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

Speaker 1 This is Marshawn Beast Mode Lynch. Prize Pick is making sports season even more fun.
On Prize Picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, it always feels good to be right.

Speaker 1 And right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. The app is simple to use.
Pick two or more players, pick more or less on their stat projections.

Speaker 1 Anything from touchdown to threes, and if you're right, you can win big mix and match players from any sport on PrizePicks, Prize America's number one daily fantasy sports app.

Speaker 1 PrizePicks is available in 40 plus states, including California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia. Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe, and secure.

Speaker 3 Download the PrizePicks app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

Speaker 3 PrizePicks, it's good to be right. Must be present in a certain six.

Speaker 2 Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.

Speaker 4 At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Speaker 4 Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

Speaker 4 From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Speaker 4 Black Friday deals are going on all month long. Save up to 45% off site-wide, plus an additional 10% off every order right now at blinds.com.

Speaker 2 Rules and restrictions apply. That's the progressive used to champion behind.
Or what would you like to see?

Speaker 2 Just looking at the tax bracket. I know.
What would you like to see that's better? You want to pay more taxes yourself? What? No, paying taxes more as an individual doesn't really help much.

Speaker 2 I think we should probably try to fund our government as in general. Yeah, we should fund the government more.
I don't think a two-point cut on my tax bracket is helping.

Speaker 2 It's not changing my life significantly.

Speaker 5 Okay, guys, we are at Student Action Summit. Got David and Destiny here.
Let's get right into it, fellas.

Speaker 2 Is Trump making America great right now?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 And when there's big, beautiful bills that a conservative can't stand, I'll call that out and criticize it.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 No. 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.

Speaker 2 I think all the lawfare that he's engaged in is really bad.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 The weaponization of like the Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, I think it was bizarre, the El Salvador stuff.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 I would say probably, yeah. Yeah.
I'll suck.

Speaker 2 I think that when you rule by executive order, it could be rescinded by executive order.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 The crisis that was happening at the southern border under the previous administration? I mean, it depends on if you believe it was a crisis or not.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 If it's not a crisis? Because I think Republicans told them.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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 just talking in general, like people are.

Speaker 2 I'm not even talking about the 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 And then, two.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Was the goal just to bring immigration, illegal immigration to Zero? No, no, what is the goal of Democrats? All I look at is from a...

Speaker 2 Well, no, but I'm saying for the cup, I thought the goal was to like do something different with our immigration system to deal with like the 20 million illegal immigrants that are supposedly here already.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 What is 5,000 illegal 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?

Speaker 2 What do you call that?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 If you're not going to be able to do this so much of a crisis, then why did Republicans kill the bill to cap the amount of illegal coming over?

Speaker 2 We just saw that you didn't need a bill in order to deter illegal migration.

Speaker 2 Maybe you can do it with the AO, 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?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 But again, I think that

Speaker 2 when you have, I think when you have metropolitan cities giving you free everything,

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 When an individual on the previous administration crossed the border illegally, not through a port of entry, what did they do with the individual?

Speaker 2 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, wait, wait, wait.

Speaker 2 But 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.

Speaker 2 And then it got shot down.

Speaker 2 What was that bill going to do to deter illegal migrants from coming to the southern border?

Speaker 5 In the same way. All right, guys.

Speaker 6 Sean Kelly here, host of the Digital Social Hour podcast. Just filmed 33 amazing episodes at Student Action Summit.

Speaker 6 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.

Speaker 6 So, 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.

Speaker 6 First time, I haven't had a runny nose, knock on wood. One standout element, I mean, it's so easy.

Speaker 6 You know, you got the travel pack here, but you could just take this, fit it in your pocket if you need to.

Speaker 6 Also, all natural, like only saline solution in there, so you don't got to worry about any crazy side effects or anything.

Speaker 2 Yeah, code's unique with supplements.

Speaker 6 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

Speaker 6 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.

Speaker 2 Feel the drop and then go code yourself.

Speaker 2 way that they are not doing so now. Well, it codified into law the same type of caps that President Trump is trying to put on caps.
We don't want caps right now, right, to deter migrants.

Speaker 2 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 like record-breaking numbers and claim asylum.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 We both agreed that there's an issue with the asylum process and being

Speaker 2 people taking advantage of it. But when you have 15,000 people coming in on a daily basis,

Speaker 2 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%.

Speaker 2 And all the 30 people that buy asylum seeking are still in this country. They're not gone.
They're still in the country. You don't care about them.
I do care. You don't know what's a crisis.

Speaker 2 It wasn't a crisis. Okay.
We agree on that. Yeah.
What is the primary issue at the southern border?

Speaker 2 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 States?

Speaker 2 asylum seeking process was the primary issue. The asylum seeking process was the assessment was the primary issue.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 That's not the primary issue?

Speaker 2 Why do you care about when

Speaker 2 they're already in the United States? The reason why they were incentivized was because people realized, especially after COVID, that the asylum process was super abusive.

Speaker 2 What did former President Biden do right after COVID in terms of immigration-related law? He pulled out of the.

Speaker 2 Are you going to say remain in Mexico? Yeah. So how many people? What did you say? Wait, wait, wait,

Speaker 2 how many people did you say a year were coming over legally or a day? You said 15,000? 15,000. I think Remain in Mexico was responsible for like 60,000 people in people.

Speaker 2 Remain in Mexico. First of all, we're not just going to play Kuzuke, but I'll explain it.
He says, you'd like to ask yourself a question.

Speaker 2 No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, remain in Mexico, remain in Mexico made it out.

Speaker 2 Remain in Mexico made it so that it

Speaker 2 was coming to the southern border. 60,000 remained in Mexico for their process.

Speaker 2 I just did.

Speaker 2 Okay. And I didn't know you'd be able to do that.
I think you said people apply for a process down there.

Speaker 2 But what I'm saying 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 of asylum seekers true asylum seekers not bullshit asylum seekers where did they seek asylum If we're talking about Venezuelan.

Speaker 2 Are we going to say like the country of first entry where they arrived at first? They go to their neighboring country.

Speaker 2 More than 92%, 92%, according to statistics, actually go to their neighboring country. So let me ask you this.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 But why would they go for asylum over a TPS?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 Let me know like that. 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.

Speaker 2 Are you going to talk about how they issue them a receipt to show up at their case and you're talking about getting relief? They're going to get from temporary protective status. Yeah.
Right. Because

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 It would be nice like we have right now a 98 point or 99.8 percent reduction in amount of individuals not only crossing the border illegally

Speaker 2 accounting to the border the number is that the number is not true just to be clear the numbers not real but yeah those are real but it's fine it's it's the usual step pretty much not real of the real why does not

Speaker 2 mean to get rid of the five or ten million asylum seekers that are already in the united states he's trying every legal means that he can possibly can so nothing hasn't done anything well he did he try and uh enact the aliens enemies act to remove individuals out of the country with limited process and no process from benefit Tri-Light from Therasage is no joke.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 5 This is the Tri-Light from Therasage and it's next-level red light therapy.

Speaker 5 It's got 118 high-powered polychromatic lights, each delivering three healing frequencies, red and near-infrared, from 580 to 980 nanometers.

Speaker 5 Optimal penetration, enhanced energy, skin rejuvenation, pain relief, better performance, quicker recovery, and so much more.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 5 This little device is the Thera O3 Ozone Module by Therasage and it's one of my favorite wellness tools.

Speaker 5 In the Sauna, it boosts ozone absorption through your skin up to 10 times, oxygenating your blood and supporting deep detonx.

Speaker 5 Outside the sauna, it purifies the air, killing germs, bacteria, viruses, and mold, and it improves mood and sleep. A negative ion therapy.

Speaker 5 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 a Thera H2Go from Therasage.

Speaker 5 The only bottle with molecular hydrogen structured water and red light in one. It hydrates, energizes, and detoxes water upgrade.
The Thera H2GO from Therasage isn't just a water bottle.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 2 Venezuela, and that

Speaker 2 act requires us to be at war with the country or for them to be invaded us, which is probably not true.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 The only way that it does is to confound basically the

Speaker 2 gangs with the actual Venezuelan government to say because they have some members that are inside the government that have been a lot of people.

Speaker 2 They can tell a report about how the Venezuelan government, the Maduro region

Speaker 2 one second, tricked 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.

Speaker 2 I thought you said you cared about policy and rule of law. I do.
So, well,

Speaker 2 apparently 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.

Speaker 2 But I prefer to have legislation from Congress for immigration rather than just executive

Speaker 2 crisis. Do you think executive orders are better or do you think legislation?

Speaker 2 Can we finish this? Like, what do you think are you?

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 comes to the crisis. Is it better to have comprehensive border legislation or an executive order that can return to the business?

Speaker 2 I think that when you're afraid of 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.

Speaker 2 After four years, if Trump doesn't have an immigration bill, do you think that would have been a failure of this administration?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Absolutely. But it's a whole then we'll wait and see what happens in four years when they don't have another border.

Speaker 2 Well, we'll come back here in about three and a half years. Okay.
I just want to end this with asking you one more time.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 The way you're phrasing your question, it sounds like you're alluding to the fact that there could be that 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 primary 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 it doesn't affect me

Speaker 2 debating well yeah i'm you're debating you about answering me so i'm asking you when you're no no you're asking me what what is the primary issue that there is a crisis you asked me what the primary issue was and i asked you as per as per which interested party because different parties have different prerogatives

Speaker 2 i'm asking you how can we be evaluated 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 care?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 My family's from Cuba, so I'm a big fan of illegal immigration, I guess, when it comes to getting to live in the US.

Speaker 2 I mean, my parents are from USSR. I'm from Israel.
I came into the country legally.

Speaker 2 What does that have? I can't stand illegal immigrants because they abuse

Speaker 2 illegally. A lot of my family came here illegally.
Okay. Well, I guess white foot drive foot maybe was illegal, but

Speaker 5 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.

Speaker 2 I don't know.

Speaker 2 I don't know what

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I think having illegal immigrants is just bad, obviously. Definitionally, they're illegal.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 And I think reducing the amount of people that could could get into the country illegally would also be a beneficial thing. I think on the Trump supporter to me, all of a sudden.

Speaker 2 Well, but on the back side of that, well, one, Trump isn't doing anything really to alleviate any of the people here.

Speaker 2 He's wasting a ton of money on theatrics that are probably just going to make everybody hate immigration.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 All of the court fights where they're hiding information from judgment.

Speaker 2 Would you like this administration to actually deport the illegal immigrants that came in the country with no legitimate asylum case in the last three and a half years?

Speaker 2 I think that increasing the amount of judges available to adjudicate the asylum cases so we can work through the backlog quicker, I think it would be good.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I think that have this luxury when you have 15,000 people coming into the country illegally every single day. Then pass legislation to change the way that you process people on the border.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 How are you going to deter the illegal immigrants from coming up to the southern border from all over the world? Well, also reforming the immigration law.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Stop illegal immigrants from all over the world wanting to come up to the southern border. Nobody's going to want to come here.
What do you mean?

Speaker 2 No, well, suddenly we don't have everybody wanting to come up to the southern border. We don't see these things.

Speaker 2 If there was a cap on the amount of people coming in, then it would stop people from wanting to come. They wouldn't get on.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 But the reality of it is we can look at it objectively, is that we have a president that came in and enforced eight U.S.

Speaker 2 Code 1325, which criminalizes illegal entry into the United States, does not allow the asylum 1158 to be prioritized over that.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 No,

Speaker 2 whatever. There's no conflict between

Speaker 2 zero tolerance policy deter migrants from completely wanting to enter the country. There's no conflict between U.S.
law and the asylum seeking process. The asylum seeking process was completely legal.

Speaker 2 That's why it needs to be reformed because it was being abused. I agree with that.
Okay. So to say that we finally had a person who came in and enforced U.S.C.

Speaker 2 1, whatever, 1813, I don't know what the immigration was. 25 illegal entry into the U.S.

Speaker 2 Why didn't the previous administration do that? The previous administration was doing that.

Speaker 2 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 but to go where you don't know you don't know

Speaker 2 you just said assume you don't know where to come in illegally if they're running asylum 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.

Speaker 2 I don't care about that.

Speaker 2 If you don't care about the law, then we're talking about the difference. That's not what I'm asking you.

Speaker 2 If you come into the country between a port of entry and you claim asylum, you can get that process. When they didn't enter the country through the port of entry, what kind of crossing is that?

Speaker 2 Depends on what their intention was. I don't care about their intention.
Well, the law literally calls intention out. The one that you were citing the intention is pretty important.

Speaker 2 Do you want my personal opinion, like moral opinion, or do you want the law? I don't care what you provide me. I'm asking you.
How can you ask me two totally different questions?

Speaker 2 They're different questions. Do you care about the law or do you care what my opinion is? Both.
I don't know. I mean, my opinion would align with the law.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Do you think 10 million of them had a legitimate asylum case on the breakout? Okay. So what are they doing? They gave me the system, right? Yes, of course.
That's what I've said. Yes.

Speaker 2 For this entire conversation. Yeah.
Okay. We need to figure out a way to make them stop gaming the system.
Okay.

Speaker 2 If it was just a matter of enforcing the law, we wouldn't have needed an executive order from Trump to do it, right?

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 fixing the asylum process, without any policy, with no zero tolerance being implemented whatsoever.

Speaker 2 If you want to do a crappy job, then you can half-ass it like Trump did by just being stricter on on the border, but it's not addressing any of the anywhere from 5 to 15 million.

Speaker 2 People get different numbers for how many are here right now on the asylum seeking problems.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 Where we were at heights. It was hard to say after 2022 what it would be about.
What about 2023, early 2023? Because that bill didn't get introduced till early 2024.

Speaker 2 Sure, there were a lot 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

Speaker 2 we have 15,000 people coming in every single day. What is a crisis? How is that affecting us? And where do we see that? Sure, I want you to go to New York City, Chicago.

Speaker 2 I want you to tell me where is it? I met New York City and Chicago in the three months. That's me.
You finish letting me, I promise, right?

Speaker 2 You just handle yourself a little bit and we can get through it.

Speaker 2 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 meetings and lay it to the city council members, the mayors, whatever it is.

Speaker 2 Why? Because it's what they've been told on conservative news. Tommy, Tommy,

Speaker 2 the non-traditional Republican cultists are being brainwashed by what, Fox News? Why?

Speaker 2 What are the AI videos that they see by people like Charlie Kirk or whatever AI video they see on Instagram or TikTok?

Speaker 2 So the reason why you can't answer this question is because it's not really the crisis

Speaker 2 it was.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 You say that illegal immigration is not a problem because the same president lost the election in 2020. So I mean,

Speaker 2 I have a gotcha moment on me. He lost the election in 2020.
You're saying, I think we lost the election on inflation. I think that was the big issue that I think.

Speaker 2 What was number one, number two? No, I care what it votes on. I know people vote on the economy.
They say illegal immigration. I think that the thing was.
It's the classic thing that you reject it.

Speaker 2 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 shadow watching 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

Speaker 2 That's crazy that all of the complaints about that seem to disappear as soon as Trump came into office, despite the fact that they weren't really deported. What happened? It hasn't deported anybody.

Speaker 2 I don't have all of the expectations. That's fine, but I think all the names were a problem.
What happened in the first month?

Speaker 2 What happened in the first month? Nothing happened with regards to the 10 million problems that are here on the southern border. Nothing happened when it came to the people that were out there.

Speaker 2 I don't care about the people that are here. That is something that we're going to have to say.
That's the game we're going to play.

Speaker 2 I keep repeating myself while you keep repeating yourself. Nothing happened.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 And you wanted a bill, a bipartisan bill, in order to accomplish that. The bill would have accomplished both of those things.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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? Next up is a little song from CarMax about selling a car your way.

Speaker 2 You wanna sell those wheels? You wanna get a CarMax instant offer. So fast.
Wanna take a sec to think about it. Or like a month.
Wanna keep tabs on that instant offer. With OfferWatch.

Speaker 2 Wanna have CarMax pick it up from the driveway.

Speaker 2 So, want to drive? CarMax.

Speaker 5 Pickup not available everywhere. Restrictions and fee may apply.

Speaker 7 This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?

Speaker 7 Well, with the name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at progressive.com.

Speaker 7 Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law.
Not available in all states.

Speaker 2 House Republican. Ted Cruz explicitly said this.
McConnell said it's my finish. Lankford complained about this.

Speaker 2 You can get into it. 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.

Speaker 2 No, of course, in this administration, if you don't follow Trump, he'll try to primary you. He'll kick you out.

Speaker 2 They enforce that. It worked out for Massey.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 You don't think Trump has ejected Never Trumpers from...

Speaker 2 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 adjective.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 In the previous administration, how many times did they have 50 senators agree on a bill? Do you think that there is more partisanship on the left or more partisanship with the Republicans?

Speaker 2 You tell me. I think the Republicans are the black voters right now.
Okay.

Speaker 2 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 to

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 Democrats, because Democrats would go out of their way to negotiate with other senators and House members in the House. Yeah.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 The only thing that I can afford to is with this past CR, because they knew that they wouldn't be able to pass everything with Democrats. Why?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 When

Speaker 2 it was the whole McCarthy debacle and the

Speaker 2 majority House. Yeah, that happens when you rule with a slim advantage.

Speaker 2 No, no, no, no. You have to play various.
What happens is that you have

Speaker 2 various,

Speaker 2 which I love about the Republican Party. You love the failure to govern?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 That's just completely and totally not true, but 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.

Speaker 2 Biden passed so much massive legislation compared to Trump doing nothing. The only thing I think that was good that Biden did was the CHIPS Act.

Speaker 2 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 culture.

Speaker 2 I'll give you that.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 What kind of tax cuts? The Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Yeah.
Who does that benefit?

Speaker 2 Overwhelmingly wealthier people, but

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 I mean, to the way the law is written.

Speaker 2 I'm not sure IRS data.

Speaker 2 I don't know about IRS data, but if you look at at the way that the tax brackets are adjusted like the people who are going to save the most money are you can you see that reflected in irs data i don't need 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 you know what it was

Speaker 2 what reduced the the income brackets like the or sorry the the percentage of the uh the income earners pay for um like like comprehensively i know that each bracket i think fell by anywhere from like two to three percent or something or two to three points individuals earning between $15,000 and $50,000 a year received a tax break between 16 to 26%.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 That's for the bottom people, these people already.

Speaker 2 This sounds like a progressive tax cut to me. Probably not.

Speaker 2 Requik, 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.

Speaker 2 So also that's a strange pairing of people to put together. Making $15,000 a year is significantly later than making $50,000 a year.
I mean, the income tax bracket.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Sure.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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 percent,

Speaker 2 thousand to two hundred receive 10 to 12 percent above a million they got two percent and nobody making more than two million dollars in terms of a household received a tax break they actually ended up paying two percent more in tax how did you not receive a tax break if the marginal tax bracket was reduced that because the individuals above two 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 if you so it's 2017 right just to clarify 2017 if the tax bracket came down extended it to tax bracket came down at the top then it doesn't matter if you're going to work two million how are you making that claim because i know how because i file my taxes okay so you make more than two million dollars and you saw a reduction in your taxes um 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 full analysis of irs data you can fact check this later on the screen or

Speaker 2 the majority of the money

Speaker 2 the majority of the money that you don't pay how they're still doing

Speaker 2 over two million dollars 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 is a red is a reduction in the amount of taxes that you owe to the federal government when the bracket goes down you have to you're either you don't make over two million dollars or you're just lying because you got caught in a lie here

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Well, when you start to file taxes, you'll know that when you apply the tax brackets to your AGI to your addressable gross income, the amount that you owe on that income is going to reduce.

Speaker 2 I forgot liberal donors and humors. So I'll ask you again.
Yeah. Individuals with over $2 million household income, how did they

Speaker 2 tell me by what mechanism would they have been exempted from the reduction in tax brackets because the income brackets that the act passed did not address the individual.

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

Speaker 2 Through what means?

Speaker 2 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%.

Speaker 2 So, you're telling me that if we look up the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax bracket change. How about this? Yeah, give my

Speaker 2 for the bracket, but the top one was increased.

Speaker 2 Look up. This is great.
This is a non-partisan source. You can look it up.
Use my phone. Perfect.

Speaker 2 I don't know what you're talking about.

Speaker 2 The tax bracket, okay, I'm going to make sure I'm not crazy. If the tax bracket,

Speaker 2 if the percentage goes down, then you pay less tax. All right.
All right. Here.
So you can make sure that this is a nonpartisan source for you.

Speaker 2 I know it's an opinion, Ed, but they cite all their sources. The careful analysis that they did in IRS tax data.
How about we start on the fifth paragraph? And you can kind of read that for me.

Speaker 2 Okay, well, so we have an article here saying a careful analysis of the IRS 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.

Speaker 2 Filers who earned 50 to 100 received a tax cut of 15 to 17 percent, and the earners of 100 to 500 saw an AGI

Speaker 2 an adjusted gross income saw their personal income tax cut by around 11 to 13 percent.

Speaker 2 By comparison, no income group with an AGI of at least 500,000 received an average tax cut exceeding nine percent and the average tax cut for brackets starting at one million was less than six percent um

Speaker 2 where's uh is the two million dollar claiming here or

Speaker 2 okay wait wait when it says that what do you think that means but uh in terms of what when it says for instance that um filers who earned 50 or wait um we'll do

Speaker 2 no income group with an agi of at least 500 000 received an average tax cut exceeding nine percent and the average tax cut for brackets starting at one million was less than six percent And if you keep reading somewhere in there.

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

Speaker 2 right? I don't know.

Speaker 2 Does it say that?

Speaker 2 It doesn't have to say that. You could just look at the tax brackets.
Yeah. So did they adjust? That is a comprehensive

Speaker 2 income tax bracket for income

Speaker 2 houses that are making over $2 million?

Speaker 2 Okay. That's not how that works.
I don't know how to explain that to you.

Speaker 2 Yeah. There might be salt deductions or something.
If you cap your state and local tax deductions or if you have other types of taxes, they might impact the amount of money that you save.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 What would you like to see that's better? You want to pay more taxes yourself?

Speaker 2 No, paying taxes more as an individual doesn't really help much. I think think we should rather try to fund our government.

Speaker 2 In general, yeah, I think we should fund the government more.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Says that the working class and the middle class benefited the most from these tax cuts. Let me ask you for a minute.
Wait, wait, wait. You make it

Speaker 2 a when it comes to what about a cut in benefit? What about a cut in benefits? We can cover the one big, beautiful bill in this. What about a cut in benefits that we're going to have?

Speaker 2 If you were making 000 a year would you rather have a 50 tax cut or would you rather still have your six thousand dollar child tax credit can i ask you when a household income increases by five thousand dollars does that benefit americans um it depends on what that benefit that increase comes at a cost of right hey he received it by having tax cuts an average of two hundred dollars you also got that by reducing the child tax credit and 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 um wait do you think you talk more than me or I talk more than you for this conversation?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Try to talk as bad as I can.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 They increased it by about $200, right? By $200, they might have, but the child tax credit under Biden was $6,000, I believe, for... I didn't implement it.

Speaker 2 It was implemented, but it was 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 inject that.

Speaker 2 Why didn't they actually?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 They did. You had to pass it as part of Congress.

Speaker 2 Okay, why didn't they temporary or more than for a year? I don't know. Maybe they don't care about

Speaker 2 working with Cuts and Jobs Act permanent instead of making it expire for a year.

Speaker 2 Well, unless it gets revoked.

Speaker 2 Parts of it are 10 years. I think parts of it expires.
Parts of it are permanent. And parts of it, they expire in 10 years.

Speaker 2 Let's talk about entitlement programs because I think that's one thing that I disagree in the one big beautiful bill.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 That's going to piss them off. Do you think that is going to happen?

Speaker 2 It's going to piss them off if they're getting more money?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I mean, do you disagree with that? Is that a bad thing?

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 They cut about $850 billion over the next 10 years. It's about $85 billion annually in cuts when it comes down to Medicaid.
It's not just Medicaid, it's anything regarding health services. Sure.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I agree with that. Because it happens regardless under what administration, the previous administration increased the annual deficit.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Regardless of the

Speaker 2 deficit was coming down under Biden, given four more.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I think for two or three years,

Speaker 2 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.
So that has strong government.

Speaker 2 What might happen if we had one of the best years on records when it came down to economic numbers in 2019?

Speaker 2 It's easy to have really good years when you're engaged again massive deficit spending, which is what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did. What is a massive cut in taxes?

Speaker 2 What is the cutting in any of the surfaces 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 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?

Speaker 2 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 multifaceted question.

Speaker 2 But the reality is that your side wants to make I don't want to say you specifically, because I like debating people.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I want to say the 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.

Speaker 2 And it's almost like a goal for both sides to propagate like the topic. Sure, but I mean, like, the reason why is because people want to obscure what's actually happening.

Speaker 2 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 till it wasn't just because of covet he was doing massive spending all on his own absolutely i agree like his deficits were increasing for no reason the economy i was like support the democrat party then if they're consistently increasing the deficit as well 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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,

Speaker 2 by increasing the deficit spending by almost a trillion dollars. So that's the deficit spending happens when you need it, when the economy is like having significant trouble.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Didn't Taylor Biden

Speaker 2 create insane inflation for us because of that? No, I think COVID created insane inflation. I think the entire world experiences inflation.

Speaker 2 So, what happens when you start to print a lot of money that you don't have? What happens?

Speaker 2 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 shut down.

Speaker 2 Do you think Congressional Democrats, when Trump was president at the peak of COVID, that they should have passed $8 trillion more of benefits?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 That's why we have a fiat currency and a central bank is the ability to do that. But the fact is, is that Trump did a massive tax cut with no paired spending cuts.
You agree with that, right?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Not inefficiencies. That is a myth that needs to dialogue.

Speaker 2 You have to

Speaker 2 government accountability office is a nonpartisan source. They testify every year in a congressional settings.
That means that they testify under oath.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Over 10 years, that's $600 billion.

Speaker 2 So when you cut health services by $800, $600 billion,

Speaker 2 what are you cutting there? You're cutting health services. You're not cutting the inefficiencies.
Well, the government accountability office tells us that.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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 by

Speaker 2 $5 billion. They're not just cutting the system.

Speaker 2 I'd agree with you if they just cut the spending, right? But didn't they reform it?

Speaker 2 Reform what? Didn't they add work requirements for Medicaid? Medicare is like when you have

Speaker 2 biannual verifications. Who's saying that did that solve all the fraud or what?

Speaker 2 Well, this is what the government accountability office recommends this to us, and not just the government accountability office, but the centers for medical and medical and centers and services.

Speaker 2 That's what they testified to us. These two sources are nonpartisan.

Speaker 2 You have the inspector general under whatever administration recovering billions of dollars of fraud in health services or in Medicaid alone. Sorry.

Speaker 2 That's happening, right? Sure. I mean, it probably, I imagine it's always happening.
We've had a government accountability off. You can't form the system and you cut their spending.

Speaker 2 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 percentages of numbers game.

Speaker 2 That's always going to be the case. I agree, but we should do everything that we can to prevent that, right?

Speaker 2 If conservatives are 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.

Speaker 2 The IRS says that there's like 400 to 600 billion with a B dollars 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.

Speaker 2 Well, the first thing Republicans do. What do you mean they don't have the resources to get

Speaker 2 the Biden administration give them plenty of resources to go after? Well, it's supposed to be an authorization, I think, of 80,000.

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 they had about two years of running these operations with a massive bank previously.

Speaker 2 No, I don't think that all of the new hires and everything ever got fully implemented because they had a negotiated way.

Speaker 2 But I'm just saying that like that would be the first place that you would start. It would be your IRS.

Speaker 2 Why do we need IRS to go after health service? You don't need

Speaker 2 inefficient health service payments.

Speaker 2 Why don't you have the HHS department go after it?

Speaker 2 I imagine there's probably a lot of integration between these departments when it comes to tracking payments and figuring out, you know, like who's up to no good.

Speaker 2 Like 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.

Speaker 2 So the IRS could track it better. They could probably refer to the other agencies better.

Speaker 2 Well, I'm sure there's communication between between all the departments in order to find the inefficiency or whatever the case may be, right? So we should fund the IRS, right?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 They're underfunded, yeah. Just underfunded, me.
As in, there is money out there.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Oh, and abuse average Americans to go after

Speaker 2 the payments.

Speaker 2 We're talking about entitlement programs. No, I'm talking about IRS knowing that there is

Speaker 2 back from taxes being owed to fraud and health services.

Speaker 2 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. Start by reforming the system.

Speaker 2 That's a political. 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.

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 they expect their data.

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 but

Speaker 2 just fund the IRS go after the money it's it's easy that's easy money to get in business I think they call it the A20 average Americans to

Speaker 2 use their taxpayers money to fund the IRS more

Speaker 2 do you think that you shouldn't pay any taxes at all or

Speaker 2 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 do.

Speaker 2 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. But I have an inspector general's office in the HHS.

Speaker 2 I have an interpreteral office.

Speaker 2 Wait, wait, do you think they would be more resource efficient to reform an entire agency with no guarantee that all the property would disappear versus just hiring more agents in an agency that already makes you money?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 And you're telling me that they're not going to be able to do

Speaker 2 it. Or like to them? They're suddenly going to become efficient.
How are they inefficient?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 What are you saying is inefficient?

Speaker 2 When you have $80 billion, sorry, $60 billion of fraud in

Speaker 2 inefficiency when it comes down to health services that the government accountability office tells us, that means somebody's not doing their job. What's their yearly revenue? Who?

Speaker 2 Or how much money do they spend yearly?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 So all of your health services is in excess of $1 trillion? Because the fraud rate is like 4% or 5%. I mean, what is the average fraud rate? What do you expect there to be there?

Speaker 2 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.
Answer

Speaker 2 continues your funding

Speaker 2 2032. It's very easy by giving them money and funding them.
What do you you mean? Where are you going to take the money from? From the tax receipts that you get from your citizens.

Speaker 2 You are going to increase the taxes on Americans?

Speaker 2 What I'm asking you is,

Speaker 2 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%

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 Why would we try to reform for tens or hundreds of billions of dollars? Why would we try to reform an entire department in the hopes that the fraud rate goes down?

Speaker 2 And we don't have a guarantee of that versus just funding where where we know there's easy money to get. Well, the reform looks like through work requirements, right? So that's good.

Speaker 2 I mean, that's not a reform. That's just like an extra policy.

Speaker 2 That's reforming the system in order to make sure that it continuously is able to be there after 2030. So work requirements is not getting rid of fraud.

Speaker 2 That sounds like it's just changing who qualifies for the program. Okay, okay.
What about the biannual verification?

Speaker 2 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.

Speaker 2 I don't know. Medicare, I think fraud is very difficult.
Medicaid, Medicaid, I think you, I mean, you could probably lie, you can get paid under the table, but imagine stuff like that.

Speaker 2 So biannual verifications can probably at least lower the amount of fraud that is happening on a certain amount of time. So you have to counterbalance it with how much the system costs versus how much

Speaker 2 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

Speaker 2 extra funding for various agencies. that will actually go and tackle this stuff.
I guess. But like, again, you're talking 60 billion.

Speaker 2 So even if they solved 100% of the problem, it would be one tenth of what the IRS could do.

Speaker 2 But I want you you to think about this over the next 10 years that's 600 billion dollars just in one program and when we're talking about programs running out of money by 2032 or them costing us 1.4 trillion dollars 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 costs 20% of the effort, you focus on that issue first.

Speaker 2 You don't focus on these like edge issues. And you said over 10 years, uh, 600 billion.
Over 10 years, the IRS could be saving us potentially 6 trillion if we just staffed the work properly.

Speaker 2 According to

Speaker 5 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.