Destiny Vs David Khait: IRS Funding Debate: Fixing Fraud or Harassing Americans? I DSH #1473

I know.

What would you like to see that's better?

You want to pay more taxes yourself?

Well, no, paying taxes more as an individual doesn't really help much.

I think we should probably try to find our government.

In general, yeah, I think we should fund the government more.

I don't think a two-point cut on my tax bracket is helping.

It's not changing my life significantly.

Okay, guys, we are at Student Action Summit.

Got David and Destiny here.

Let's get right into into it, fellas.

Is Trump making America great right now?

Oh, me first.

It's a complex issue.

I'm not a partisan guy that constantly is a cultist or upholds values to an individual.

I like policy.

And when there's big, beautiful bills that a conservative can't stand, I'll call that out and criticize it.

So I don't know if he's making America great again, but he's definitely better than the previous candidate, previous president, a whole lot better than what the Democrat Party can offer to us, whatever policy it is.

What's your rebuttal to that?

Yeah, I would say it's probably worse in every single measurable way.

I think that the attack on the rule of law, I think, is really bad.

I think all the law affair that he's engaged in is really bad.

Foreign policy-wise, I don't know if America's ever looked worse on the world stage, whether it comes to military stuff or economic stuff, like trade deals.

I think even for the things that conservatives might care about, I think that he is hurting those causes.

I would say that the way he's approached like the theatrics related to ICE is really bad.

The weaponization of like the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, I think, was bizarre, the El Salvador stuff.

I just think that even if you did care ostensibly about some conservative platform, Trump has just done bad things for every part of what you could possibly care about.

Like immigration?

I would say probably, yeah.

Yeah.

How so?

I think that when you roll by executive order, it could be rescinded by executive order.

If all of his benefits at the border are addressed because of EOs that he's issued and he hasn't been able to champion or pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform, I don't think it speaks well.

Yeah, it deterred the crisis that was happening at the southern border under the previous administration.

I mean, it depends on if you believe it was a a crisis or not.

Well, the average American for consistently over a year said that the immigration, specifically what is happening at the southern border, is one of the most important issues for them.

Why is that?

If it's not a crisis?

Because I think Republicans told them.

Oh, and they also told Democrats as well, who are polled for saying more than 70% of the average Americans say that they don't want illegal immigrants crossing our border, especially taking advantage of various programs that we have here, whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

So I'll ask you again.

How is he able to deter illegal migrants from crossing the border at such a high level without passing any policy, any executive order, whatever it is.

Well, I think there's a lot less people coming to America now, period.

Tourism is down like 80% across almost everyone.

No, no, but I'm talking about general

southern border.

Yeah, I'm just saying people, well, I mean, if less people are even trying to come here, then I imagine illegal crossings are probably down as well.

I'm just saying that it's hard to believe that Americans genuinely care about a problem when, one, Trump killed the bill outside of office when Biden was in for his last year, and then nothing has been proposed in the meantime.

And then, two, again, but you don't need to reform the system in order to deter illegal migrants from wanting to come to the southern border, first of all, and then to illegally enter our country, right?

Sure.

Was the goal just to bring immigration, illegal immigration to Zen?

I don't know what the goal of Democrats.

All I look at is from a...

Well, no, but I'm saying for the top.

I thought the goal was to do something different with our immigration system to deal with the 20 million illegal immigrants that are supposedly here already.

Sure, that is after the previous administration completely disregarded the rule of law and allowed so many people to come into their country and abuse asylum law.

So instead of reforming the system, which I'm all for, when there is a crisis, do you reform the system or do you deter the crisis from happening?

So I don't think that there was a crisis.

What is 5,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border illegally, not through a port of entry, every single day, amounting to 3 million people illegally entering the country over a year?

What do you call that?

What do you tell the New Yorkers, the Chicago people, the Detroit people who aren't your traditional Republicans, going to council city meetings, stiffen it into their mayors, then what?

If this was so much of a crisis, then why did Republicans kill the bill to cap the amount of legal running over?

We just saw that you didn't need a bill in order to deter illegal migration.

Maybe you can do it with the EO, but we also see that when you do things via executive order, the judiciary will challenge you on a lot of stuff that you do.

So why not do it with legislation?

What did this administration do differently in the first 30 days when it came down to illegal crossings that the previous administration didn't do?

Well, they, one, they're issuing harsh executive orders.

And then, two, I think America in general is a less attractive place to flee to at the moment.

It's a less attractive place.

But again, I think that

when you have metropolitan cities giving you free everything, nobody in America gets free everything.

Nobody in America gets free anything?

Free everything.

Nobody's going to free everything.

Okay.

I didn't say everything, but whatever.

Okay.

When an individual on the previous administration crossed the border illegally, not through a port of entry, what did they do with the individual?

It depends on if they meet a border guard and they try to claim asylum.

It depends on if they're sneaking in through.

Okay.

But before that happened,

before that, I was just saying before, if this was a crisis, it's very strange that there was a huge piece of legislation originally authored by a Republican that both halves of Congress are ready to support.

And then it got shot down.

What was that bill going to do to deter illegal migrants from coming to the southern border?

In the same way.

All right, guys, guys, Sean Kelly here, host of the Digital Social Hour podcast.

Just filmed 33 amazing episodes at Student Action Summit.

Shout out to Code Health, you know, sponsor these episodes, but also I took them before filming each day.

Felt amazing.

Just filmed 20 episodes straight and I'm not even tired, honestly.

Code Health, amazing products.

I also take these at home, especially when I travel.

I used to get sick every time I flew and I started taking that.

First time, I haven't had a runny nose, knock on wood.

One standout element, I mean, it's so easy.

You know, you got the travel pack here, but you could just take this, fit it in your pocket if you need to.

Also, all natural, like only saline solution in there.

So, you don't got to worry about any crazy side effects or anything.

Yeah, code's unique with supplements.

There's a lot of who knows what's in these ingredients.

Code Health, I haven't seen much like this, where it's just based off, you know, the code, the codes that are in the saline solution.

So, I would say they're very unique.

It's going to be the future of health and medicine.

Code Health has been awesome.

Feel the drop and go code yourself

Way that they are not doing so now.

Well, it codified into law the same type of caps that President Trump is trying to do.

We don't want caps right now, right, to deter migrants.

Well, one of the issues.

Well, one of the issues with the asylum seeking process was people could come forward in like these huge amounts of record-breaking numbers and claim asylum.

And if you had too many people that were doing this, if you had too many people trying to claim asylum, one of the things the bill would have done was let you cap it and put a mortarium on it.

We both agreed that there's an issue with the asylum process and being uh people taking advantage of it but when you have 15 000 people coming in on a daily basis

that would have not done a single okay let me ask you this we didn't pass a bill we didn't reform the system whatsoever yep and we deterred it by 99.8 percent and all the people that why asylum seeking are still in this country they're not gone they're still care about them i do care you know what wasn't a crisis there was a crisis okay

what is the primary issue at the southern border previously under the previous administration is it the problem when they're already in the united states or is it before they actually come into the united asylum seeking process

the asylum seeking process was the asset was the primary issue so you don't think that people entering the country or sorry you don't think that people wanting it and being incentivized to come up to the southern border from all over the world not just south america but from all over the world is not a problem that's not the primary issue they well you care about what the reason why they're already in the reason why they were incentivized was because people realized especially after covet that the asylum process was super abusive what did a former president biden do right after covet in terms of uh immigration related law he He pulled out of the.

Are you going to say Remain in Mexico?

Yeah.

So how many people did you say?

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

How many people did you say you were coming over legally or a day?

You said 15,000?

15,000.

I think Remain in Mexico was responsible for like 60,000.

Remain in Mexico.

First of all, we're not just going to play a quiz game, but I'll explain it since you'd like to ask somebody question.

So remain in Mexico

from coming to the southern border.

60,000 remained in Mexico.

Mexico for the process.

I just did.

Okay.

And I'm going to go to the next step.

I didn't know you could say people could apply for the process down there.

But what i'm saying is that if you wanted you could have done an actual immigration bill that would have addressed so many different layers of this problem including the massive backlog we have of asylum seekers and that was the issue why you're super passionate about asylum seekers because that was the issue that was the problem passionate about asylum seekers i'll ask you this where do the super majority not 50 60 more than 90 percent of asylum seekers true asylum seekers not asylum seekers where did they seek asylum If we're talking about Venezuelan.

Are we going to say like the country of first entry where they arrived at first?

They go to their neighboring country.

More than 92%, according to statistics, actually go to their neighboring country.

So let me ask you this.

If you're facing legitimate asylum, first of all, are you going to track all the way up to the southern border, pay thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars sometimes because you're bringing your family to pay the cartels to then have a legitimate asylum case and then enter illegally, not through the port of entry?

If you have a legitimate asylum case, you can adjudicate that in the United States with temporary protective status in the United States.

You don't have to sit in Mexico and wait for your asylum.

But why would they go for asylum over a TPS?

Why would they go for asylum over TPS?

Because asylum is much easier to seek in the United States and then be granted TPS, right?

When the individual entered the United States and is seeking asylum, what do they grant him?

What do they grant them?

Yeah.

While they adjudicate their case.

Are you going to talk about how they issue them a receipt to show up at their case?

And you're talking about relief?

Temporary protective status.

Yeah.

Right.

Because

they're waiting for their case to be adjudicated.

Of course, yeah.

So it would have been nice if we had more judges to adjudicate these cases like the border bill would have given us.

It would be nice, like we have right now a 98 point or 99.8% reduction in amount of individuals not only crossing the border illegally

coming to the border.

So the numbers that's clear.

The numbers not real.

Yeah, those are real, but it's fine.

It's the usual step.

President is not real to get rid of the reality.

When ask Trump doing to get rid of the five or 10 million asylum seekers that are already in the United States.

He's trying every legal means that he can possibly can.

He hasn't done anything.

Well, did he try and enact the Aliens Enemies Act to remove individuals out of the country with limited due office and no process from Venice?

The Tri-Light from Therasage is no joke.

Medical grade red and near-infrared light with three frequencies per light, deep healing, real results, and totally portable.

It's legit.

Photo biomodulation tech in a flexible on-body panel.

This is the Tri-Light from Therasage and its next-level red light therapy.

It's got 118 high-powered polychromatic lights, each delivering three healing frequencies, red and near-infrared, from 580 to 980 nanometers.

Optimal penetration, enhanced energy, skin rejuvenation, pain relief, better performance, quicker recovery, and so much more.

Therasage has been leading the game for over 25 years and this panel is FDA listed and USB powered.

Ultra soft and flexible and ultra-portable.

On-body red light therapy I use daily and I take it everywhere I travel.

This is the Thera 03 Ozone module from Therasage.

It's a portable ozone and negative ion therapy in one.

It boosts oxygen, clears and sanitizes the air, and even helps your mood.

It's a total game changer at home or on the go.

This little device is the Thera O3 Ozone Module by Therasage and it's one of my favorite wellness tools.

In the Sana, it boosts ozone absorption through your skin up to 10 times, oxygenagating your blood and supporting deep detox.

Outside the sauna, it purifies the air, killing germs, bacteria, viruses, and mold, and it improves mood and sleep.

Negative ion therapy.

It's compact, rechargeable, and perfect for travel, planes, offices, hotel rooms, you name it.

It's like carrying clean energy wherever you go.

This is the Thera H2GO from Therasage, the only bottle with molecular hydrogen structured water and red light in one.

It hydrates, energizes, and detoxes water upgrades.

The Thera H2GO from Therasage isn't just a water bottle.

It's next-level hydration.

It infuses your water with molecular hydrogen, one of the most powerful antioxidants out there.

That means less oxidative stress, more energy, and faster recovery.

But here's what makes it stand out.

It's the only bottle that also structures your water and adds red light to supercharge it.

It's sleek, portable, and honestly, I don't go anywhere without it.

And that

act requires us to be at war with the country or for them to be invaded us, which is probably not true.

Well, okay, well, there's a sophisticated, there's actually a really detailed article about to be clear.

There's absolutely no detailed argument about how that can work.

The only way that it does is to confound basically the

gangs with the actual Venezuelan government to say because they have some members that are inside the government that have a report about how the Venezuelan government, the Maduro region,

one one second, trained paratroopers to come into the United States, go to various states in the United States.

Again, I don't really give a shit about that.

I thought you said you cared about policy and rule of law.

I do.

Well,

clearly you don't, because you don't think that 15,000 people coming into the country illegally on a daily basis is not a problem.

I did think it was a problem.

That's why I supported the bill.

Oh, you passed it.

But I prefer to have legislation from Congress for immigration rather than just executive activities.

You support

a crisis.

Can we take orders or do you tell legislation?

Can we finish this?

Like, what do you think?

It's like a quiz.

I'm curious.

Do you think that it would have been better to pass the bill or just to do things via executive action?

I think it's better to deter when it comes to the business.

I don't have an answer to that.

Is it better to have comprehensive border legislation or an executive order that can be referred to as the business?

I think when I created the crisis, you deter the crisis from happening.

And once you don't have a crisis anymore, you can focus on reforming the immigration law.

So if after four years, if Trump doesn't have an immigration bill, do you think that would have been a failure of this administration?

I think that if they don't reform the asylum and close the loopholes when it comes down to asylum now that we don't have the crisis at the southern border, I think that'll be a failure by the administration.

Absolutely.

But it's a whole, then we'll wait and see what happens in four years when they don't have another border.

Well, we'll come back here in about three and a half years.

Okay.

I just want to end this to ask you one more time.

When 15,000 people are entering the country illegally on a daily basis, what is the primary issue?

Is it once they're in the country or them actually coming to the border from all over the world?

The way you're phrasing your question, it sounds like you're alluding to the fact that there could be the issues that the country of Mexico faces due to destabilization on the border because of all the different presence of crime and people who are paying for passage or is there any other quiz i'm asking you what is the primary issue

it depends on what interested party you're talking about i don't care about parties i'm asking you i'm not asking for me it doesn't matter to me at all it's not doesn't affect me what am i debating Well, I'm debating you about answering me.

So I'm asking you what is the question.

No, no, no.

You're asking me

to say that there is a crime.

You asked me what the primary issue was, and I asked you as per which interested party, because different parties have different prerogatives.

I don't care about parties.

I'm asking you.

How can we evaluate

Okay, from me.

Yeah.

I'm a rich person that lives in the United States, and I don't care.

It doesn't affect me.

Why do you mean?

Because it doesn't have a personal negative impact on my existence.

What do you have?

Have you any friends that died from fentanyl or something?

My family's from Cuba, so I'm a big fan of illegal immigration, I guess, when it comes to getting to this open source.

I mean, my parents are from USSR.

I'm from Israel.

I came into the country legally.

What does that have?

I can't stand illegal immigrants because they abuse

illegally.

A lot of my family came illegally.

Okay.

Well, I guess Whitefoot drive maybe was legal, but

I hope you guys are enjoying the show.

Please don't forget to like and subscribe.

It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.

Thank you.

I don't know.

I don't know what

are you trying to railroad me to, I guess.

I'm not trying to railroad.

I'm trying to understand what is you, what do you believe in when it comes down to illegal immigration?

Because you said you oppose.

What do I personally believe in?

Well, I think that borders are important.

I think that knowing everybody who's here is important.

I think having illegal immigrants is just bad, obviously, definitionally, they're illegal.

I think that trying to find a way to reduce the overall amount of illegal immigrants in the country, I think, would be a beneficial thing.

And I think reducing the amount of people people that could get into the country illegally would also be a beneficial thing.

I think on the back.

I'm a Trump supporter to me all of a sudden.

Well, but on the back side of that, well, one, Trump isn't doing anything really to alleviate any of the people here.

He's wasting a ton of money on theatrics that are probably just going to make everybody hate immigration.

Like the horse march through MacArthur Park recently, I think was really bad.

The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was a joke.

Shipping people to El Salvador has just been a giant L.

All of the court fights where they're hiding information from Judge.

Would you like this administration to actually deport the illegal immigrants that came in the country with no illegitimate asylum case in the last three and a half years?

I think that increasing the amount of judges available to adjudicate the asylum cases so we can work through the backlog quicker, I think would be good.

So then you can find the delegitimate cases and just ship them out as quickly as possible.

I think a reformation of the asylum seeking process is essential.

It's too easy to just sneak into the country claim asylum and then get a catch and release receipt and stay here for three years.

I think you don't have this luxury when you have 15,000 people coming into the country legally every single day.

Then pass legislation to change the way that you process people on the border.

I'll ask you the question again.

Do you think that you can do exactly what you said while you have 15,000 people?

You can do both at the same time.

Yes.

You can do both at the same time.

how do you legislation?

How are you going to deter the illegal immigrants from coming up to the southern border from all over the world while also reforming the immigration law?

Well, part of the bill was literally capping the amount of people that were allowed to come in such that you could turn people away, even if they were planning asylum.

Stop illegal immigrants from all over the world wanting to come up to the southern border.

Everybody's going to want to come here.

What do you mean?

No, well, suddenly we don't have everybody wanting to come up to the southern border.

We don't see these things.

If there is a cap on the amount of people coming in, then it would stop people from wanting to come.

They wouldn't get enough stampers.

Yes.

If they were, okay, 5,000 people can come into the country every day illegally.

After that, we cap it.

You think that people from all over the world will suddenly stop to come?

Yeah, because the amount of people that would come in would be significantly decreased.

Yes.

Oh, we'll see.

I mean, that's a hypothesis, but the reality of it is we can look at it objectively.

So we have a president that came in and enforced eight U.S.

Code 1325, which criminalizes illegal entry into the United States, does not allow the asylum 1158 to be prioritized over that.

And that deters migrants from wanting to come up to the border because when they think about an administration that will actually enforce the rule of law, they're not going to be wanting to come up to the southern border no nothing whatever there's no conflict between why does zero why did zero tolerance policy deter migrants from completely wanting to enter the country there's no conflict between us law and the asylum seeking process the asylum seeking process was completely legal that's why it needs to be reformed because it was being abused i agree with that but okay so say to say that we finally had a person who came in and enforced usc one whatever 1813 i don't know what the immigration was 25 illegal entry into the yeah the faith like why didn't break why didn't the previous administration do that the previous administration was doing that but you can't just kick people out who are claiming asylum because that was the law on the books.

So you allow individuals to come into the country illegally, say that they're seeking asylum, detain them for 48 hours, and then put them on a plane to go where you don't know.

You don't know what they're saying.

Hold on, we've just said assume you don't know where to come in illegally.

If they're running asylum, you have to adjudicate the case.

They're running into a Border Patrol agent after they didn't enter the country through a port of entry.

What is that?

Well, if you claim asylum, it's part of the asylum seeking process.

I don't care about that.

When they enter the country, if you don't care about the law, then we're talking about the difference.

That's what I'm asking you.

If you come into the country between a port of entry and you claim asylum, you require the process.

When they didn't enter the country through the port of entry, what kind of crossing is that?

Depends on what their intention was.

I don't care about their intention.

Well, the law literally calls intentionality.

The one that you were citing, the intention is pretty important.

Do you want my personal opinion, like moral opinion, or do you care about the law?

I don't care what you provide me.

I'm asking you.

How can you ask me two totally different questions?

They're different questions.

Do you care about the law or do you care my opinion is?

Both.

I don't know.

I mean, my opinion would align with the law.

If you come here, like, meaningfully and intentionally trying to seek asylum because you feel like you have a legitimate case, I think that's fine.

Do you think 10 million of them had a legitimate asylum case in the three?

I think.

Okay.

So what are they doing?

They gave gaming the system, right?

Yes, of course.

That's what I've said.

Yes, for this entire conversation.

Yeah.

Okay.

You need to figure out a way to make them stop gaming the system.

Okay.

If it was just a matter of enforcing the law, we wouldn't have needed an executive order from Trump to do it, right?

Again, I kind of want to just circle back to how were we able to deter so many illegal immigrants from coming into the country without actually doing any of that, without

fixing the asylum process, without any policy, with no zero tolerance being implemented whatsoever.

If you want to do a crappy job, then you can half-ass it like Trump did by just being stricter on the border, but it's not addressing any of the anywhere from 5 to 15 million.

People give different numbers for how many are here right now on the asylum seeking program.

You care about the secondary issue because no longer, or as a Democrat administration, you wouldn't be doing that if it was the previous administration.

I would be.

That's why I supported Biden when he wanted to pass the bill that would have addressed both issues.

Did you care about in 2022?

Where we were at heights.

It was hard to say after 2022 what it was.

What about 2023, early 2023?

Because that bill didn't get introduced until early 2024.

Sure.

There there were a lot of other things going on.

Inflation was our huge issue that we were fighting against at that point.

Yeah, but we still had a crisis at the southern border.

So

we have 15,000 people coming in every single day.

What is the crisis?

How is that affecting us?

And where do we see that?

Sir, I want you to go to New York City, Chicago.

I want you to tell me where I've been in.

New York City and Chicago in the three months.

You're finished letting me.

I promise, right?

You just handle yourself a little bit and we can get through it.

If you go to New York City and you talk to non-traditional Republicans who are definitely not some pro-Trumpers or cultists or whatever the case is, they go to city council council meetings and lay it to the city council members, the mayors, whatever it is.

Why?

Because it's what they've been told on conservative news.

So tell me,

what's happening?

Non-traditional Republican cultists are being brainwashed by what, Fox News?

By

AI videos that they see, yeah, by people like Charlie Kirk or whatever AI video they see on Instagram or TikTok.

So the reason why you can't answer this question is because it's not really the crisis everybody says it was.

It's propaganda when New York City has to take $6 billion out of their budget, taxpayer budget, and allocate it towards illegal immigration, whether it's housing or whatever the program may be this is why you guys lose elections this is why you lost the previous election you lost every single battleground state because you do this thing you say that illegal immigration is not a problem because you leave president lost the election in 2020 so i mean i agree with that so i don't know what the point is i have a gotcha moment on me he lost the election in 2020 i think we lost the election on inflation i think that was the big issue that i think what was the what was number one number two i don't know if i would have pulled it on i know people vote on the economy they say illegal immigration because i think the other thing was the classic thing that you reject it and then once you see that you don't have any room to reject it anymore, you say, yeah, it's happening, but it's not that bad, actually.

I don't know, you're shadowboxing right now, but no, I'm always like pretty critical of pulling data.

Like when you pull people on questions, like they're giving you answers and they mean different things depending on what you're looking at.

I think the big issue on this election was inflation.

I think you saw it in basically governments around the entire world.

I think everybody was kind of upset about the inflation over the coronavirus period.

Well, the number two issue consistently for American voters for over a year was immigration.

And it's crazy that all of the complaints about that seem to disappear as soon as Trump came into office, despite the fact that he didn't really really deport it anymore.

What happened to

anybody?

I don't remember what happened.

That's fine, but I think all the names that were here were a problem.

What happened in the beginning of the month?

What happened in the first month?

Nothing happened with regards to the

people that are here on the southern border.

Nothing happened when it came to the people that were operating.

How do they care about the people that are here?

That is something that we're going to have to say.

We're going to play

itself while you keep repeating yourself.

Nothing happened.

You want to avoid what happened in the first month of President Trump's presidency, second term, when it came down to immigration.

That's fine.

I don't have a problem talking to you about ICE proceedings and what it comes down to deportation and how they handle deportation.

But you keep avoiding.

I haven't avoided it at all.

Trump shut down the border.

He managed to stop people from coming in, but nothing's being done about all the people here.

And I don't think anything will be done about the people here.

Yeah.

And you wanted a bill, a bipartisan bill, in order to accomplish that.

Because the bill could have accomplished both of those things.

And both halves of Congress are ready to support it until Trump shot it down because he said, I want to keep the border open for my election.

So Trump called the congressman and said, hey, we can't pass this because I've got to win an election.

Yep.

You don't think that House Republicans.

Ted Cruz explicitly said this.

McConnell said this might finish.

Lankford complained about that.

You can get a lot of things.

Did you say congressional Republicans have their own mind and say, hey, you know what?

That actually doesn't deter illegal immigrants from coming to the southern border.

No, of course, in this administration, if you don't follow Trump, he'll try to primary you.

He'll kick you out.

It worked out for Massey.

Massey is literally being attacked right now, yes, by Trump.

What happened to all the Never Trump Republicans?

He did this in 2022 and he failed.

You don't think Trump has ejected never Trumpers from...

He has, but it's not going to uphold all the time.

Not all the time, but that's a political calculation now that you have to keep in mind that if you try to go against the Trump adjustment.

That happens on the cultist left, right?

Absolutely not.

I mean, why do they vote in blocks on every single thing?

What do you mean, blocks on every single thing?

In the previous administration, how many times did they have 50 senators agree on a bill?

Do you think that there's more partisanship on the left or more partisanship with the Republicans?

You tell me.

I think the Republicans are the black voters right now.

Okay.

So in the previous administration, did Republicans work with congressional Democrats and the previous president in order to pass whatever bills?

Because Biden made it a plan for the reaction

or the Phil Effort to work with them.

Yeah.

Okay.

So why do you think it's opposite when it's a Republican president?

Why do Democrats refuse to work whatsoever, except a couple?

Democrats, because Democrats would go out of their way to negotiate with other senators and House members in the House.

Yeah.

You can laugh, but I mean, like, there's a reason why Republicans don't even try.

Republicans don't even try to negotiate with the Democrats.

Well, the only thing that can afford you is with this past CR because they knew that they wouldn't be able to pass everything with Democrats.

Why?

Because Democrats don't want to work with the Republicans.

It's as simple as that.

First time in all of U.S.

history, Republicans couldn't even hold onto their majority House seat.

What do you mean?

When

it was the whole McCarthy debacle and the

majority House.

What happens when you rule with a slimmed?

No, no, no, no.

You have to play there.

What happens?

That's very

you have various,

which I love about the Republican Party.

You love the failure to govern?

No, I love the fact that there are various ideologies in the Republican Party, unlike on your side.

You have ultra-progressives and then you have whatever you are.

I don't know who the fuck you are.

That's just completely and totally not true.

Yeah, it's true.

I mean, that's just the honest reality of it.

That's why you guys can pass comprehensive reform when it comes down to immigration.

Biden passed so much massive legislation compared to Trump doing nothing.

The only thing I think that was good that Biden did was the CHIP sack.

I don't know any other policy that was beneficial for the United States.

I mean, I would say the American Rescue Plan helped us significantly come out of the COVID-19.

I'll give you that.

I think that the Inflation Reduction Act, I thought, was a nice, it was nice to pass a bill that was actually deficit neutral over 10 years.

I think that was nice.

Compared to Trump passing tax cuts and destroying the budget more and more every single time he's in office, I would say it's nice.

What kind of tax cuts?

The Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Yeah.

Who does that benefit?

Overwhelmingly wealthier people, but

by giving them a greater absolute and percentage deduction in the amount of income that they have to pay to the federal government.

Is that according to like IRS data or something?

I mean, it's to the way the law is written.

I'm not sure IRS data.

I don't know about IRS data, but if you look at the way that the tax brackets are adjusted, like the people who are going to save the most money are...

You can see that reflected in IRS data.

I don't know.

In IRS data to look at a marginal tax bracket table and see who's going to save more money.

Okay.

So we had the 2017 jobs act or the tax cuts and jobs act, right?

That reduced the income brackets for all earners.

Do you know what it was?

What reduced the...

The income brackets, like the, or sorry, the percentage of the

income earners pay.

Like, like comprehensively.

I know that each bracket, I think, fell by anywhere from like 2% to 3% or something, or 2% to 2 points.

Individuals earning between $15,000 and $50,000 a year received a tax break between 16 to 26%.

Individuals between $50,000 and $100,000, which I consider the average American, got a tax break about 15% to 17%.

And the higher you go, the lower it gets.

That's for the bottom people, these people already are.

This sounds like a progressive tax cut to me.

Probably not.

Real quick, so for the people on the bottom, if you're making $15,000 to $50,000, your tax footprint is almost already zero for federal income tax.

Number one.

So also that's a strange pairing of people to put together, making $15,000 a year significant and then making $50,000 a year.

I mean, the income tax bracket.

Sure, that's fine, but I'm saying when you're talking about money saved, like the amount of money that the $15,000 a year person is paying in taxes is probably going to be quite a bit different than the $50,000, whether you're talking percentage or anything else.

Sure.

But the fact that there's a massive amount of money that is being returned to wealthy people that is hurting the federal by cutting tax brackets for people that are on the upper echelons of income.

Well, it's a progressive tax cut, right?

So again, the 15,000 to 50,000 receive a 16 to 26, 50,000 to 100,000 receive 15 to 17%.

100,000 to 200 receive 10 to 12%.

Above a million, they got 2%.

And nobody making more than $2 million in terms of a household received a tax break.

They actually ended up paying 2% more in taxes.

How did you not receive a tax break if the marginal tax bracket was reduced?

Because the individuals above 2 million weren't affected by that.

It didn't affect those individuals.

They may benefit from it in corporate taxes if they're, you know, corporations or whatever the case may be.

Didn't the top, the top tax bracket came down, no?

I'm telling you what I know based on IRS tax data, right?

It doesn't make any sense.

So it's 2017, right?

Just to clarify.

2017

tax bracket came down at the top, then it doesn't matter if you're going to work 2 million.

How are you making that claim?

Because I know how, because I file my taxes.

Okay.

So you make more than $2 million and you saw a reduction in your taxes?

Yes, of course.

Because if the tax brackets are falling, then the income that you...

Well, again, I just told you based on IRS data that you told me based on an article you read, you're reciting me a number, but I'm just telling you that like, that's not how taxes are.

I have a full analysis of IRS data.

You can fact check this later on the screen.

The majority of the money that you don't pay

for over $2 million did not see a tax reduction.

Yeah, you're sitting here and telling me that you saw that.

I'm asking you through how?

Like, what loophole did you find?

It's not a loophole.

It's just a reduction in your tax bracket.

Okay.

It's a reduction in the amount of taxes that you owe to the federal government.

When the bracket goes down, you have to...

Either you don't make over $2 million or you're just lying because you got caught in a lie here.

Do you know how a below the line or above the line deduction works?

Have you ever filed taxes before?

No.

Okay.

I'm 29 years old.

I don't file taxes.

Okay.

Well, when you start to file taxes, you'll know that when you apply the tax brackets to your AGI to your adjustable gross income, the amount that you owe on that income is going to reduce.

I forgot liberal

humors.

So I'll ask you again.

Yeah.

Individuals with over $2 million household income, how did they

tell me by what mechanism would they have been exempted from the reduction in tax brackets below?

The income brackets that the Act passed did not address the individual.

Actually, it addressed the individuals making over $2 million, and they increased the taxes on them by 2%.

Through what means?

That the tax bracket that they're in for the income of the household.

So, if they were paying previously 33%, now they're paying 35%.

So, you're telling me that if we look up the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax bracket change, how about this?

Yeah, I get my

for the bracket, but the top one was increased.

Look up, look up.

This is great.

This is a non-partisan source.

You can look it up.

Use my phone.

Perfect.

I don't know what you're talking about.

The tax bracket.

Okay, I'm going to make sure I'm not crazy.

If the tax bracket,

if the percentage goes down, then you pay less tax.

All right.

All right.

Here.

So we can make sure that this is a nonpartisan source for you.

I know it's an opinion ed, but they cite all their sources.

The careful analysis that did an IRS tax data.

How about we start on the fifth paragraph?

And you can kind of read that for me

okay well so we have an article here saying a careful analysis of the iris tax data one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms of the tax code shows that filers with an agi of 15 to 50k had an average tax cut of 16 to 26 percent in 2018 the first year that the tax cuts and jobs act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available um filers who earned 50 to 100 received a tax cut of 15 to 70 percent and the earners of 100 to 500 saw an HGI

at adjusted gross income saw their personal income tax cut by around 11 to 13 percent.

By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least 500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9%.

And the average tax cut for brackets starting at 1 million was less than 6%.

Where's the, is the $2 million claiming here?

Or?

Okay, wait, wait.

When it says that, what do you think that means?

In terms of what?

When it says, for instance, that filers who earned 50 or wait, we'll do

no income group with an AGI of at least 500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding 9%.

And the average tax cut for brackets starting at 1 million was less than 6%.

And if you keep reading somewhere in there,

so there were tax cuts for people that earned over $2 million,

right?

I don't know.

Does it say that?

It doesn't have to say that.

You could just look at the tax brackets.

Yeah.

So did they adjust a comprehensive

income tax bracket for income in houses that are making over $2 million?

Okay.

That's not how that works.

I don't know how to explain that to you.

Yeah.

There might be salt deductions or something.

If you cap your state local tax deductions or if you have other types of taxes, they might impact the amount of money that you save.

But when the brackets fall, if you just have ordinary income, then it doesn't matter if you're making $2 million or $10 million.

Anything over $600K is going to be less tax that you pay.

I'm sorry, but is this not a progressive tax code that progressive used to champion behind?

Or what would you like to see?

I'm just looking at the tax brackets.

I know.

What would you like to see that's better?

You want to pay more taxes yourself?

No, paying taxes more as an individual doesn't really help much.

I think we should probably try to fund our government.

In general, yeah, we should fund the government.

Well, I don't think a two-point cut on my tax bracket is helping.

It's not changing my life significantly, but across every wealthy person in society, it's probably, I imagine, hurting people more than helping people, which is why we see cuts to Medicaid and everything now to fund our current bill.

Wait, wait, wait.

What about a cut in benefits?

What about a cut in benefits?

We can cover the one big beautiful billionaire.

What about a cut in benefits that we're going to be able to do?

If you were making $80,000 a year, would you rather have a 50% tax cut or would you rather still have your $6,000 child tax credit?

Can I ask you when a household income increases by $5,000, does that benefit Americans?

It depends on what that increase comes at a cost of, right?

Hey, he received it by having tax cuts, an average of $200.

If he also got that by reducing the child tax item, then that wouldn't be a benefit, right?

Can I finish like one statement?

Finish a lot of statements.

That is true.

Touche.

But at least I let you finish.

You don't let me say a single thing, honestly.

Wait, do you think you've talked more than me, or I've talked more than you for this conversation?

I don't know.

I think it's pretty equal.

Absolutely not.

You've definitely talked like 1.4 times more than me, but that's okay.

Oh, is that so?

Maybe you should talk a little faster then.

Try to talk as fast as I can.

So you were just agreeing with me that the loss of the child tax credit probably hurts people who might have saved $4,000 or $5,000.

I thought they just reformed the child tax credit.

They increased about $200, right?

By $200,000, they might have, but the child tax credit under Biden was $6,000, I believe, for...

I didn't implement it.

It was implemented, but it was only for, I think it was through the COVID year.

I think it was for a single year.

Yeah, it was a loophole in order to be able to eject that.

Why didn't they actually codify?

Why didn't they codify that through Congress?

Well, they did for one year.

Why didn't they codify it through Congress?

I don't know.

They did.

You had to pass it as part of Congress.

Okay, why didn't they temporary or more than for a year?

I don't know.

Maybe they never care about

working for Cuts and Jobs Act permanent instead of making it expire for it, right?

Well, unless it gets revoked.

Parts of it are 10 years.

I think parts of it expires.

Parts of it are permanent.

And parts of it, I think it expired in 10 years.

Let's talk about entitlement programs, because I think that's one thing that I disagree in the one big beautiful bill.

I think that a lot of MAGA recipients are take advantage of, not take advantage, but recipients of these various programs, whatever entitlement program there is.

I think that it will hurt any Republican, whatever leader, whatever the case may be, if a Trump supporter wakes up in the morning and sees that instead of getting $400 a month, he's now getting $200.

That's going to piss them off.

Do you think that it's going to happen?

It's going to piss them off if they're getting more money?

No, they, because they're cutting the programs, the idea that CNN propagates all the time is that individuals who rely on these programs are going to see cuts in their, in their, in their monthly paychecks or may not be eligible whatsoever anymore.

If I imagine if you lose your eligibility for Medicaid, you'd probably be upset.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So do you think that is the case?

That is actually what is going to happen because of this?

My understanding is that there have been cuts to Medicaid eligibility.

I don't know if that was just through new work requirements or what.

I didn't see the final version, but.

I mean, do you disagree with that?

Is that a bad thing?

Like, aren't you reforming essentially entitlement programs in order to make sure that those who actually need them benefit from them while making sure that these programs continuously past 2035 will actually run?

So we don't spend $1.4 trillion on just a single program.

I mean, I would have to check the particular cuts.

I haven't done a deep dive into Medicaid in terms of how they're going to be.

Well, they cut about $850 billion over the next 10 years.

It's about $85 billion annually in cuts when it comes down to Medicaid.

And it's not just Medicaid.

It's anything regarding health services.

Sure.

But I mean, I think that it's a massive failure that this administration, the one thing that they promised was to balance the budget.

And it seems like I've been saying for over a year, and now it seems like it's come to fruition that the debt and the deficit will continue to increase under Trump.

I agree with that because it happens regardless under what administration.

The previous administration increased the annual deficit.

I think last the last year when it came down to Trump was like about 800 billion.

This administration, the last term that they had was $1.8 trillion.

Regardless of

the deficit was coming down under Biden, given four more years.

It went from $1.6 trillion in 2021 to $1.7 trillion in 2022, capping off at $1.8 trillion in 2024.

I would have to check that again, but I'm pretty sure the number was coming down.

So for two years,

I think there's a couple issues.

One is the majority of that deficit, a huge part of it was the massive loss of revenue from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Donald Trump.

What happened if we had

one of the best years on records when it came down to economic numbers in 2019?

It's easy to have really good years when you're engaging in massive deficit spending, which is what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Jobs Act did.

What is a massive cut in taxes without cutting any of the fair services?

Why does more money in their pockets?

They spend more money.

Okay.

What happens when the government spends more money?

The government spends more money.

And inefficiently?

Both, it happened under Trump.

The government was spending more money and people were spending more money.

But how does the government spend the money that they don't have?

By borrowing.

Okay.

Can Americans do that as well?

Yes.

It's called borrowing.

Yeah.

So what is the difference when an American borrows versus the federal government borrows in order to meet whatever ends that they need?

It depends on a lot of different things.

It's a very complicated financial question.

It is.

It is.

I'll say that's a complex, multifaceted question.

But

the reality is that your side wants to make, I don't want to say you specifically, because I like debating people.

But one thing that I noticed on the left is that they don't like to go into the nuanced topics when it comes down to various policy discussions, like the ones that you and I are having.

I want to say that majority, like 95% of the political commentators or whatever, on my side of the aisle, I'll say on your side of the aisle.

don't get into these conversations because they don't know them.

And it's almost like a goal for both sides to propagate like the topic.

But I mean, like, the reason why is because people want to obscure what's actually happening.

Like, for instance, if you look at the first Trump admin, Trump was running huge deficits that were increasing up till 2019.

It was up to, it wasn't just because of COVID.

He was doing massive spending all on his own.

Absolutely.

I agree.

Like, his deficits were increasing for no reason.

The economy would support the Democrat Party then if they're consistently increasing the deficit of the US.

Democrats, for the last, the last person we had with a budget surplus was Clinton.

Then after that, we had Bush, who got us into two massive wars in the Middle East.

And then we had after that, a 2007 financial collapse.

And then a Democrat has to come in and clean up the mess.

And then we were kind of getting back on track.

And then Trump came in and COVID happened at the end of Trump's turn.

And then Biden had to come in and clean that mess up.

And then as things are going to happen.

You're not going to die by increasing the deficit spending by almost $1 trillion.

So that's the deficit spending happens when you need it, when the economy is like having significant trouble.

So could there be a...

the same argument made for right now that we need deficit spending?

No, because we shouldn't be having any trouble.

Why is that?

Because we're artificially creating trouble with

the it create insane inflation for us because of that?

No, I think COVID created insane inflation.

I think the entire world experiences inflation.

So what happens when you start to print a lot of money that you don't have?

What happens?

If you don't print any of the money, then businesses fail, people go broke, and people are starving in the streets.

I think it's better to have some inflation than it is to literally shut down the business.

Do you remember the Congressional Democrats when Trump was president at the peak of COVID that they should have passed $8 trillion more of benefits?

Depending on where it's going.

Yeah, I'm not going to fight deficit spending in times of great crises.

That's the whole point of spending.

That's why we have a fiat currency and a central bank is the ability to do do that.

But the fact is, is that Trump did a massive tax cut with no paired spending cuts.

You agree with that, right?

In a sense, yes, because they did increase the annual deficit spending by 300 billion, now making it about 2.1 trillion.

But the idea is that you do cut where there are inefficiencies and investment.

Not inefficiencies, that is a myth.

They need to dialogue.

The government accountability office.

Government accountability office is a nonpartisan source.

They testify every year in a congressional settings.

That means that they testify under oath.

And they have consistently said since 2003 that there are more than $60 billion annual in fraud, or sorry, not fraud, in inefficiency when it comes down to health services.

Over 10 years, that's $600 billion.

So when you cut health services by $800, $600 billion,

what are you cutting there?

You're cutting health services.

You're not cutting the inefficiencies.

Well, the government accountability office tells us that.

It's not just the government accountability.

The government accountability office doesn't tell us that.

It doesn't make any sense.

They testify every single year.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Just because you cut, if you have $100 billion in fraud and you cut $100 billion in spending, you're not just cutting the fraud.

You're probably cutting fraud by

$5 billion.

They're not just cutting the system.

I'd agree with you if they just cut the spending, right?

But didn't they reform it?

Reform what?

Didn't they add work requirements for Medicaid?

The Medicare and I think

they have biannual verifications.

Who's saying that, did that solve all the fraud or what?

Well, this is what the Government Accountability Office recommends us to us, and not just the Government Accountability Office, but the Centers for Medical and Medical

Centers and Services.

That's what they testified to us.

These two sources are nonpartisan.

You have the inspector general under whatever administration recovering billions of dollars of fraud in health services or in Medicaid alone.

Sorry.

That's happening, right?

Sure.

I mean, it probably, I imagine it's always happening.

We've had a government accountability office.

You can form the system and you cut their spending.

If you want to find a way to do that, then you can do that.

There's going to be some level of fraud in literally every system ever.

Let's just by percentage as a numbers game.

That's always going to be the case.

I agree, but we should do everything that we can to prevent that, right?

if the if conservatives were serious about funding the government and we're conservatives we're serious about like combating fraud or whatever then we would fund our irs more the irs says that there's like 400 to 600 billion with a b dollar of money out there every year that's owed to it that it can't it doesn't even have the resources to go out and get well the first thing republicans do what do you mean they don't have the resources to get they know the biden administration gave them plenty of resources to go after

80 000 also what is i think there was supposed to be an authorization of 80 000 new agents and i think that's been trimmed back to either nothing or they did it without they had about two years of running these operations with a massive increase.

No, I don't think that all of the new hires and everything ever got fully implemented because they had a negotiated way.

But I'm just saying that like that would be the first place that you would start.

It would be your IRS.

Why do we need IRS to go after a health service?

We don't need

inefficient health service payments.

Why don't you have the HHS department go after it?

I imagine there's probably a lot of integration between these departments when it comes to tracking payments and figuring out who's up to no good.

I'm sure Medicare and I'm sure Social Security rely on collaboration with the IRS to do a lot of the tracking to some extent.

And so having the communication is good.

So the IRS could track it better.

They could probably refer it to the other agencies better.

Well, I'm sure there's communication between all the departments in order to find the inefficiency or whatever the case may be, right?

Sure.

So we should fund the IRS, right?

Why should we fund the IRS?

So that they can go after.

Wait, wait, wait, one second.

Are they defunded or something like that?

Yes, they're underfunded.

They're underfunded, yeah.

It is underfunded, me.

As in, there is money out there.

As in, if we were to spend a dollar on the IRS, we would make more than a dollar back by them going after money that they know is owed to them, but they don't have the resources to chase down.

Oh, and abuse average Americans to go after them.

Is it an abuse to pay taxes?

We're talking about entitlement programs no i'm talking about irs knowing that there is why do you owe those back from taxes being owed to fraud and health service because people are dreaming about fraud that would require an insanely intricate approach i would imagine to reform an entire system to hunt down 60 billion dollars are by reforming the system that's mine but if you were serious about making more money for the government i think you would do the easy thing first okay well let's see how reform to the system works if there's any reason to have irs agents be funded in order to go after more fraud that they're not able to recover back whether their agents.

We have a friendly $20 bet right now that in four years, there will be no major reforms to any of these systems because it's just lip service that you're paying to the Trump admin.

Okay.

All right.

But

just fund the IRS.

Go after the money.

It's easy.

That's easy money to get.

In business, I think they call it the age 20.

They're the average American.

So they

to use their taxpayers' money to fund the IRS more.

Do you think that you shouldn't pay any taxes at all?

Well, I don't think that there's a reason.

If you're an average American and you pay your taxes, I would want other people to be paying their taxes as well so yeah i would want my money to make sure that everybody else is paying their taxes like i don't want to hire more irs agents or give the irs more money in order to go and identify an efficiency and entitlement programs like but i have an inspector general's office in the hhs i have an inspectoral office wait wait do you think they would be more resource efficient to reform an entire agency with no guarantee that all the fraud would even disappear versus just hiring more agents in an agency that already makes you money absolutely i think that reforming the system is much better than funding some inefficient agency that is allowing this to happen in the first place.

And you're telling me, why do you think we add a little bit more money to them?

They're suddenly going to become efficient.

How are they inefficient?

You're telling me that suddenly because we'll give them more money and staff more people are going to become efficient all of a sudden.

What are you saying is inefficient?

When you have 80 billion, sorry, $60 billion of fraud

inefficiency when it comes down to health services that the government accountability office tells us.

That means somebody's not doing their what's their yearly revenue?

Who?

Or how much money do they spend yearly?

When you say 60 billion, this is against the 1.6 trillion or whatever that you mentioned earlier.

Well, Medicaid's like $800 billion, right?

Okay.

So when you have about 50%, I don't know exactly what it is for Medicaid alone.

This is all health services.

If it's all of health, is that including Medicare as well?

No.

Okay, so just Medicaid.

So all of your health services is in excess of $1 trillion?

Because if the fraud rate is like 4% or 5%, I mean, what is the average fraud rate?

What do you expect there to be there?

Well, here, here's the problem.

I agree with you that it's low, but if we're able to recover that, then we can finally save these entitlement programs.

Answering continued funding

2032.

It's very easy by giving them money and funding them.

What do you mean?

Where are you going to take the money from?

From the tax receipts that you get from your citizens.

You are going to increase the taxes on Americans.

What I'm asking you is,

how do you even know that you can get rid of, what do you think the, do you think it's realistic to have zero fraud?

No.

Okay, so if the fraud is at 5%

and we know that if we just throw more money at the IRS, it'll make the government more money by enforcing already existing tax code.

We don't have to reform a whole department.

Why would we try to reform for tens or hundreds of billions of dollars?

Why would we try to reform an entire department in in the hopes that the fraud rate goes down?

And we don't have a guarantee of that versus just finding where we know there's easy money to get.

Well, the reform looks like through work requirements, right?

So that's good.

I mean, it's not reform.

That's just like an extra policy.

That's reforming the system in order to make sure that it continuously is able to be there after 2032.

Work requirements is not getting rid of fraud.

That sounds like it's just changing who qualifies for the program.

Okay, okay.

What about the biannual verification?

Doesn't that?

That's like a good implementation, sure.

Okay.

I don't know how much fraud that.

How do you think that individuals are able to commit fraud in the first place?

And let's say Medicare.

I don't know.

Medicare, I think fraud is very difficult.

Medicaid, I think you, I mean, you could probably lie.

You can get paid under the table and imagine.

So biannual verifications can probably at least lower the amount of fraud that is happening on a certain amount of time.

You have to counterbalance it with how much the system costs versus how much

year of this reform.

I don't know if you want to call it a reform works out.

And if it doesn't work, then we can possibly look at

extra funding for various agencies that will actually go and tackle this stuff.

I guess.

But like, again, you're talking 60 billion.

So even if they solve 100% of the problem, it would be one-tenth of what the IRS could

think about this over the next 10 years, that's $600 billion just in one program.

And when we're talking about programs running out of money by 2032 or them costing us $1.4 trillion to run on an annual basis, it seems like it's a good step to try and recover and to reform the system as much as you can to ensure that the program actually continues on.

Sure.

And I would say that in business, you learn the 80-20 rule, which is you put, If there's a thing that'll increase your revenue by 80%, it only requires 20% of the effort, you focus on that issue first.

You You don't focus on these like edge issues.

And you said over 10 years, 600 billion.

Over 10 years, the IRS could be saving us potentially 6 trillion if we just staff those properly.

According to

the IRS, we got to wrap up on this note, guys.

But comment below who you think won.

Thanks for your time, gentlemen.

Appreciate it.

See you next time.