying drugs, stop paying pharmacies.
Speaker 1: It will stop all medical services. And it would instead
Speaker 1: take the money and block granted and give it to
Speaker 1: seniors for the purpose of buying an insurance policy. That is,
Speaker 1: the money will be allocated for purchasing insurance. They get
Speaker 1: to choose what insurance. The federal government will not be involved.
Speaker 1: Maybe it'll have to be a federally chartered insurance policy
Speaker 1: where there will be massive competition for that. Today There's
Speaker 1: something called Medicare advantage, which is already health insurance for
Speaker 1: people who already have Medicare. Will this will be a
Speaker 1: massive and dramatic expansion of Medicare advantage, but it basically
Speaker 1: will have the effect of privatizing Medicaire and subsidizing the
Speaker 1: government subsidized rather subsidized, rather subsidized then actually the manipulated
Speaker 1: people or actually pay U producers, you know, the the
Speaker 1: the the most neutral thing the government can do in
Speaker 1: terms of redistribution of wealth is to write people checks
Speaker 1: and step away from buying products, from engaging in economic activity,
Speaker 1: step away from the economy. Uh So, Sony says, wouldn't
Speaker 1: wouldn't it create a black market to avoid taxes like
Speaker 1: paying with cash, bitcoin, et cetera. I mean, Europe has
Speaker 1: a vast system that works quite well. I don't think
Speaker 1: that black markets in Europe. Uh So, I don't see
Speaker 1: why that would happen. It would again, it would be
Speaker 1: enforced by businesses. Businesses are much easier to monitor the individuals.
Speaker 2: Uh And.
Speaker 1: So at the margin, would this happen like like smuggling
Speaker 1: cigarettes into the EU in order to avoid that? Sure?
Speaker 1: But it is I mean as compared to the amount
Speaker 1: of money today that is shielded from taxes.
Speaker 2: It would be a fraction.
Speaker 1: It would be a fraction, right fraction. All right, So
Speaker 1: you know, UH providing vouchers for people to uh basically
Speaker 1: to buy health insurance. That would be Medicare, with a
Speaker 1: provision that that amount of money that they get every
Speaker 1: year to buy health insurance will decrease by five percent
Speaker 1: every year until it basically goes down to zero.
Speaker 2: So that will be entitlement.
Speaker 1: That'll be dramatic, and titlement reform again that will make
Speaker 1: both so security and medicare viable into into the future,
Speaker 1: and that will reduce government deficits in the future, would
Speaker 1: use UH goverment debts into the future, and as a
Speaker 1: consequence of all of that, it will put the United
Speaker 1: States government on much better financial footing, which will flee
Speaker 1: up dramatically capital for investment in the economy and again
Speaker 1: will generate significant economic growth.
Speaker 2: All right, what else are we going to do?
Speaker 1: We've done some tax policy, We've done some UH entitlements.
Speaker 1: Let's see, all right, let's let's sake comment spending. Let's
Speaker 1: let's well, let's take another piece of this.
Speaker 2: Let's take welfare reform. Let's take welfare today.
Speaker 1: There I don't know, two hundred different warfare programs in
Speaker 1: the United States, all kinds of welfare programs, from food
Speaker 1: stamps to to income supplementation. There's a negative income tax,
Speaker 1: which would go away because there's no income tax. There's
Speaker 1: there's just a bunch of a bunch of stuff. I
Speaker 1: think all of that should be replaced with basically a
Speaker 1: provisioning of some kind of minimum income to begin with,
Speaker 1: some kind of a check that everybody gets that is
Speaker 1: a brings them up to whatever the number is these days.
Speaker 1: So you take all those hundreds of programs or place
Speaker 1: them with one. This one is not about holding anybody's hand.
Speaker 1: It's not about trying to manipulate the behavior. It is
Speaker 1: of income supplementation. You make x amount, will up it
Speaker 1: to a other amount. And I note that if there's
Speaker 1: no that about, you know, the amount that you you
Speaker 1: get will shrink as you make more money. You have
Speaker 1: to be careful how you do that, so you don't
Speaker 1: provide a dis incentive for people to work harder, or
Speaker 1: for people to get raisers and and to go into
Speaker 1: the job. So some thinking has to go into it.
Speaker 1: It's not a ubi because there's no reason to give
Speaker 1: everybody a UBI. That seemed just like a silly way
Speaker 1: to redistribute money. You want to, you want to at
Speaker 1: least you want to give the money to people who
Speaker 1: quote need it and uh and and you want to
Speaker 1: figure out how to do it in a way that
Speaker 1: does not create a massive tax on them gaining gaining
Speaker 1: extra wages.
Speaker 2: There are ways to do this.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know you could, you could anyway. There are
Speaker 1: ways to do this in a clever way with the
Speaker 1: with the marginal taxes for making more money are.
Speaker 2: Not that high. Again, I'd be.
Speaker 1: Happy to be pretty generous in the first few years
Speaker 1: to compensate for all all the changes and all the
Speaker 1: upheaval that is going on. So I think being generous
Speaker 1: with these checks is good. Also, remember a lot is
Speaker 1: going to get privatized. A lot of stuff that people
Speaker 1: just get for free now they'll have to actually be
Speaker 1: paying for under my system. So I don't mind being
Speaker 1: generous to begin with. And then that amount just shrinks
Speaker 1: over time. So over the next twenty to thirty years
Speaker 1: that amount will go to zero. But we start out
Speaker 1: with some kind of not universal basic income, but select
Speaker 1: the basic income that wereplaces and has to replace basically
Speaker 1: all the other various welfare provisioning that happens out there.
Speaker 2: And again there is a path where.
Speaker 1: This number shrinks constantly, and this is partially this shows
Speaker 1: the markets.
Speaker 2: Yes, government spending will go down over the years.
Speaker 1: It's not endless deficits and endless debt because it's going
Speaker 1: to go down and surpluses are going to be used
Speaker 1: to pay off the debt. And then once the surpluses
Speaker 1: pay off the debt, then siplus is going to be
Speaker 1: used to cut taxes. And then that that consumption tax
Speaker 1: will start going down every year as revenues exceed exceed expenditures. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's talk about other government spending. I think here
Speaker 1: it's pretty straightforward. Congress will have a mandate. The mandate
Speaker 1: will be to cut spending every year, to dramatically cut
Speaker 1: spending by real spending, not inflation adjusted rot to grade growth,
Speaker 1: just actual spending by five to ten percent every single year.
Speaker 1: I'll leave it to them to figure out the priorities
Speaker 1: on how to do that, but that will be the
Speaker 1: mandate is to cut spending on a regular basis over
Speaker 1: the next ten years. We want to cut spending, let's
Speaker 1: say seven percent a year over ten years, seventy percent.
Speaker 1: That's about right, and slowly again with the exception of
Speaker 1: the entitements which we're phasing out the way I talked
Speaker 1: about welfare, which we're going to do the way I
Speaker 1: talked about So everything else right, everything else, And maybe
Speaker 1: seven percent is too much because a lot of that
Speaker 1: is military. And while I think we can cut military spending,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do that too fast, and they
Speaker 1: might be periods in which we have to increase military spending.
Speaker 1: A few executive orders that I would sign in that
Speaker 1: first week, literally in the first week. One an executive
Speaker 1: order that basically closes down the Department of Education and
Speaker 1: also eliminates all government lending for education, all government involvement education.
Speaker 1: You see what they want to do right now. When
Speaker 1: Trump talks about shutting down the part of education, they
Speaker 1: shut down the bottom of education. But all the things
Speaker 1: that the Departum of Education does are just transferred to
Speaker 1: other garments. I want all the things that the Department
Speaker 1: of Education does not done anymore. And then includes no
Speaker 1: student loans. The government has to get out of the
Speaker 1: business immediately of issuing student loans, no grants, no scholarships,
Speaker 1: to help poor people or to help rich people, to
Speaker 1: help anybody. Government gets out of the business of education.
Speaker 1: I would immediately sign executive orders implementing Alex's plan for
Speaker 1: energy abundance, and as part of that plan, have a
Speaker 1: have a clear agenda on shutting down the part of
Speaker 1: it of energy. Zue reason why the federal government should
Speaker 1: have a Department of Energy. Third, I would have an
Speaker 1: executive order, and I think I think the president could
Speaker 1: do this without Congress.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I would have an executive order to create a government entity,
Speaker 1: a new governmentity that will be responsible.
Speaker 2: Starting immediately.
Speaker 1: With auctioning off all government lands, with the exception of
Speaker 1: military basis, active military bases, and essential government property for
Speaker 1: the functioning of government, so grazing lands, it lands with
Speaker 1: natural resources, Alaskan wilderness, Wyoming wilderness, you know, maybe with
Speaker 1: exception for now of national parks. All land that is
Speaker 1: not a national park, that is not an essential government building,
Speaker 1: that is not a military facility, will be auctioned off.
Speaker 1: Money raised through this auction will go immediately to the
Speaker 1: payment of government debt, to a reduction in the government debt.
Speaker 1: So build an auction house inside the government to create
Speaker 1: a new government entity, the auction. I mean, they're lighthouses.
Speaker 1: There are all kinds of stuff out there that the
Speaker 1: government should just sell, just sell. Now, if we just
Speaker 1: did what I mentioned so far, there would be a
Speaker 1: boom in the US economy, A quality of a life,
Speaker 1: stand of a living would go up so fast you
Speaker 1: wouldn't know what hits you. You wouldn't know what hits you.
Speaker 1: There'd be so much excitement, and of course there'd be
Speaker 1: a clamoring to come into the United States.
Speaker 2: So certainly, as.
Speaker 1: Part of this I would I would have Congress draft
Speaker 1: a new immigration bill. Basically can find my immigration proposal
Speaker 1: in my show I did an immigration There would be
Speaker 1: scrap all immigration laws that exist today, replace them with
Speaker 1: a work visa, a student visa, and a a tourist visa,
Speaker 1: and that would be it.
Speaker 2: And anybody who can get a.
Speaker 1: Job in the United States, anybody who has a job
Speaker 1: offer in writing, would be allowed in. And given how
Speaker 1: much I think the economy would grow as a consequence
Speaker 1: of what we've already done, I think that millions of
Speaker 1: people will want to come in to the United States,
Speaker 1: boosting economic growth even more. And then, finally, and in
Speaker 1: many respects more most importantly, we want to have a
Speaker 1: clear systematic plan for deregulating the US economy. And here
Speaker 1: we would have to take different fields like healthcare, finance, finance,
Speaker 1: and banking, energy we talked about, but every one of
Speaker 1: these areas and potentially education and find, you know, just
Speaker 1: make put together all the regulations that apply to that
Speaker 1: particular area of economic activity and then basically eliminate them
Speaker 1: one by one. I think with financial regulation, a lot
Speaker 1: of that could be done just by going backwards in
Speaker 1: terms of the history of regulations, starting with maybe Dot
Speaker 1: Frank and then Sabeans Oxley, and then going backwards through
Speaker 1: history and getting rid of the regulations one by one,
Speaker 1: all the way back to the nineteen thirties, and maybe
Speaker 1: you know, doing away with you know, something like and
Speaker 1: here it's not in the number of regulations, but doing
Speaker 1: away with substantial regulations in every one of these areas
Speaker 1: anyway from let's say twenty five percent of the regulatory
Speaker 1: burden on each one of these industries, getting rid of
Speaker 1: them every year until the burden of regulations is down
Speaker 1: basically to zero. And do this across across the whole thing.
Speaker 1: Work safety, I mean, every area in which there is
Speaker 1: substantial regulation needs. That regulation needs to be eliminated. That
Speaker 1: regulation needs to be reversed, and reversed slowly, so the industry,
Speaker 1: trade groups, workers unions can all adapt, but eliminated nonetheless.
Speaker 1: At the federal level, states will deal with states later.
Speaker 1: Let's clean up the federal government and then we can
Speaker 1: deal with the states.
Speaker 2: And that's it.
Speaker 1: That would be, That would be, and we would try
Speaker 1: to do that as much as possible, of that, at
Speaker 1: least laying out the framework for all of that within
Speaker 1: the first one hundred days. It would be the hardest
Speaker 1: any Senator a Congressman has ever worked. It will be
Speaker 1: an administration basically is rushing to shut it, to shut
Speaker 1: down as much of government as possible. I expect that
Speaker 1: after four years of an administration like that, you know,
Speaker 1: the government will be running supplus's government debt will have
Speaker 1: shrunk significantly.
Speaker 2: I would also expect that after four years.
Speaker 1: Like that, the economy would be growing steadily at four
Speaker 1: or five five plus percent a year and creating massive
Speaker 1: amounts of wealth. People would be incredibly prosperous. And I
Speaker 1: think overall, as all of these government programs are slowly
Speaker 1: starting to shrink from entitlements to welfare, resentment across society,
Speaker 1: and and envy, and you know, the spiritual values. How
Speaker 1: to really estimate to what extent that will change the
Speaker 1: whole mood, the whole atmosphere, the whole attitude of people
Speaker 1: within the year's economy towards one another. I really think
Speaker 1: that spiritually we would land up with a dramatically healthier country,
Speaker 1: a country that embraces competition, embraces immigration, embraces embraces progress,
Speaker 1: embraces technology, embraces growth, embraces ambition, ambition more than anything else,
Speaker 1: because the economy has a feedback mechanism. It's not just
Speaker 1: that people only care about economic growth. You know, how
Speaker 1: they're doing financially, and they look at other people doing
Speaker 1: better and they resent them. But it's all these regulations
Speaker 1: and welfare stating controls that are oppressive and they cause
Speaker 1: they lead people to feel oppressed and unhappy and envious,
Speaker 1: and they lead to that. So to the extent that
Speaker 1: you get rid of all those restrictions and all those constraints,
Speaker 1: then to that extent, to that extent, people are going
Speaker 1: to be happier. They're just going to be happier. Put aside,
Speaker 1: richer they don't have to think about They don't have
Speaker 1: to think about.
Speaker 2: Taxes, for example, anymore.
Speaker 1: They really don't have to think about it that to
Speaker 1: think how much they can afford to consume and how
Speaker 1: much it's costing them, and how much they want to save.
Speaker 1: But taxes become a non existent issue anymore, just doesn't
Speaker 1: rise up. So yeah, exciting. Now somebody's asking about fun policy.
Speaker 1: So let's do my one hundred first hundred days in
Speaker 1: fall policy. I would immediately order the Pentagon to prepare
Speaker 1: plans for the complete and uttered destruction of the Iranian
Speaker 1: nuclear facilities and the complete and destruction of of Iran's
Speaker 1: capacity to wage war. And that would mean the bombing
Speaker 1: of their of their missiles, of the you know where
Speaker 1: they stole the missiles, the missile launches, the bombing of
Speaker 1: of of pretty much all of the Islamic Revolutionary God
Speaker 1: bases uh, and the destruction of the capacity to build
Speaker 1: drones and to build missiles for Russia, for whoever, anybody else.
Speaker 2: Right, So I would.
Speaker 1: Definitely uh destroy Iran's capacity to produce nukes and basically
Speaker 1: to wage war, basically to wage war.
Speaker 2: UH.
Speaker 1: Beyond that, if that is not enough, I would uh
Speaker 1: you know, have Congress reverse the the law that says
Speaker 1: that the United States intelligence agencies cannot assassinate foreign leaders,
Speaker 1: and I would ask the CIA and others to draft
Speaker 1: a plan and to put it into implementation to basically
Speaker 1: uh ce.
Speaker 2: Reverse see a.
Speaker 1: Regime change in Iran in the the complete collapse of
Speaker 1: the regime of the Ayah toolers. So that would be
Speaker 1: priority number one from a foreign policy perspective. Uh privatey
Speaker 1: number two would be too, as part of a defense
Speaker 1: bill to a authorize the Ukrainians to use American weapons
Speaker 1: in the way that they were designed, so without any restrictions.
Speaker 1: I would also tell the Ukrainians and tell the Russians
Speaker 1: that Ukraine can expect the kind of weapons that it
Speaker 1: needs in order to push Russia.
Speaker 2: Out of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So whatever weapons Ukraine deems necessary for achieving that goal.
Speaker 1: I would also encourage our generals to advise Ukraine in
Speaker 1: terms of strategy and how to beat back Russian forces
Speaker 1: out of Ukrainian territories and back onto the Russian border.
Speaker 1: So no peace deal, no negotiation from the perspective of
Speaker 1: weakness for the Ukrainians, nothing that the United States would support,
Speaker 1: and I would support them you know, at least for now,
Speaker 1: by some kind of mechanism with arms. Military arms. I
Speaker 1: don't think they need, and I don't think we should
Speaker 1: support them economically, but I think do think we should
Speaker 1: need to support them with military equipment. Most equipment, by
Speaker 1: the way, we send them is equipment that we're not
Speaker 1: going to use anyway, so it doesn't actually come out
Speaker 1: of your pocket.
Speaker 2: So that is Ukraine China.
Speaker 1: I would basically go to China and make a few
Speaker 1: things crystal clear to the Chinese. I will tell them
Speaker 1: that the United States will not stand still and will
Speaker 1: not sit by if they attempt to invade Taiwan, that
Speaker 1: invading Taiwan is one hundred percent unacceptable to the United
Speaker 1: States and they should just take it off of their agenda.
Speaker 1: The United States does not want war with China. It
Speaker 1: does not want to get into any kind of conflict
Speaker 1: with China. On the other hand, it will not tolerate
Speaker 1: the fall of Taiwan. Indeed, the Chinese can expect in
Speaker 1: my administration that relations between the United States and Taiwan
Speaker 1: will get closer and that there will be a recognition
Speaker 1: of Taiwan as an independent political entity, whether the Chinese
Speaker 1: like it or not. On the other hand, no interest
Speaker 1: in getting into a cold war with China, no interest
Speaker 1: in getting to a hot war with China. Completely understand
Speaker 1: the China wants to have influence on the South China Sea.
Speaker 1: It is called the South China Sea afterwards, and as
Speaker 1: long as they are committed to maintaining open sea lanes,
Speaker 1: as long as the United States Navy can function in
Speaker 1: this area, and as long as the shipping lanes stay open,
Speaker 1: the United States has no interest in intervening in I
Speaker 1: don't know artificial islands that China wants to build or
Speaker 1: other things, but they stay out of Japan's way, they
Speaker 1: stay out of South Korea's way, they stay out of
Speaker 1: Taiwan's way, and most fundamentally, they stay out of the
Speaker 1: United States and the shipping lanes way. And you know,
Speaker 1: the rest in terms of their domain of influence in
Speaker 1: Asia is their business and the business of other Asian countries.
Speaker 1: I would also emphasize the Chinese that the extent that
Speaker 1: they are going to be aggressive in any kind of way,
Speaker 1: including threatening Taiwan, the United States will establish adjoint what
Speaker 1: do you call it, defense treaty with South Korea, Taiwan, Japan,
Speaker 1: and other Pacific countries, certainly Australia, but potentially even potentially
Speaker 1: the Philippines, maybe even Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, that will preserve
Speaker 1: open shipping lanes and so on.
Speaker 2: The United States will.
Speaker 1: On a tavene and internal affairs in China, but we
Speaker 1: also ultimately expect that the Chinese stop immediately.
Speaker 2: Hacking into US computers.
Speaker 1: If it is discovered that the Chinese government is behind
Speaker 1: another significant hack into computers of US companies or the
Speaker 1: US government, the United States will do everything in its
Speaker 1: power to fry every hard drive in China. I think
Speaker 1: that's the right technical terminology, fry every hard drive in China.
Speaker 1: So going back to Ukraine, I think part of the
Speaker 1: deal with Ukraine is the United States should declare that
Speaker 1: it will not do any trading with Russia, that it
Speaker 1: is basically embargoing Russia, that it is it is not,
Speaker 1: it does not want to have any dealings with Russia,
Speaker 1: that Russia is an aggressive.
Speaker 2: Nation and is in that sense an enemy of the
Speaker 2: United States.
Speaker 1: The United States has no interest in going to war
Speaker 1: with Russia, but it has no interested in cooperating with
Speaker 1: Russia on any front. Again, as part of the pressure
Speaker 1: in Russia to cut a deal with Ukraine. Do we
Speaker 1: need anything else on phone policy? If we solve the
Speaker 1: problems of the world, I think we basically solved the
Speaker 1: global international problems of the world. Trade with China should
Speaker 1: continue as normal. As I said, I've already lowered taist
Speaker 1: to zero, so the Chinese will be happy about that.
Speaker 1: But there is that They're gonna have to live.
Speaker 2: With the rest of it.
Speaker 1: They're gonna have to live with the rest of it. Right,
Speaker 1: there's the agenda.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Radical, Yeah, it's radical, very radical, is compared to today disruptive, Absolutely,
Speaker 1: this is disruptive. What Trump is going to do is
Speaker 1: just going to be noise and it'll disrupt but in
Speaker 1: an unhealthy way. This is disruptive in a healthy way,
Speaker 1: in a way that actually will shake up the world
Speaker 1: and shake up shake up the United States. I think
Speaker 1: the United States best friend in a scenario like that
Speaker 1: will be heavier Milai, who is doing you know something similar,
Speaker 1: if a little bit more moderate in Argentina. Oh, I
Speaker 1: haven't even gotten to getting rid of the fad privatizing
Speaker 1: the fitters of system, going to a private banking system
Speaker 1: with private money, all of that, all of that should
Speaker 1: be should be included in in in in plans for
Speaker 1: you know, reversing financial regulations. But I think for the
Speaker 1: first hundred days we might have to hold off on
Speaker 1: that because we Before we do that, we have to
Speaker 1: deregulate the banking system. You can't privatize the FED without
Speaker 1: a completely unregulated banking system. So we need to do
Speaker 1: we need to combine those two.
Speaker 2: Let's see.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable, all right, Yeah, you take the Free Market Revolution
Speaker 1: my book, and you do it quickly.
Speaker 2: That's what my first time days on.
Speaker 1: Free Market Revolution, fast on steroids. I What else do
Speaker 1: we want to do? I guess, I guess that's that.
Speaker 1: That covers everything. So let's uh, let's move on to
Speaker 1: our super chat. We've got a few super chats. There's
Speaker 1: room for more, definitely room for more. We've we've not
Speaker 1: even made it in you know, enough for the first hours.
Speaker 1: So please consider making some contributions. Stickers maybe stickers would
Speaker 1: be great. If you're not a subscriber, please come and
Speaker 1: subscribe on YouTube. I know a lot of people are
Speaker 1: watching the show right now on on Twitter. Please consider
Speaker 1: coming over to you pudube and subscribing to my channel.
Speaker 1: That would be great. You can also if you're watching
Speaker 1: on on Twitter. We've got one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: people watching on Twitter. You could also so come in
Speaker 1: to support the show to a sticker, a super chat.
Speaker 1: But you can also support the show on Patreon Patreon
Speaker 1: dot com. Just put in your on book show and
Speaker 1: you can become a monthly supporter. Love monthly supporters. It
Speaker 1: really is fantastic and you make this show possible. We
Speaker 1: are forty three dollars short of our first hour's goal
Speaker 1: for the superchat.
Speaker 2: So if somebody wants.
Speaker 1: To do a forty three dollar sticker or question, that
Speaker 1: would be fantastical. Maybe just two twenty one and a
Speaker 1: half dollar questions that would be amazing. All right, So
Speaker 1: my one hundred days not happening. Sadly I didn't get elected.
Speaker 1: Trump did. We will be monitoring his first hundred days,
Speaker 1: and we were monitoring what he proposals to actually do,
Speaker 1: and we will monitor the consequence of that, the good,
Speaker 1: the bad, and the ugly. And there's going to be
Speaker 1: plenty of ugly, plenty of bad, some good, and we
Speaker 1: will be monitoring all of those and I will be
Speaker 1: I will, I will you know, keep you updated as
Speaker 1: we go through that. All right, let's start with some
Speaker 1: of our super chat here. Liam uh starts us. But
Speaker 1: you know, you can ask about anything by the way,
Speaker 1: well we talked about or other stuff as well. And
Speaker 1: the nice thing is you get to decide what we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about through your questions. Liam says, you said, quote,
Speaker 1: you need to accept incompetence, stupidity, and immorality of people.
Speaker 2: Can you elaborate?
Speaker 1: Are you saying because we live in a pre objective
Speaker 1: as time, stupidity and competence and immorality, immorality will be
Speaker 1: the norm.
Speaker 2: We just need to navigate around.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you just have to accept reality. This
Speaker 1: is reality. We live in a We live in a
Speaker 1: world where objectives to ideas, ideals and ideas of foreign
Speaker 1: in the smallest minority, uh, where even people who embrace
Speaker 1: these ideas have not fully integrated into their own character
Speaker 1: and everything else, so they are not always consistent. And
Speaker 1: where a bad morality, a bad epistemology is making people
Speaker 1: more stupid than the otherwise would be more incompetent than
Speaker 1: they otherwise would be. And and and that's that's just
Speaker 1: the way people are. And it's something that in as
Speaker 1: part of accepting reality and facts are facts, and they
Speaker 1: don't care about your feelings. You've just got to accept
Speaker 1: it and navigate around it and take that into account
Speaker 1: as you deal with reality. Try to deal as much
Speaker 1: as you can with rational people.
Speaker 2: Try to avoid as.
Speaker 1: Much as you can the irrationality that exists out there
Speaker 1: in the world. But that's not going to change the
Speaker 1: fact that a significant portion of the population out there
Speaker 1: is irrational.
Speaker 2: Is irrational, and you have to deal with it.
Speaker 1: You have to deal with it. You can't stop living
Speaker 1: because they're being irrational. Thank you, Liam, fifty dollars. That
Speaker 1: was very, very generous.
Speaker 2: All right, Neo, you.
Speaker 1: Blame BBI, but Israel is forced to fight in a
Speaker 1: moral way. You also say, is Or can't survive without
Speaker 1: American equipment. Should is Or fight in a way that
Speaker 1: may disrupt the relationship And if chooses to what to what?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is such a false dichotomy. Yes, the
Speaker 1: world and the United States puts a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: on Israel to fight quote the right, the altruistic way.
Speaker 1: But that's but it's not true. It's just not true
Speaker 1: that somehow in Israel people are not altruistic. Now in Israel,
Speaker 1: people would embrace rational egoism in a second, if not
Speaker 1: for America at least when it comes to phone policy.
Speaker 1: It's just there's no evidence of that. Israel's philosophers, is there, intellectuals,
Speaker 1: and Israel's political and military leadership have all bought in
Speaker 1: to the altruism. The only people who don't buy into
Speaker 1: this kind of altruistic view of fighting wars are the
Speaker 1: same kind of people who don't buy into it in America.
Speaker 1: That is, the religious nuts, the messianic religious knuts, who
Speaker 1: don't give one iota about killing as many Palestinians as
Speaker 1: they need to. But everybody else in Israeli society is
Speaker 1: a just war theorist. They all believe in just war theory,
Speaker 1: at least the majority of just like they do in America,
Speaker 1: and subtly and overwhelming majority of any intellectuals.
Speaker 2: So and BB is no exception.
Speaker 1: It's not that BB is again a rational egoist. He
Speaker 1: just what can you do?
Speaker 2: He has to listen to the Americans. He doesn't believe
Speaker 2: in this.
Speaker 1: He's had multiple opportunities over the last twenty five years
Speaker 1: to prove his mantle, to do something extraordinary, to stand
Speaker 1: up for Israel in a way that it's just a
Speaker 1: way that would show us that he is the real thing,
Speaker 1: and he hasn't. He didn't do it in Gaza for
Speaker 1: twenty years. He didn't. He did a little bit of
Speaker 1: an Lebanon, a little bit, but not consistently. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just not true that Israel's just just haven of
Speaker 1: egoistic wolf fighting. It's America the ties his hands behind
Speaker 1: the back and stops him. It's just it's just not
Speaker 1: it's not true. Now, what would actually happen if Israel
Speaker 1: lashed out in lightening speed, killing however many Palestinians it
Speaker 1: was necessary in order to win, destroy Kamas, destroy the
Speaker 1: entire political leadership, and bring the Palestinians to the point
Speaker 1: of defeat so that they understood that they will never
Speaker 1: defeat Israel. The world would be in shock, it would
Speaker 1: be upset, it would be horrified, but Israel would have won.
Speaker 1: It won't take a lot of bombs. It wouldn't take
Speaker 1: a lot of weapons. I mean more bombs. More weapons
Speaker 1: are used in order to fight a so called quote
Speaker 1: just war than are used in order to fight a
Speaker 1: real war, a war victory.
Speaker 3: You actually use less weapons, so you wouldn't run out
Speaker 3: of weapons systems, and you would actually have won, and
Speaker 3: then America would turn around and say, we're really upset
Speaker 3: at you, but you.
Speaker 1: And then Palestinians won a deal and they're recognizing the
Speaker 1: state of Israel and you wont and it's over and
Speaker 1: oh okay, I mean, what are they gonna do? So
Speaker 1: they might penalize Israel with you know, you can't come
Speaker 1: to Europe otherwise you'll be arrested or something for a
Speaker 1: few months. Or they might penalize as roll by not
Speaker 1: selling them alms for a few months.
Speaker 2: But Israel has lots of stock piles.
Speaker 1: The American political system is such that no American politician
Speaker 1: is going to completely abandon Israel and let it die.
Speaker 1: Just tell them, unequivocally, straightforwardly, you're going to do whatever's
Speaker 1: necessary to win. Close your eyes, close your ears for
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks while while we finished this, and
Speaker 1: then we can talk in two weeks. That's what needed
Speaker 1: to be done. That's what needs to be done. Thing
Speaker 1: bad will happen to Israel as a consequence, everybody will
Speaker 1: get over it because they will have won, and that
Speaker 1: victory can lead to a two state solution. It can
Speaker 1: lead to some kind of pieceless solution. It can lead
Speaker 1: to something positive. Losing never leads to anything positive. It's
Speaker 1: very clear why bb caved suddenly. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know what you're talking about. Boy was first of all,
Speaker 1: it wasn't sudden. Bib was willing to do this deal
Speaker 1: over many months. It just the minute shit he wasn't
Speaker 1: willing to do, and he cave because Trump told him to.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no there's no mystery here why bb caved.
Speaker 1: Bbcave because it's his nature to cave. It's his character
Speaker 1: to cave. He just needs somebody who's willing to push
Speaker 1: him enough. And Trump pushed him and basically said, I
Speaker 1: mean I can see the conversation now. Basically said, look,
Speaker 1: could be your best friend or could be your worst enemy.
Speaker 1: What do you want? You want it to be your
Speaker 1: best friend. You have to give him this. You have
Speaker 1: to give them this win, and then we'll talk about
Speaker 1: the rest afterwards. And Bibby said, okay, it didn't take much.
Speaker 2: One meeting.
Speaker 1: One meeting. I mean, this is what happens when you
Speaker 1: build the expectations that Trump is going to be the
Speaker 1: most friendly president in all of human history to Israel.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, if he is the most.
Speaker 1: Friendly president in all of history to Israel and he
Speaker 1: wants a favor, how can you say no to the favor?
Speaker 1: So stop trying to whitewash Bbe. This is his character.
Speaker 1: It's always been this character. I don't understand. I'm merely
Speaker 1: am frustrated. Bibi's been Prime minister for twenty years. He's
Speaker 1: Delta ramas Risbela over and over again, every single time
Speaker 1: he dealt with him for over this twenty years.
Speaker 2: Actually, if you go back.
Speaker 1: To the nineties, he's dealing with a PLO.
Speaker 2: He dealt with him in.
Speaker 1: A compromising, sellout, unprincipled way, which set up Israel for
Speaker 1: October seventh. So why why in all of the universe
Speaker 1: would anybody still support Baby? Put aside the latest caving,
Speaker 1: what is it that he's done over the last twenty
Speaker 1: five years, twenty seven years, whatever it is, What is
Speaker 1: it he's done that would lead anybody to think anything
Speaker 1: positive of him, anything positive of him? Nothing, He's done nothing.
Speaker 1: He sold out, he's compromised, he's appeased, and he sets
Speaker 1: up October seventh, and he won't recognize that and he
Speaker 1: won't resign.
Speaker 2: So he's a coward. On top of everything else.
Speaker 1: He's indecisive, he's weak.
Speaker 2: I just don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's so clear to me, it's so obvious
Speaker 1: to me, it's so unequivocal to me.
Speaker 2: You might say there's nobody better.
Speaker 1: That is the closest you can get to justifying baby.
Speaker 1: So I don't. I really, honestly don't get the sympathy
Speaker 1: for this guy.
Speaker 2: I don't get it.
Speaker 1: I've never gotten it since he said he would never
Speaker 1: negotiate with terrorists and ran to negotiate with Ya but
Speaker 1: immediately afterwards.
Speaker 2: I just don't get it. He is not principled, you get,
Speaker 2: and he always has been.
Speaker 1: So you guys either want to ignore reality or you
Speaker 1: want to argue that he changed. Couple seventh has changed him,
Speaker 1: but he's not. He hasn't nothing changed. I mean, they
Speaker 1: did a great job in Lebanont for a while for
Speaker 1: a few weeks. Then I'm only judging. But my list,
Speaker 1: my chat is supposed to be people who know about
Speaker 1: mal judgment. Okay with it? Suppose all right, thank you,
Speaker 1: Neil Andrew. People don't trust leftist politicians, the media, other institutions.
Speaker 1: But instead of an intellectual pivot, people are moving to
Speaker 1: the opposite of what the intellectuals say, which isn't rational.
Speaker 1: New intellectuals needed, Yes, absolutely, but but people don't trust
Speaker 1: the right either, the right politicians right either. Remember Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Did not win in a landslide.
Speaker 1: He won by one and a half percent the popular vote,
Speaker 1: and he squeaked by in every one of their every
Speaker 1: one of the battlegrounds states by a few thousand votes.
Speaker 2: He didn't anything big time.
Speaker 1: So the country's still fifty to fifty basically, and fifty
Speaker 1: hs the left and fifty h the right.
Speaker 2: And that's what it is.
Speaker 1: And you know, right now there's a pivot away from
Speaker 1: woke and away from far left, but there's also an
Speaker 1: embrace of far right. But even an embrasive center is
Speaker 1: like an embrasive blah, embrace of nothing, ambrace of what's center?
Speaker 1: What does that mean, Biden?
Speaker 2: What is center? It's nothing? It's nothing ness.
Speaker 1: And what's needed is radical change. What's needed is radical
Speaker 1: intellectual change. Which needed is radically new thinking.
Speaker 2: And that's what we're not getting.
Speaker 1: Andrews says, how do you explain that in the physical
Speaker 1: sciences we have reached the marvel of AI and in
Speaker 1: the science of humanities we have sunk to a revival
Speaker 1: of tariffs. You know that science is still compartmentalized to
Speaker 1: a large extent, away from the rest of the culture,
Speaker 1: away from the collectivism and the irrationality of the rest
Speaker 1: of the culture. But even even AI. Think about all
Speaker 1: the scientists who are afraid of AI, who think it's
Speaker 1: going to be go conscious any day now, who have
Speaker 1: all kinds of weird stories about AI that have no
Speaker 1: understanding of what human consciousness is that or what thinking is,
Speaker 1: and think that these AI is thinking. So it's it's
Speaker 1: even Ani is infected by the bad philosophy, Brian says,
Speaker 1: any other dictators on your assassination list, King Jong onun?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't an association basically be a declaration of war? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know who cares, right, I mean? And who
Speaker 1: would they go to war with?
Speaker 2: The North Koreans?
Speaker 1: I mean, they can't really hurt the United States, Uh
Speaker 1: not if we're serious, and they would hurt the South
Speaker 1: Korean So I wouldn't assessinate Kim jungun only because uh,
Speaker 1: that's South Korea's job, right, He's not a threat to
Speaker 1: the US, not a significant threat to the US. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't bother it's it's it's you know, if you weaken
Speaker 1: the Russians, we can the Chinese. Then I don't think
Speaker 1: he's a threat. You want as a threat, and you
Speaker 1: want to stop them before they get nukes. So there
Speaker 1: you want to be more engaged. But there's no reason
Speaker 1: to get rid of Kim jummun that I can tell.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm open to being uged.
Speaker 2: Otherwise, but so let it.
Speaker 1: Let it be South Korea's problem, although they seem to
Speaker 1: be have their own problems right now. See here's by
Speaker 1: the way.
Speaker 2: I'm just looking at Twitter.
Speaker 1: This, by the way, is the House of Representatives just
Speaker 1: release a list of options for ways in which they
Speaker 1: are going to.
Speaker 2: Pay for the tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Right here's some A ten percent tariff which they think
Speaker 1: will increase revenue by one point nine trillion, apply to
Speaker 1: all inputs. Note again how serious they are about tariffs.
Speaker 1: This is not going away. Uh ten percent tariff, So
Speaker 1: one point nine trillion. Your taxes just went up by
Speaker 1: ten percent. Bord An adjustment tax that's another tax that
Speaker 1: restrange trade and ultimately is paid for in the United
Speaker 1: States by Americans. They claim that will increase revenue by
Speaker 1: one point two trillion. You know, this is kind of
Speaker 1: another consumption tax on imported goods. So this disallowed deduction
Speaker 1: on the cost of imports and eliminates taxes on exports. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly how it works, but it's not good.
Speaker 1: It's not a good, it's really really bad. Repeal so
Speaker 1: deduction entirely. So they would repeal the deduction on state taxes.
Speaker 1: Right now, you can deduct up to ten percent at
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars. They say that will increase you avenue
Speaker 1: by one trillion. It would be hard to get. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's some senators I have a feeling would not want
Speaker 1: to vote for the ooh, eliminate the whole mortgage interest deduction.
Speaker 1: That would increase you revenue by one trillion. Right currently,
Speaker 1: you're allowed to deduct the interest on primary residents up
Speaker 1: to I think a million dollar mortgage, so up to
Speaker 1: a certain amount and subject to the the what is
Speaker 1: it the minimum some minimum.
Speaker 2: Tax rate that you have to do.
Speaker 1: They add, eliminate non citizens from federal health benefits. They
Speaker 1: say that I'll say thirty five billion dollars. So right
Speaker 1: now illegal aliens eligible for some federal health kit programs.
Speaker 1: This would eliminate that eligibility only for illegals, also for
Speaker 1: legal I don't know. Repeal green energy credits. That's a
Speaker 1: good one. That suppose he will save seven hundred and
Speaker 1: ninety six billion. So that would eliminate clean vehicle, clean energy,
Speaker 1: efficient building, and other energy credits that were introduced in
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act. They would also cut an additional
Speaker 1: green related credits.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there's.
Speaker 1: Other stuff that could also cut us another four hundred billion.
Speaker 1: That would be good. That's all good stuff to cut.
Speaker 1: I wonder what Alon thinks about that. End the employee
Speaker 1: retention credit. That's another one where you get a credit
Speaker 1: if you don't fire people.
Speaker 2: I guess seventy five billion.
Speaker 1: That that would pass in COVID to keep people from
Speaker 1: being fired during COVID. So security requirement for requirement for
Speaker 1: child tax credit, it's twenty eight billion. Tax college endowments.
Speaker 1: A tax on tax college endowments a fourteen percent ten billion.
Speaker 2: That's not a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Ten billion only would apply to large endowments, and right
Speaker 1: now the tax is one point four percent, so they
Speaker 1: would multiply by ten. Eliminate nonprofit status for hospitals, so
Speaker 1: they would convert all hospitals.
Speaker 2: A full profit.
Speaker 1: Include increased revenue by two hundred and sixty billion. Maybe
Speaker 1: disallow charitable deductions for health organizations. Really, that would increase
Speaker 1: eighty three billion. Why not reduce charitable disol out about
Speaker 1: deductions for everything? Tax scholarships and fellowship income. That's fifty
Speaker 1: four billion. Tax employee provider, transportation and gym use So
Speaker 1: they want to tax more stuff, right, I want to
Speaker 1: taxt less stuff would increase revenue seventy billion. Eliminate deductions
Speaker 1: of student loan interest okay, deny so security to those
Speaker 1: with felony warrants. That's three billions saving what they get.
Speaker 1: What are you gonna do with people with fel any
Speaker 1: warrans who don't have enough money to live as old people?
Speaker 2: Just don't give them anything?
Speaker 1: Ban telehealth facility fee, income verification for free, reduced school meals,
Speaker 1: on shore earl and gas leasing. All of these Yeah,
Speaker 1: pretty small stuff. The main stuff is the tariff, the
Speaker 1: border tax, adjustment tax, and the taking away taking away
Speaker 1: certain deductions.
Speaker 2: Those are the big ones.
Speaker 1: But all of this is doubling up on income taxes,
Speaker 1: doubling up on the income tax. So all this is
Speaker 1: is moving as far away as possible.
Speaker 2: As possible.
Speaker 1: Neil says, I forgot to kick out the UN, and
Speaker 1: I sat, that's right, I did forget. I forgot to
Speaker 1: get rid of the UN. It's such a trivial thing.
Speaker 1: But yes day one executive order withdrawing the United States
Speaker 1: from the United Nations and repealing whatever lease they have
Speaker 1: for the property in New York City and encouraging them
Speaker 1: to move to Caracas, oh Teheran or maybe a punk pant,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe maybe a North Korea. All right, now
Speaker 1: you're having Jogo with him, says why is it you
Speaker 1: don't care about the poor? It makes you a sociopath.
Speaker 1: I don't care about the poor. Care about the poor lot.
Speaker 1: I want them to be the beneficiaries of capitalism.
Speaker 2: I can't think of a system.
Speaker 1: That is more beneficial to poor people than capitalism. The
Speaker 1: poor I don't care about is the deserving poor people
Speaker 1: who deserve to be poor, you know, the the wife
Speaker 1: beating drunks of the world. I don't care about them.
Speaker 1: And if that makes me a socialpacity, then so be it.
Speaker 1: But capitalism I'm all about. I'm all about the poor.
Speaker 1: I'm all about, particularly the ambitious poor. Liam You also
Speaker 1: said on yesterday's show that most Republican voters are not
Speaker 1: that bright. I'm not sure I agree with that. Could
Speaker 1: you elaborate? Yeah, I mean, if you look at MAGA,
Speaker 1: which is what forty percent of Republicans people affiliated with
Speaker 1: MAGA a pretty stupid. They're just low intelligence, low intelligence.
Speaker 2: You look at the mega.
Speaker 1: Influences, these are dumb people who play to really you know,
Speaker 1: the left is much more sophisticated theoretically and in in
Speaker 1: in trying to convince people. So you know, MAGA is
Speaker 1: not very smart. You see them on on on Twitter,
Speaker 1: you see them elsewhere. I'll also add that generally Republicans, uh,
Speaker 1: there's a huge education gap politically Republicans. You know, Republicans
Speaker 1: do really really well, but people don't complete high school.
Speaker 1: Republicans do really really well with people don't go to college.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying college is this great thing in
Speaker 1: today's world. College is incredibly corrupting. But there's something there
Speaker 1: Republicans don't do well necessarily with in the past, with STEM.
Speaker 1: So it's just I think if you ran intelligence tests
Speaker 1: on Republicans and Democrats, Democrats would be smarter, more philosophically
Speaker 1: corrupt in many ways.
Speaker 2: But just smarter.
Speaker 1: Republicans have a hard time dealing with abstract ideas. Now. Granted,
Speaker 1: all political buddies, everybody in America today is not particularly smart.
Speaker 2: But conservatives are not that smart. They're not.
Speaker 1: You know, Ben Shapiro smart, yes, corrupt, but smart. You know,
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson is smart, you know in some way. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we've got a handful cool and you know, and
Speaker 1: it's sad. It's very sad that Ben Shapiro, who has
Speaker 1: embraced MAGA. But if you look at other people on
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro's platform, Knowle's and uh, what's the other one?
Speaker 1: Walsh smart? No, No, those are not smart people. Those
Speaker 1: are not smart people. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because
Speaker 1: I don't being smart is not that crucial. It's at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, morality is what's crucial. And
Speaker 1: Republicans a formal committed to Candace Own is one of
Speaker 1: the dumbest people in the world. What are you talking about.
Speaker 1: Somebody's using Candace Owned, who doesn't believe in the existence
Speaker 1: of dinosaurs, as an example of smart. Tulsa Gabbard Smart,
Speaker 1: Tulsa's not smart and terrible on pretty much every dimension
Speaker 1: one can imagine. But Candace uh about as bad as
Speaker 1: it gets, all right, um, Michael says, well, I agree
Speaker 1: with most of your criticisms of Donald Trump. I find
Speaker 1: myself wanting to defend him because I absolutely cannot stand
Speaker 1: the left. I wonder if many objectives fall into this category. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course they do. Most people do. I didn't say.
Speaker 1: I did not say you won't find anywhere that I
Speaker 1: said that every person who voted for Trump or support of
Speaker 1: Trump is not smart. I've never said that, but that's
Speaker 1: the kind of publius, that's the kind of unthinking you
Speaker 1: suffer from because of Trump unthinking, you know, Trump brainless syndrome. Right,
Speaker 1: I said that on average Republicans. I'm not the smartest Democrats,
Speaker 1: that's all.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: Empirically that would stand. Did I say every single person
Speaker 1: who voted for Trump or supports Trump is not smart?
Speaker 2: I never said that.
Speaker 1: But that's what happens when you, you know, contract Trump
Speaker 1: brainless syndrome, is you stop being able to actually think,
Speaker 1: and you instinctually say stupid things in order to try
Speaker 1: to defend Trump. Michael, Yeah, I get not liking the left.
Speaker 1: I get that everybody hates the left, and I get
Speaker 1: that's why a lot of people support Trump. I get it.
Speaker 1: That's fine. I stand by all my criticisms of Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't think any of them is made less valid
Speaker 1: by that fact. Happa Campbell, How do nihilists get into
Speaker 1: positions of power? You would think by the nature of
Speaker 1: their philosophy they wouldn't be so ambitious about climbing up
Speaker 1: the ladder.
Speaker 2: Well, it depends on that type of.
Speaker 1: Nihilists, consistently nihilistic they are, and it depends on the culture.
Speaker 1: And look at look some people. It doesn't take that
Speaker 1: much to climb the ladder, right they go right to
Speaker 1: the top fairly quickly.
Speaker 2: But in a.
Speaker 1: Culture that has at least to some extent embraced nihilism,
Speaker 1: embraced envy, embraced resentment, embraced fear, embased fear and hatred,
Speaker 1: then I don't think it's that hard for nihilists to
Speaker 1: raise the top pitty quickly. Marra bends message the philosophy
Speaker 1: at work. I love watching iin rand in Sense It
Speaker 1: Life z I. Another one of those that I completely
Speaker 1: miss R Clark is altruism accepted only up to a
Speaker 1: point in any gift and culture. Yes, in any given
Speaker 1: human life, it's only accepted up to that point. Otherwise
Speaker 1: it is suicidal and destructive and self destructive and and
Speaker 1: and uh uh that to that extent, it is not
Speaker 1: ever fully embraced because it would lead to death and
Speaker 1: destruction very very quickly.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so we talked about this many times.
Speaker 1: I think in man's mind, it's only accepted up to
Speaker 1: a point. By the way, just a Trump did you
Speaker 1: see that he issued a a trump coin which has
Speaker 1: no value, and uh it sold a gazillion and he
Speaker 1: made a lot of money. And I mean it a
Speaker 1: day before he's inaugurated as president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Or two days before.
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable. The Trump coin is just another example of
Speaker 1: how low this man is, how just absolutely low he is,
Speaker 1: and how willing he is to exploit you, his fans
Speaker 1: as much as he can, as much as he can.
Speaker 1: Millionaires were made off of the Trump coin. I'm sure
Speaker 1: they were. I'm sure they were. Michael says. One good
Speaker 1: thing about Trump being in power and the Republicans controlling
Speaker 1: both houses of Congress is alex Epsain will become much
Speaker 1: more connected and influential over the next four years.
Speaker 2: I hope so, I hope so.
Speaker 1: We will be here in four years to evaluate what
Speaker 1: exactly turned out. But let's hope that Alex becomes even
Speaker 1: more influential over the next period. He says, I hope
Speaker 1: you're wrong about Iran, so am I I hope I'm
Speaker 1: wrong about a lot of things, Andrew, if you hold
Speaker 1: the full context, the government holding the gun to farmer
Speaker 1: to negotiate the price of those life saving enhancing drugs
Speaker 1: is an egregious injustice. The producers are being looted. Yes,
Speaker 1: we talked about this yesterday. It is truly horrific that
Speaker 1: we allow the government to coerce and to force them
Speaker 1: to blackmail big farmer that way or small farm, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter. Paulo Zeus, Do you expect the rest
Speaker 1: of existing government workers and politicians to go along with
Speaker 1: such radical changes? No? I mean, but who cares they
Speaker 1: work for me? I'm presidents. I'll fire them if they
Speaker 1: don't want it. I'll have to fire many of them,
Speaker 1: if not most of them, anyway, because that's what the
Speaker 1: changes will necessity. What are they going to do? Are
Speaker 1: they're going to launch a revolution? And this this is
Speaker 1: the thing that my policies would create so much economic activity,
Speaker 1: So much job creation that many of these government employees
Speaker 1: will be eager to leave to benefit from the riches
Speaker 1: that are being offered in the private sector enrich The
Speaker 1: government was central in new technologies from nuclip plants in
Speaker 1: the fifties, moon rockets, and the sixties self driving cause.
Speaker 1: Should government continue It shouldn't continue doing any of those things.
Speaker 1: The only reason government was central to many of those
Speaker 1: things is because it was the only player playing in
Speaker 1: that field. The government should continue to do an invest
Speaker 1: in research that is essential for national security. So all
Speaker 1: the projects ADAPPA, the Defense Department funds, those should continue.
Speaker 1: But other than that, ultimately the government should be geting
Speaker 1: getting out of these big research projects. And given that
Speaker 1: private individuals will now have a lot more money to
Speaker 1: invest to save, they will be the ones investing in
Speaker 1: the kind of research that is necessary, UH to create
Speaker 1: these big innovations. So no government, Now we should close
Speaker 1: down NASA. That would be one of my executive orders,
Speaker 1: will be shutting down NASA, although I think you need
Speaker 1: an active Congress for that. And I don't know about
Speaker 1: self driving cause right if how much the government it
Speaker 1: was involved there. But but you know, GPS was a
Speaker 1: government creation for national security, which was then commercialized and
Speaker 1: used in a private sector to far greater extent than
Speaker 1: anybody expected. And you could imagine a lot more of
Speaker 1: that happening, but out of defense industries, not from other
Speaker 1: kind of spending. He of US executive orders work, I'm
Speaker 1: on an American Well, I mean it basically is a
Speaker 1: way of within the scope of what.
Speaker 2: Is allowed to the president.
Speaker 1: It is a way for the president to change policy
Speaker 1: without going through Congress. So as applies to the executive branch,
Speaker 1: there is there are things that a president can do. Now,
Speaker 1: the extent of those things, the scope of those things
Speaker 1: is really has to be determined by the Constitution and
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has generally given
Speaker 1: presidents a wide leeway, but not completely. So. For example,
Speaker 1: Biden tried to forgive a lot of student debt through
Speaker 1: executive order and the Court said, oh, you can't do that.
Speaker 1: If you want to forgive that, it has to go
Speaker 1: through Congress. And I expect that they will do that
Speaker 1: to a lot of other executive orders. So there's a
Speaker 1: limit to how but you can get done to executive vote.
Speaker 1: It has to be something where the courts believe is
Speaker 1: within your scope. Of responsibility, not legislative, which is what
Speaker 1: Congress is supposed to do. Andrews says, do you understand
Speaker 1: the psychology of political partisan hacks? How do they justify
Speaker 1: their insane fealty to their party? I think they rationalize
Speaker 1: it by how bad the other side is, by the
Speaker 1: need to win, by the fact that, oh, no, you
Speaker 1: don't understand how good a people are.
Speaker 2: I think it's a.
Speaker 1: Rationalization of rationalization or rationalization. But the psychology is tribal.
Speaker 1: It's at the end of the day, what they need
Speaker 1: to get. What they need to get is a sense
Speaker 1: of belonging, a sense of being part of the tribe.
Speaker 1: Rob is Alex not sanctioning evil by working with Trump? No,
Speaker 1: because he's not working with Trump, right. Alex was very clear,
Speaker 1: at least to me, that he did not want to
Speaker 1: work for Trump, that he're not to work for the administration.
Speaker 1: He would advise the better people in an administration on
Speaker 1: things that would lead to greater freedom for all of us.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that is a sanctioning of evil.
Speaker 1: I don't think that he is going to support evil policies.
Speaker 1: He is going to praud certain people towards better policies.
Speaker 1: Towards greater freedom. So no, I don't think he's sanctioning
Speaker 1: and evil. All right, let's see I mean with some stickers,
Speaker 1: and I don't think I thanked you guys. Let's see
Speaker 1: Barbara twenty dollars. Thank you, Barbara Jacob, thank you. Let's
Speaker 1: see Greg, thank you, Mike, thank you, and Alan, Henrik Apollo, Zeus, Gail,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Honing, Martin Anderson, an anonymous user. Thank you guys
Speaker 1: for the stickers. I really really really appreciate it. Thank
Speaker 1: you to all the super chatters. I hope you enjoyed
Speaker 1: today's show. I'll be back tomorrow with the show on Hebrew.
Speaker 1: So for those of you Hebrew speakers, you can join
Speaker 1: me tomorrow. Those of you who are listening not live,
Speaker 1: please consider becoming patreons, going to patreon dot com and
Speaker 1: subscribing to you on book show for ten dollars. You
Speaker 1: get the podcast ad free, but more generally, your dollars
Speaker 1: help make this show possible a reality. And yeah, couldn't
Speaker 1: do it without you, so thank you, and I will
Speaker 1: see you all on Monday. Oh Monday, we're having We're
Speaker 1: talking healthcare with Amish and Ray from Afgham. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be fabulous. It's gonna be a really really good show. Uh.
Speaker 1: And yeah, we're committed over the next few months to
Speaker 1: really going through healthcare and really trying to figure out
Speaker 1: how to fix healthcare in the United States and how
Speaker 1: to change people's attitudes. So fixing healthcare in the United
Speaker 1: States would be easy. See you guys, talk to you Monday.
Speaker 1: If you're not a Hebrew speaker. If you are, there'll
Speaker 1: be a show tomorrow. Bye, everybody.