Speaker 1: 0:13

you know what we're talking about today? I have no idea. I don't either. We're just gonna shoot the shit.

Speaker 2: 0:18

Okay, shoot it yeah, I, I have, I have nothing. Yeah, should be interesting that I mean things are, things are great, moving along swimming things are just great love it anyways, welcome to episode nine.

Speaker 1: 0:34

Hokey pokey politics podcast, the hppp, and away we go and away we go. Adam boog is here and his co-host and his co-host wait, I'm your co-host. I'm not the co-host, I figured it'd be you and I'm the co-host. We're both co-hosts, okay, so one one isn't above the other. Well, mentally, yes, but I mean, I got you beat by weight too, so I don't know if that's.

Speaker 2: 0:59

Oh my god, okay, well, let's not talk about it we don't need to bring that up.

Speaker 1: 1:06

No, lots is, uh, lots is going on. Tell me, had another plane crash yeah that's crazy in toronto. Yeah, yeah, how crazy. I mean upside down, no wings. I want to see a video of this. I saw the video today.

Speaker 2: 1:22

Oh of it crashing, yep, I don't know what the winds were.

Speaker 1: 1:27

I've heard that's a factor, though 0.8 kilometers under what's allowed, okay, so strong winds.

Speaker 2: 1:33

Yes, yeah, it was a hard landing. It, yeah, it was a hard landing. It looks like they bounced it in, basically, okay, and the wing hit the ground, okay, and snapped off, okay, and that's why it was able to roll. That's what I couldn't figure out when I first heard about it. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:49

Is how it actually rolled with. Well, what I did not know at first is that they have almost four foot of snow on the ground, so Not where it landed, though no, no, put a snow on the ground. So not where it landed, though no, no, but where the they? They thought the wing could have hit the snow pile, because it didn't have as far to go down.

Speaker 2: 2:03

Oh, maybe I guess I didn't, yeah, pay enough attention to that. Yeah, it wasn't clear enough. But yeah, that was pretty bad dude. I mean, they felt that landing, that's for sure. They felt it hit the ground, you know it hit really hard yeah, so the only major injury was the little infant.

Speaker 1: 2:21

There was an arm, arm hold. They had one person that was not buckled in and that was the one that got air lifted. So it was an infant that the parents were trying to hold but survived. But survived. I mean last I knew, as of last night, everybody had survived. Okay, good, but 80 people, I mean that's. But can you imagine?

Speaker 2: 2:40

being that parent? No, no, and the thing is like, if they, if they let go of the of the child, that child is sitting on the roof and they can't get to it, right that's dude.

Speaker 1: 2:51

I can't like that. For me, that makes me sick.

Speaker 2: 2:54

Yeah, I would arrest a broken neck. At that point I would have unbuckled, yeah I mean, how did this?

Speaker 1: 2:59

I mean, they got everybody out in no time. But you think about what that had to be like. How many people had to fall because you don't have the. You're a 200 pound man. There's not a person that can stand under you and hold you as you fall down. No, like they're unbuckling and you're going head first to the ground.

Speaker 2: 3:14

Yeah, holy crap yeah I mean there, there had to be a way that they did it, because that's recipe for, I mean, pilots die that way they you know, general aviation pilots have died crash landing flipping over. They're hanging by their seat belt, they release their seat belt and they break their neck right. So there had to be something that they did to get those people out safely. But yeah, that's scary. One guy today said they were just hanging there like bats. I believe it, and I don't know for how long.

Speaker 1: 3:43

Right. But I mean, this is another. This is the same scenario, not the same, obviously. That that was kind of it wasn't meant to be mean but similar scenario to Washington DC where you're you've made the flight, yeah, you're home, right. Yeah, in yeah in the last couple seconds. You're no longer safe like this, even more so because they were on the ground.

Speaker 1: 4:02

Right, they made it to the ground, yeah yep, and usually for me that's like the, the comfort time. Yeah, you know when, when the wheels touch down and I, I feel those, the reverse hit. Whatever that is, it's not reversed, but the thruster yeah when you feel that kind of, you know, pull you forward, I forward, I'm like, okay, we're all right, but yeah, that's brutal.

Speaker 2: 4:21

It happened so fast. When you see the video. It happens so fast.

Speaker 1: 4:25

I remember I was taking a flight. It was a short flight from St Louis to Kansas city and I was or St Louis to Omaha and the guy sits down beside me and had a white button up shirt on nice, you know nice collared shirt. But you know, that was it and he takes it. He wasn't wearing any pants. No, he was. I think he might've had pants on. Okay, he's sitting next to me and I've never seen somebody white knuckle the chair so hard in my life. And I look at him and I'm like you're all right. He's like ah, I just, I don't like not being in control and I was like no, I get it, man. I'm like but you know, these, these things are pretty safe. Right, he's like I'm actually the pilot for one of these. They fly us back home and that's an Omaha for me and I'm like you're this nervous.

Speaker 2: 5:20

He's you're nervous, that you don't know. Like that's terrifying. No, that has more to do with that. That's a pilot mentality, right? A pilot, you know, always feels like they would be the best one to be in control of the aircraft, right, and when they're not in control, yeah, it's a very uneasy feeling yeah, I, yeah, I want solely to fly my plane.

Speaker 1: 5:35

Absolutely, yeah, like he, he fly me. Even if it's Tom Hanks playing Sully, I don't care Like, I will still feel good about it.

Speaker 2: 5:41

I don't know that I'd go that far. I definitely would want Sully or someone like that.

Speaker 1: 5:46

You watch that. It was this great, phenomenal movie. Yeah, like loved it. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2: 5:53

Um.

Speaker 1: 5:53

No right, yeah, it was probably an accident. Yeah, we should definitely get rid of more FAA people though.

Speaker 2: 6:00

Yeah, that would be a good move. We need to so that we can get the right people in there.

Speaker 1: 6:03

that know what they're doing. Yeah, we should fire them first, though, so that there's nobody to backfill them. For sure that's a smart move, for sure I'm sure that's what they're doing.

Speaker 2: 6:23

I billion this week, that's something like that. I mean, they haven't proved any of it yet, but well, I mean, that's what? Naturally they haven't. Yeah, I know, yeah, I know. So I I do not. I just do not understand this mentality that we have an organization now that's trying to get rid of the waste, get rid of the fraud, get rid of the abuse, and at every turn they're being challenged, they're being opposed, is a better word.

Speaker 1: 6:38

Did you say 100 billion or a billion, 100 billion? Yeah I didn't see that number yeah, it's on their website.

Speaker 2: 6:44

I guess I saw a screenshot, okay, and I think trump tweeted out something about getting 100 billion mark, oh, okay yeah, so there's a couple. Same same number. It's the same number as downloads we have of this podcast billion, hundred billion I mean.

Speaker 1: 7:00

So do we start getting royalties?

Speaker 2: 7:02

or no. If we ever monetize, we lose everybody.

Speaker 1: 7:05

Right, okay, fair, yeah, yeah and then we don't want to do that because then we're not being real. Right, this is real.

Speaker 2: 7:11

We're sellouts, we're sellouts. Yeah, let me be a sellout.

Speaker 1: 7:14

I will sell out now?

Speaker 2: 7:16

well then, you're just uh, what is it? You're not taking advantage of people. I mean, you are, but you, I'm just greedy. Well, no, there's a word I saw today doesn't matter, I can't.

Speaker 1: 7:25

I'm too old to think anymore so there was an interesting argument that came up today that some of the cuts that have been made through doge were actually congressional bills and they don't have the authority to not follow through with those contracts. I've seen that, yeah.

Speaker 2: 7:41

Yeah, I, I haven't seen that yet, like, have you seen the video that's come out recently? World, there, obama was kind of doing a little bit of the same thing. He was trying to find waste and cut it. And somebody asked him about you know, hey, if Congress okayed this, you know, surely you can't cut it? And he was like no, I have the authority to do that. I have the authority to find waste and get rid of it and snip it. So I mean paraphrasing enormously, but yeah, I mean I don't have fair. I mean, yeah, and Clinton did the same thing. Right, the difference with Clinton?

Speaker 1: 8:18

though, is he had a little budget surplus there in 2000.

Speaker 2: 8:21

Well, no, he didn't, I mean he did. He didn't, I mean he claimed it on paper.

Speaker 1: 8:25

Budget surplus, not deficit surplus.

Speaker 2: 8:27

I mean, he claimed it on paper, but it wasn't actually that. So then what we should do. That money came Came from somewhere. I don't remember the details. Okay, I think it was Social Security.

Speaker 1: 8:38

So do we feel confident that Trump is going to be upfront and honest about debt numbers in the future?

Speaker 2: 8:43

I mean until he's not, I don't see any reason to doubt it.

Speaker 1: 8:47

Oh, I mean because he does tell the truth a lot. Yeah, throwing up that some of the stuff he's doing right now would dismantle the checks and balances of the debt, to where he could come out and say hey, by the way, we've paid off $2 trillion in debt and not not have any way to disprove it because he's getting rid of the departments that control it.

Speaker 2: 9:11

I mean yeah, Speculation theory, deep state nonsense.

Speaker 1: 9:17

I mean.

Speaker 2: 9:18

I, I have no idea, no idea, and neither do you. So, like I said, there's just opposition at every turn and you have to ask yourself why? Why are people so against auditing the government?

Speaker 1: 9:32

I mean, I don't know that we had people for this and I think they, in my, my mind, they either weren't given the proper authority or something happened and and like I was, I was seeing something that maybe it was bangladesh or something got 47 million dollars to help with their elections. And people on the right are like why in the world are we giving Bangladesh money for an election? And people on the left are like, yeah, we helped get elected a you know, a pro-American government that is now one of our allies and you know we can help build them. They can help us Like there is benefits to that, but what is the number that makes that worthwhile? Is it 47 million? Cause that's a lot of freaking dough.

Speaker 2: 10:15

You know what I mean Like, and I mean if you're sending money into another country to influence their election, wouldn't that be election interference? If Russia sent $47 million to Trump to get him elected. Wouldn't the left be calling that election interference?

Speaker 1: 10:37

I mean, that's what they tried doing and they got blocked every step that they could.

Speaker 2: 10:41

I mean that doesn't answer the question. Wouldn't that be considered election interference?

Speaker 1: 10:44

I guess is the $47 million that they considered well, I guess, is the 47 million that they got. Is that to help with their election process or is that now there's a candidate? I don't know parameters around it? I mean, in our election system, anybody who wants to give money can give money, and it's ridiculous because that's where black money, dark money, comes from, not black wow, I can't believe you said that jesus, that's where the dark money in politics comes from. Wow, I can go, you can start a super.

Speaker 2: 11:09

You just got us canceled.

Speaker 1: 11:10

Whatever, I can start a super PAC today, Adam and Todd, hokey pokey super PAC where you give us money and we'll give it out to politicians. I don't have to disclose what I got After we take a healthy salary.

Speaker 2: 11:21

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, we will. No, we take whatever's left. No, which is even better.

Speaker 1: 11:29

No, we take a healthy salary and then we take whatever's left, oh oh, so you get both. Yeah, you get the salary.

Speaker 2: 11:31

We give out a little bit and then we're like you know what, we're gonna keep the rest and then I'm gonna run for political office I just read today somebody was explaining how these politicians with 400 000 salaries we talked about this end up worth worth $40 million. And you know they were saying here's how you do it. You start a not-for-profit or super PAC, yeah, and then you know that super PAC gets grants federal money, state money probably too. So it's taxpayer money, taxpayer funded. And then they they have, you know, if they want to go somewhere, if you want to go to Aspen and go skiing, well, you have.

Speaker 2: 12:11

You have an event in Aspen for your super pack and then you hire your kids and pay them a hefty salary to go there and event plan. And then you hire your friends and family to do a lot of the event things. And then you go and you have, you know, you pay for your airfare, you pay for your hotel, you pay for all your meals, you go skiing, you enjoy yourself, you have a, you know, four hour event and you and then you also hire, you know, hire friends and family to be keynote speakers and pay them a hefty amount of money.

Speaker 1: 12:43

Yeah, but then I think where the other kicker comes in is you want to get a bill passed and you know my, my fund, my foundation, will donate to your foundation. Oh for sure, yes, for sure.

Speaker 2: 12:55

I mean you know that happens yeah, these people don't come out worth that much money unless stuff like that's going on it would be impossible.

Speaker 1: 13:03

Then you have to ask them to fix it themselves right. And why are they going to do that Right? Why is anybody going to step up and say you know what?

Speaker 2: 13:09

We need this. Well, isn't that? The problem with some of this opposition, though, to Doge, is people don't want to lose their golden calf.

Speaker 1: 13:18

Oh, I'm sure that's some of it, no doubt, yeah, but I still like there's a better way to do it and think I think time will tell and I could be completely eating crow right now and if I am a year from now, I'll be eating crow. But my guess is the amount that they're finding, even a hundred billion, is pennies for how, how far off we are well it is, but you have to start somewhere.

Speaker 2: 13:41

You do, but at least they're starting. Nobody else has even started and you say there's a better way to do it. Okay, what is it, and when is that going to happen? Right, at least something is happening now.

Speaker 1: 13:52

I don't and maybe that's the pro that comes out of this is there will be a government entity down the road. There is, it's called Doge. No, not that kind of government entity, I mean one that is congressionally sound and you're not using somebody like like elon to run it. You know you're.

Speaker 2: 14:10

you're doing something that what's the opposition to elon running it? Why does anybody trust him? I don't trust him and you have no reason.

Speaker 1: 14:17

Not, I have every reason, don't trust him. Why would you trust a man that started? Ai started all of these companies. Well, let me back up. He didn't start hardly any of the companies. He bought them when they were already started.

Speaker 2: 14:31

He bought everything after it's already been started, so we're going to remove all the credit because he bought these after they were already done. He was smart enough to buy them and improve them, but we're going to remove all the credit. He doesn't get any credit because these companies already existed. That's where we're going to remove all the credit he doesn't get any credit Because these companies already existed.

Speaker 1: 14:48

That's where we're going. I don't trust that he's got our best interest at heart. Here's the thing You've got to prove that you have our best interest at heart.

Speaker 2: 14:56

Who would be in that position that you would be like okay, they have our best interest at heart. I don't know Nobody, because if they're appointed by Trump, you're already not going to trust them, and not going to like them.

Speaker 1: 15:09

If they were appointed by Trump, it's because they helped him get elected. That is period.

Speaker 2: 15:13

Point blank, obviously. And that's not who's? That's my point. You want to talk about? That's going to be your take Hold on.

Speaker 1: 15:18

You want to talk about DEI. That is DEI to its core. What is that DEI? You're taking somebody and you are regardless of any other reason other than this you fit this category, you fit this demographic, which is you helped me get elected. I am going to get you into office. So you think.

Speaker 2: 15:36

Elon Musk's only justification for being in this position is that he helped Donald Trump. You don't give him credit for being one of the smartest men on the planet. You don't think that has anything to do with him being in this position? Okay, zero.

Speaker 1: 15:54

It has to do with him giving, and here we go. It's him giving $85 million to Trump's campaign, and that's why.

Speaker 2: 16:01

Prior to that. That's why nobody could be in that position and you'd be happy about it, trump hated electric vehicles before Elon came along. I think, he still hates electric vehicles. He flipped that on its head. No, he's still making comments about electric vehicles. I don't think that changed his mind.

Speaker 1: 16:16

Yeah, I mean yeah, okay.

Speaker 2: 16:20

I mean whatever he's in that position, because he's one of the smartest, hardworking men on the planet and he's already finding massive amounts of fraud. It's been what? Two, three weeks? There's already $100 billion that we're saving. It's only going to go up from there. But you think this is a DEI hire? I do 100%. That's unbelievable, 100%. There's zero evidence that that's the case.

Speaker 1: 16:46

Yeah, okay, then you can. I could say the same thing about every other DEI hire out there, unless you get on their application and they check on there. I'm hiring you because of DEI initiatives.

Speaker 2: 16:58

Except when Biden did it. He literally came out and said this is the reason I'm hiring this person.

Speaker 1: 17:04

He said I want a woman in the presidency. I would love an African-American woman in the White House. That's what he said. Yeah, he found somebody that had the qualifications in his mind.

Speaker 2: 17:15

Right, he found a woman and he found an African-American. Okay, what's the problem with that? Those were the qualifications A woman and an African-American.

Speaker 1: 17:25

Those were the only two qualifications, so so, you're telling me that that if he had picked her for any other reason, that it would be malicious. Or this is the reason it's malicious he picked her because for malicious reasons, because because he he felt bad for her, whatever.

Speaker 2: 17:43

I don't understand the the draw here do you think she was the best candidate that he could have chosen to be vice president?

Speaker 1: 17:50

I think she was a good candidate. That's not what I asked you. I don't know who the best is, because I don't know who. I've never talked to these people behind closed doors.

Speaker 2: 17:56

You've seen her talk. I have. Do you think she was the best candidate? I've also seen Trump talk. I'm not talking about Trump. Do you think she was the best candidate for vice president? I think she was a good candidate.

Speaker 1: 18:11

That's not what I asked, and I don't, I don't know, you don't even want to say it no, because I don't know the best candidate.

Speaker 2: 18:15

Then she was a DEI hire and he specifically said I want a woman and I want an African-American.

Speaker 1: 18:21

Here's the thing. That's what he got. The best candidate is probably Pete Buttigieg, but he would never make it because he's a gay man. That's the truth, because there's too many bigots in this country that aren't going to vote for a guy because he likes another guy.

Speaker 2: 18:34

Wait a minute. That's the problem. So your claim is that if he had selected Pete Buttigieg whatever, however you say, his name that the left wouldn't have voted for him.

Speaker 1: 18:46

The left would have voted for him hands over fist. Isn't that all you need? No, oh, absolutely 100%. Not yeah, and that is why Trump got elected is because it doesn't take just Democrats or Republicans. You have to get the independents, you have to.

Speaker 2: 19:03

But your claim is that people were willing to vote with him and her, but they wouldn't have been willing to vote for him and Pete Buttigieg Correct, I hate that last name, it's so hard to say it is.

Speaker 1: 19:16

The guy's a combat veteran. That's fine, extremely well-spoken.

Speaker 2: 19:20

I think that's nonsense. But whatever, he wasn't going to pick Pete anyway because he wanted a woman. I mean, you just proved my point. You're saying Pete Buttigieg was the best candidate, Do you think? Do you think? And he, he chose Kamala because she's a woman and she's African-American. Okay, that's a DEI hire.

Speaker 1: 19:39

No, it's it doesn't have to that that. That doesn't mean what I think you think it means. That's literally the definition. So doesn't mean what I think you'd think it means. That's literally the definition. So if I go to the post office tomorrow and I go apply for a job and they hire me because I'm a veteran, am I a DEI hire?

Speaker 2: 19:53

Are you the best candidate for that position? I don't know. If you're the best candidate, then that's not a DEI hire, but if you're not, and they choose you because you're a veteran over somebody else who's more qualified and a better candidate.

Speaker 1: 20:11

Yes, how do you look at something?

Speaker 2: 20:12

like a post office job and say, oh, you're more qualified than this person. I'm sure they have interviews, testing. You know previous experience, you know educational qualifications. I'm sure they have all of that. Okay, that's how you decide.

Speaker 1: 20:22

Okay, I'm just, I'm just, I'm very. I'm curious about this, because you know, a government job picks veterans first, like that. That's, you get extra points for being a veteran. Yes, but that is a dei initiative, if that's, if we're going to use the definition.

Speaker 2: 20:37

That's the definition. No, that absolutely is yeah, anytime you, anytime you place a qualification on something that has nothing to do with your qualifications for the job itself, then you are putting in place a DEI initiative. Wow, how are you not? How is that not the case?

Speaker 1: 21:01

I think it's crazy to think that there are people out there who think that every single job needs to be filled by the best candidate that we could ever find.

Speaker 2: 21:13

Why would you think otherwise? Why would you not want to hire the best possible candidate for the job every time?

Speaker 1: 21:21

Because it's subjective. That's why All of this is subjective. No, not all of it. So here is subjective.

Speaker 2: 21:26

No, not all of it.

Speaker 1: 21:27

So here's the thing.

Speaker 1: 21:28

Absolutely not all of it. When I got hired on at the factory 100 years ago, they set 12 people in a room all people that were in the interviewing process and they set us down and they said here's the issue we've got, we've got a machine that's not functioning properly. It's doing this, it's doing this, it's doing this. We want you guys to come up with an answer. So you get two guys right off the bat that instantly step up. All right, here's what we're going to do. You figure this part of it out, let's figure out this, and then they instantly take control. All right, I mean these guys, they're the best for the job. I mean these guys are taking control, they're taking initiative, they're good to go. That wasn't me. They're not the best person.

Speaker 2: 22:07

Hold on, you've told this story. They're not the best person for the job, because that's not who they're looking for for that position. They're looking for someone, yes, and they're looking for the best candidate, and the best candidate is not the one that takes charge. That would be a different position.

Speaker 1: 22:22

No, but that's what I'm saying. Like you're looking at it, I think. I think and maybe not you, but I think a lot of the the right is using the DEI as a way to say that women and African-Americans or Latinos don't deserve jobs because there are white people that can do them better. That's utter nonsense, I'm telling you?

Speaker 2: 22:45

that's what it looks like. That's utter nonsense. I don't show me where it looks like. Who has Trump appointed to work in his who? Has he appointed? Kash Patel, not a white man, pam Bondi, not a white man? I mean what he Both scratched his back, both have. That is not my point.

Speaker 1: 23:10

And if that's true, oh true, oh well, you think they're the best you think kash patel is the best person out of 300 million people in this country to run that? I have no idea. Pulsi gabbard is the best person on the in the entire country, somebody who has clearly been poked by by uh putin. You think she is the best?

Speaker 2: 23:28

for god, I'm not even going to entertain that, oh absolutely why would we not?

Speaker 1: 23:32

because it's's not true. She has come out. She's a Putin sympathizer. She says it all the time yes, she does no.

Speaker 2: 23:42

No, are you for real? That's leftist nonsense.

Speaker 1: 23:44

Oh my. So everything that she says is fake because it's leftist nonsense.

Speaker 2: 23:48

No, everything you say is fake because it's leftist nonsense.

Speaker 1: 23:51

Okay, yeah, well, that is true, she is definitely a Putin.

Speaker 2: 23:55

I agree. It is true that everything you say is leftist nonsense. Anyway, where was I going? No, it is not true that the right does not want Latinos hired, does not want black people hired, does not want women hired Okay. What is true is that the right wants the people hired that are the most qualified for the position that they're applying for. It doesn't matter what they are. That's the difference. For the right, it doesn't matter if they're black, it doesn't matter if they're Latino, it doesn't matter if they're Asian.

Speaker 1: 24:27

No, they just have to give.

Speaker 2: 24:29

Trump money. That's all they have to do. None of that matters. What matters is are they the most qualified applicant for the position, okay? Whereas the left says we don't care, if you're the most qualified, we need to put in. We need to level the playing field, we need to make it equal, and the way we're going to do that is we're going to put a black woman in this position. She's not the most qualified, but we're going to put her in that position because it levels the playing field somehow.

Speaker 1: 24:59

So do you think that there may just be a threshold of? Here's what you need to meet. Here's the criteria you need to meet to qualify above that is all gravy, so we're.

Speaker 2: 25:07

so we're just going to take the the lowest of the of the most qualified. No, I'm saying, I'm saying you hit a threshold above that, we're just going to take the lowest of the most qualified.

Speaker 1: 25:19

That might be in the middle, that might be 75% of them. You don't know that, but I can tell you right now Tulsi Gabbard is not in the 75% of people who are most qualified for that position In your opinion? Well, it is, that's your opinion, okay, and that's your opinion about kamala. Then how's that? No, that, because it's literally what biden said yeah, okay, and she's the most qualified person in this entire country to run that vice presidency. That is an opinion, is it not okay?

Speaker 1: 25:45

I mean it's a wrong opinion okay and so you're wrong about tulsi gabbard, it's the same thing. That's fine. I can be wrong about her, okay, yeah, so I'm saying, I'm saying kamala was the best choice that biden could have made.

Speaker 2: 25:56

I mean, if you want to go on record saying that, I will let you do that okay yeah, and you're going on record right now saying that tulsi is the best.

Speaker 1: 26:03

I didn't say she was the best, is she? I have no idea, okay, well, I didn't know that about kamala either, but yes, you did. Oh, okay, yes, you did. You heard her talk. I did hear her talk 2016. She said she made a moron. She made a phenomenal speech when she took the, the ag, to the senate.

Speaker 2: 26:20

Yep, I'm I'm sure she can deliver a phenomenal speech that somebody wrote for her and she's reading verbatim. Sure, but watch her off the cuff. She, she's an idiot. Yeah, have you looked?

Speaker 1: 26:31

at your president.

Speaker 2: 26:32

Yeah, and he does very well. I mean, you can say what you want, you know what? At least he's willing to sit in front of the media and answer questions and not disappear for months at a time, okay, and then, and then come in and say something and then walk out and not answer any questions. At least he's standing there all the time. No, he doesn't. At least he's standing there and facing the music. That's a big difference, that's a huge difference.

Speaker 1: 26:57

Wow, wow, we really stuck to DEI on this one. I wasn't expecting that.

Speaker 2: 27:03

Well, it's nonsense. I mean, look at the first person that Biden appointed for FAA administrator. He chose him because he was a black man. The guy had to eventually take himself out of the running because he had zero aviation experience. Not in any realm did he have any aviation experience and this is the guy he appointed. He didn't. He didn't appoint him for any other reason than this was a black man. Okay, probably. I mean, maybe he was scratching his back too, who knows but he had to take himself out of the running. And then they finally got someone that had some aviation experience. Okay, I mean, that's DEI right there. Okay, wow, all right. I mean, do you want somebody running the FAA who has no aviation experience at all?

Speaker 1: 27:55

The thing is, you're not saying the same thing about Pete Hudson, who's running the department of defense and he's never led a soldier in his life. That's not true. He has. No, he's, he has never could. Every one of us in the army you, you, you're a platoon leader, okay, so he's. So that's not two million people. He's not a general, he's not. He hasn't done the things that most people that are in that position do. So I don don't do it to look and say, oh, that guy doesn't have any, any credit or he doesn't have any experience, but we're going to hire him. He's black, so it's not okay, this guy doesn't have any experience, but he's white. So you know what we're for.

Speaker 2: 28:25

And now you're going to argue for him in the military Okay, he at least has been in the military. This guy has had never even he has zero aviation experience in any field. Okay.

Speaker 1: 28:42

I don't know. I don't know who you're talking about, so I I I'm not a good I'm not a good educator.

Speaker 1: 28:46

That's fine, you can look it up. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, the whole thing I wanted to talk to you about, talk to you about today, was that we used an improper term the other day and I did not know it. I can't wait to hear it. We briefly spoke about a flat tax. Okay, and I thought flat tax was when you come across and you use the items you purchase as a sales tax. Right, but a flat tax is actually when everybody has the exact same tax rate, regardless of income or lack of income or whatever else. What we want is a consumption tax when you consume.

Speaker 2: 29:19

That's what we were after. I think what I want is a flat consumption tax.

Speaker 1: 29:24

So here's the thing If you do a, if you do a consumption tax, it's going to be over 35% to make the money that we need to make now, which means everything is going like the price of stuff is going to be very expensive. A car is going to I mean, you're going to 35 if you buy it, only if you buy it, yeah, um. But if you do a combination of the two, where you have a flat tax and a consign, you know you raise sales tax but then you make the flat tax and you don't have any write-offs, you don't have any. There's nothing. Here is what you owe, period. You eliminate the IRS for the most part.

Speaker 2: 29:58

So I'm going to propose something revolutionary. What if we did a flat consumption tax where the tax rate was I mean, it's going to be high. What I want is a flat consumption tax where, let's say, the tax is at 20%? 35 is too high in my opinion. Okay, and I get what you're saying, that that's what we would need to cover our expenditures now. But that's the problem is, you know, you and I are required to live by a budget, right, and as the government should be as well. And so if we say, okay, you're getting 20%, it can never be raised. That's the maximum it can ever be. And now you have to learn how to live within that budget. That's what I'd like to see happen, right?

Speaker 1: 30:44

So I did a lot of looking, and mostly through charts. I'll be honest, because the numbers are a lot, but I was looking at different charts for our what's the term? It's our tax income, ultimately, the government's income that they bring in on taxes personal taxes and corporate taxes. What I was not aware of is that personal taxes are more than corporate taxes as far as the amount of income that comes in. I assumed it was going to be flip-flopped, so the income has not went up a whole lot. I mean it's a very, very slow, steady. It did jump up in 2022 after we had some stimulus stuff that went out. Governmental income went up a little bit, but for the most part, it's been fairly steady. Income went up a little bit, but for the most part, it's been fairly steady. Um, spending has been fairly steady. It's not crazy, believe it or not, there was, there, was, there would be. So I mean steady being it's not, oh, steady.

Speaker 2: 31:43

Steady meaning we're still borrowing money to pay it. We're still borrowing money to pay.

Speaker 1: 31:47

Yes, the biggest jump was 2020, when we did the huge stimulus. I mean that jumped it up two trillion dollars damn near overnight, but then it came back down and if you look at it, it came back down to the levels that it would have been had we not. Let me back up. The year to year came back down to what it would be if we had not done the stimulus before. So it's you know, the trajectory is the same.

Speaker 1: 32:13

The problem is when you look at corporate taxes. During that same time, corporate taxes continue to drop and I think the issue here is not so much the wealthy are going to have some of that, but the corporate taxes. Corporate is figuring out a way to not pay taxes and they're they're bringing less and less to the table every year, and I think the loopholes need to be closed for them as well. So if you're going to close loopholes for the regular people, close it for the companies as well. The wealthy are going to pay the same percent I pay and it doesn't matter. You know if you bring it home, that's what you're going to make. But the problem with the corporations is the corporations don't give their money out in taxes. They do the same thing we try to do with real estate. We take a loan out, we pay ourselves with that. That's where the consumption tax comes in, because they go out and buy a boat, they're paying a consumption tax. You know they're not paying income tax on it, but they're. They're still covered.

Speaker 1: 33:04

So it was really interesting to see that if our income had remained the same as our expenses, we would be okay. But we've continued to drop the income to where now expenses are going up and income is not going up at the same rate. So you've either got to cut the expenses way back and when I say way back, I mean like way back, yes, please do that. But I get it and I don't disagree but a huge chunk of that is military spending, huge chunk of it, and the reason we're on top is because we spend that money.

Speaker 1: 33:44

So I mean like there is some stuff that I don't want to say is a non-negotiable. The problem is they're still paying $600 for a toilet seat Right money. So I mean like there is some stuff that I don't want to say is a non-negotiable. The problem is they're still paying six hundred dollars for a toilet seat right. In some places they're still, you know. I mean like it's still, they're still. I mean I remember seeing a thing out there that was like eight thousand dollars for a hammer. Yeah, like I mean they, that still happens.

Speaker 2: 34:01

Like, so I mean they're spending cuts that can be made the point is that it's not eight8,000 for a hammer, god, no, it was $50 for a hammer.

Speaker 1: 34:11

But I think the only way to fix it is you've got to do both You've got to cut the spending but you've also got to raise the income and you've got to get them to a level that-.

Speaker 2: 34:19

I don't think so. We have the highest. I believe we have the highest tax revenue in the world. In the highest debt too? Yeah, right, in the highest debt too. We need to just cut expenses to where we can actually live within our means, and I think that's possible. I mean, there's a massive amount of fraud, or not fraud, but waste. Yeah, possible fraud, but waste. Even in the military, right? I mean, I remember my dad was in the military back in the 70s and they had a fleet of trucks that never moved, right, but once a month he had to go out and change the oil. Right, that's, that's incredibly wasteful, right? They never started, they never moved once a month. Go change the oil. Why are we doing that? Right? I mean, it's for you know it's, it's sold under this readiness, right idea, yeah, but if they're not moving, if they're not driving, that oil's not getting contaminated.

Speaker 1: 35:08

It's not going bad.

Speaker 2: 35:12

And that's just one small tiny, but it's everywhere.

Speaker 1: 35:17

Yeah, I don't know. The problem is, like I said the other day, congress is asking for $4 trillion more spending over the next ultimately comes out to 400 days. 480 days or something is what that spending will take us. We're down to 118 days per trillion. That's how long it takes us to rack up. A trillion dollars in deficit is 118 days. It's insane. And so I mean a trillion is a thousand billion, I mean we're already beyond.

Speaker 2: 35:47

No, I mean at this is a thousand billion. I mean we're already beyond. No, I mean at this point we can recover.

Speaker 1: 35:50

You're $600 billion in interest right now. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 35:57

Like this country is becoming.

Speaker 1: 36:00

Oak Creek no joke here. So so I was listening to the guy, Peter Zion, who I'm sure you probably aren't a big fan of.

Speaker 2: 36:08

I don't even know who it is. Okay, he's a. Is that the guy you send to me? Okay, yep.

Speaker 1: 36:13

I've listened to him. I mean the thing is he definitely leans more left, but he yeah, I mean I don't have a problem with him. He doesn't drink the Kool-Aid of the left by any means. Um, his big concern is that the reason the U? S is going to implode on itself is because the baby boomers are starting to die off at this point and we're not having babies at the rate to sustain our spending.

Speaker 2: 36:38

Yeah, no, that's a. That's a big problem. We're not repopulating Well.

Speaker 1: 36:42

Elon Musk is repopulating. Well, yeah, yeah. How does that? How does that work? What? 13, 14 kids with four women.

Speaker 2: 36:50

Yeah, yeah, yeah how's that?

Speaker 1: 36:51

how's that work? What 13, 14 kids with four women? Yeah, I never said he was moral, oh okay.

Speaker 2: 36:53

Yeah, we should prop him up, though on a pedestal I've never said that either, anyways, but no, no because just because you have 13 kids by four women doesn't mean that you aren't an incredibly smart person and can't find fraud, waste and abuse in the government. I I think.

Speaker 1: 37:07

I think elon is an extremely smart person and I think that's why, when he talks, people think that he's talking slow because he's not smart. I think it's the exact opposite.

Speaker 2: 37:17

I think he's coming up with words, you don't get to where he's at. If you're not smart, I agree.

Speaker 1: 37:24

I mean, have you seen how much money he makes from the government? His government contracts with all the businesses, Right? I?

Speaker 2: 37:29

mean, have you seen how much money he makes from the government? His government contracts with all the businesses? Right, but did you see how much money he made before he ever started getting money from the government? I mean, he made software that allowed companies to print their newspaper digitally online. And I think he sold it for either $100 million or $ 400 million. I mean, he did that one in his early days, right, the guy's not an idiot.

Speaker 1: 37:55

No, I don't think he's an idiot. By any means.

Speaker 2: 37:56

I don't trust him, but that's just because I don't, but you don't trust him just because he's doing this for trump. If, if biden had had pulled him in to do exactly this, you would be like, oh, elon, greatest thing no, I, I think anybody with that much money, anybody with that much money, doesn't need more money.

Speaker 1: 38:14

So that's why is he taking government contracts? Why is he taking him? It's like eight or 10 government contracts, it's like eight or $10 million per day.

Speaker 2: 38:22

Why wouldn't you take government contracts? He's. He's launching stuff into space for the government. He contracts. He's. He's launching stuff into space for the government.

Speaker 1: 38:29

He's not supposed to take a contract to do that? I mean, is that, is that what we need to?

Speaker 2: 38:31

be focusing on? Absolutely not. I'm not saying I'm a fan of it, I'm saying he's doing that Right.

Speaker 1: 38:36

So he, he's getting that through, though, like I'm saying he's, he's the one doing it. He's taking the money on that.

Speaker 2: 38:41

Okay, the government wants him to do it.

Speaker 1: 38:45

Okay. So if the government wants it, it's not, doesn't make it. Okay, it doesn't make it right. We just said that the guy somebody in the government wants to give $46 million.

Speaker 2: 38:54

Like somehow that's his fault.

Speaker 1: 38:55

It's his fault when he is turning around and looking at doing it for free. No, what I'm saying is he's looking at Bangladesh and saying you guys don't deserve that money, cause I don't think it's, I don't think that is going to a rightful cause, they don't deserve that money. Okay, and I'm saying he's doing the same. He, the guy who is getting millions and millions of dollars per day from the government, is the one turning around saying you don't deserve that, you don't deserve that. And I'm like okay, what do you deserve? How do I know that you're not wasting money? So I can't. We can't look at his finances, so do you think he should just? So I can't.

Speaker 2: 39:25

We can't look at his finances, so do you think he should just do, you think it's a conflict of interest, 100% Okay, Then make that case. But I mean then you know, then make that case. And so do you remember how hard to stop doing.

Speaker 1: 39:39

Do you remember Hillary's emails? Clearly you remember Hillary's emails. The big issue was she was sending emails on her own server, which was against the rules at that time, and then destroyed it. And then destroyed it. Okay, trump's kids did the 100% exact same thing. Of course they did, but it's okay because it's Trump's kids and it's not, it's not bill Clinton's wife. I'm sure it was the exact same scenario, literally the exact. I mean I'm sure it was. If you look it up, it is legitimately the same. Only the only difference is they weren't state and I have no doubts because I trust everything you should say implicit um.

Speaker 1: 40:15

Elon just hooked up his own servers into some of these audits that he's doing, according to some left-wing news rag so probably if that's true, is that bad?

Speaker 2: 40:25

I would have to see the specifics. Okay, but on its face.

Speaker 1: 40:30

Probably Under any circumstances should the richest man in the world plug his computers into the knowledge and the ability of what our computers have. And, let me add, he's not from the US.

Speaker 2: 40:40

Hasn't he been behind creating a lot of those computers, or at least enhancing a lot of those computers? I have no idea, neither do I, but I'm I'm saying is aren't they talking about building some supercomputer farm? And he's kind of part of that?

Speaker 1: 40:56

yeah, and that's terrifying. Any person with that much power is terrifying.

Speaker 2: 41:01

Okay, and that that's what I'm saying so like I don't think you really believe that. I think you only believe that because he's working in the Trump administration.

Speaker 1: 41:09

I saw the robots that he's created whatever they're called, I don't remember what they're called now the humanoids and he's pushing this Like I've seen the movies. They're before 2005, so I've seen them Like that stuff's terrifying, like I would rather him not be doing this. I would rather him not. And the thing is the fact that any one person could look me across the this, this room, in the face and say you know, maybe, maybe it would be okay if he hooked his servers up. Under no circumstances would that be okay, and I don't care who it is. Hillary was sending emails on her own server. She wasn't plugged into the government on her, on her server. This is a computer they're tying directly into the us government's computer and that can grab. He's a very smart dude. You could, you could. If he was being malicious and I'm not saying he is he could single-handedly wipe out the computer system of the us government he could, I mean okay, that's a stretch, but okay, could he not, I mean, if he's the most?

Speaker 1: 42:08

I have no idea, I just I and neither do you, but that's my point.

Speaker 1: 42:12

But do we need to do? We need to play with fire? Do we need, do we need him doing that? Does he wants to go? Look in some books? Whatever, I don't think you're going to find what you think you're going to find. I think I can. He's found it. Okay, you know what? Here's a deal. Just today I went through and I found $100 billion and I'll tell you exactly what they were. I'll write it all down for you. I found $100 billion in discretionary spending. I don't know why I couldn't think of that word. I found $100 billion. Here's my proof. Just believe me, it's real. You wouldn't believe that. If Biden said it there's zero chance you'd believe it You'd be like, oh, you won't believe it that Bill Clinton did it. You just said a minute ago you don't believe that that he balanced the budget. No, he didn't. Okay.

Speaker 2: 42:58

But the thing is that's already been proven. I don't it's not proven. Yes, I just looked at the statistics today from the government. I don't not believe that just because I don't like Bill Clinton. I don't believe it because they've proven it.

Speaker 1: 43:09

Nobody's proven it.

Speaker 2: 43:10

I literally just looked at the statistics today from the US government that's grafted, all out, all right, I'll come back next time we can talk about it.

Speaker 1: 43:18

Okay, this will be it. This will be it. I mean whatever. Yeah, I'm just saying you don't believe it if it's the left, I have to believe it if it's the right and I don't believe them. I don't think they found $100 billion.

Speaker 2: 43:27

You don't have to believe it, okay. But the only reason you don't believe it is because it's the right, okay.

Speaker 1: 43:33

Yeah, and the only reason you don't believe Bill is because it's from the left.

Speaker 2: 43:36

No, that's not true. That's not true. I just told you. It's been proven. I don't just yeah, it's not true no, it's been proven.

Speaker 1: 43:52

Okay, fox news, I'll bring the receipts next time. God, what are these days? I'm gonna put my foot in my mouth and you're gonna bring the receipts and I'm gonna be like damn it he was.

Speaker 2: 43:56

What do you mean? One of these days it's been every episode.

Speaker 1: 43:59

Done it yet oh please yes I have uh, hopefully some of the effects is real what about it?

Speaker 2: 44:07

israel and palestine? What about it? I just I came with the receipts and showed you palestine's never been a thing.

Speaker 1: 44:13

Oh, I mean okay but you're right, the maps I looked at, sure, sure they did. I just, I just don't know well enough to argue, sure the maps you've read okay, I mean wikipedia.

Speaker 2: 44:22

Okay, oh yeah, the trusted, the trusted rag that is Wikipedia. Sure, all right, we done, we're done. Good, that was terrible content, you got content.

Speaker 1: 44:33

You say that every single time. It was.

Speaker 2: 44:36

Whatever, we're going nowhere. We're going nowhere fast Our downloads are just dropping like stones. It's because we're lame.

Speaker 1: 44:44

Two old white guys on a freaking mic. Nobody cares, we're DEI hires of ourselves.

Speaker 2: 44:50

That's actually true, yeah we're not there if there was a bar. We're way below it.

Speaker 1: 44:57

Yeah, we're way below it I don't even know if this is part of the podcast anymore I'll probably have to cut whatever, if you don't, we'll see you guys later.