08-01-25 - *FULL SHOW* Benjamin Allbright Filling In For Ross at Broncos Training Camp

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We'll welcome you guys in as I'm filling in for
Ross Kaminski out here today.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
We'll be doing a little bit of a mixed back.

Speaker 1 (00:05):
We'll be doing a little bit of Ross's show, doing
a little bit of football talk. As the Broncos come
out here to practice here at about an hour or so,
we'll get in a little bit more of that. We'll
have Ryan Edwards hop on for a little while. I
think our old friend Brenda Christal is going to stop by.
He's with Gorilla Sports now, He's gonna stop by here
for a little bit. Right now, sitting out here looking
at an empty field, waiting for the first Broncos to

(00:26):
come out here and.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Get warmed up.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
As our friend Rick Lewis from the Fox over here
texting away busy and popular over there. I'll just mess
it with you Rick five six six nine yeeros. The
text line, you guys want to get the conversation. We
got a lot of stuff to get to today. The
jobs report came out and it was brutal. I want
to get into dead internet theory as well. There was
a report out on from Fortune magazine gayesterday, uh and

(00:51):
it was it was great. Delves into a lot of
what we see and consume on the Internet now and
dead Internet theory for those of you who don't know,
and I'll break it down a little further to the
bottom of the arm, but for those of you who
don't know, the theory that originated around twenty ten but
is really come into prominence.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Over the last few years.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
And it's basically a theory that the Internet is mostly
at this point bots and AI and very little human
driven or human interaction you know, in it at all,
and so much of what we see is not even real,
not human originated.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
It's not real.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
It's just bots communicating with each other. The report indicated
that something like seventy four percent of traffic on Twitter
was was bot originated, and there was there were several
other interesting I think things in there, and so we'll
get to that.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
I want to get to that in the bottom of
the hour.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Any questions you guys have, of course, five six six
nine zeros text line, we're looking at this jobs report
that came in. I want to get into that because
it's it's fascinating. And the Dow and the dollar or
tanking today based off of a lot of this information's
coming out.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
It was interesting because when the jobs.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Report came out out a while back, ADP had put
something out and it was a lot more abysmal than
what the government was putting out.

Speaker 2 (02:07):
Their government was putting out very rosy.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
Numbers, and we found out today obviously that those, like
a lot of things they put out were not exactly true.
New cracks emerged in the US economy today after the
government reported a significant slowdown in job growth, which does
a sign of the serious and frankly accelerating effects of

(02:29):
President Trump's tariffs. Financial markets have been rattled as investors
grapple with the implication stocks are falling right now. The
dollar dropped against other major currencies. US employers added seventy
three thousand jobs in July, which is which would be
a bad number anyway, but that is much less than
economists had expected in the unemployment rays rate has risen

(02:50):
to four point two percent. The report released today also
significantly revised down the data on hiring from May and
June by a combined two hundred and fifty eight thousand jobs,
which obviously suggests the labor market is under greater strain
than initially believed. That moved the bond market, in particular
with treasury yields falling sharply as investors anticipate that the

(03:14):
Fed could be more willing to cut interest rates, you know,
perhaps as soon as as September. But the jobs data
only offers the latest indication that the Trump's policies, particularly
expanding global trade war, has started to put the squeeze
on the economy. And this is something that you know
I've talked about when filling in for Ross or filling

(03:34):
in for Mandy. I think most of you know that
I'm more of a free trade absolutist, which is where
my entity for what President Trump is doing economically stems
from tariffs for those of you who don't know, or
taxes on imports. It's paid by US companies, is not

(03:55):
paid by any foreign country, despite the fact that they
say foreign countries. No foreign country pays a penny of it.
They're paid by US companies purchasing goods abroad. And then
usually what happens with those companies they turn around and
pass that that cost on to consumers, at least most
of it onto consumers. Some of it they pass in
terms of price hikes, some of it they do in
terms of cutting jobs.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
Which we've seen in this job report. U.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
There are various different ways in which companies attempt to
keep their margins up in doing this, but in the end,
tariffs wind up being a tax on the American consumer
and on American companies. And that's sort of been the
crux of what this economic plan for Donald Trump has
been so far, shifting the tax burden from income taxes
over to a de facto sales tax in a lot

(04:38):
of ways with these with these tariffs, other economic data
released this weekend offered fresh evidence that these duties have
slowed trade and started to send prices higher. And these
these developments create complications.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
For the FED.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
The The Central Bank opted the whole interest rates steady
h earlier this week in an attempt to keep prices
from soaring, even if some called on the FED to
lower borrowing costs, He's the strain in the labor market.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
In his first comments after.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
The release of the jobs report, mister Trump continued to
attack the FED and his chaired Your Own Powell, calling
him a disaster demanding lower rates. Adding to its challenges,
the President late Thursday announced a dramatic widening of his
trade war, slapping major new tariffs on dozens of countries
that take effect ostensibly on August seventh, although we've seen

(05:32):
they continue to push back these dates over and over again.
Switzerland was stunned by a thirty nine percent tariff. Among
the highest that were announced Syria, Laus Minor.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
Marl We're all handed rates of forty to forty one percent.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
All countries not issued new tariff rates would be subjected
to a baseline ten percent rate, while Japan, South Korea,
and the European Union, which recently secured trade agreements with
the United States, received the rates they had negotiated now.
Mister Trump's executive order said he was acting because quote
large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits constitute an

(06:09):
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security in the
economy of the United States. And if you're aware of
what trade deficits are, you know what a load of
hogwash that is. We don't necessarily want to run trade deficits,
but trade deficits are also not necessarily a bad thing.
If you're running a trade deficit with the country, means
your economy is doing good because you were able to
afford to import more than you are exporting. And you

(06:33):
have to note are you running just a trade deficit,
are you running a trade in services deficit? Maybe you
are making that up by having a services surplus in
some of these cases. So there are several factors when
it comes to this. I am adamantly anti tariff. I'm
adamantly anti anything that raises cost at the register here
in the United States.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
And that's what these do.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
These are sales taxes, regressive sales taxes that punish the
middle class, in the lower class by raising the cost
of good. It's in an effort to offload certain income
tax in in you know, high middle to upper brackets.
And I want to get into a little bit more
of this into what these mean. Of course, we'll do
that Internet theory at the bottom of the hour. We
got to a check of traffic out here with the

(07:15):
KA Traffic Center live down here at at Broncos Park,
Kwaight Trading Camp powered by Chevron, committed to our local
communities and safely delivering affordable, reliable energy that powers Colorado
forward five six, six, nine zeros in text. I already
got some some decent texts in here, and we'll get
to some of those here in a minute. Talking about
the jobs report and finished economic outlook, uh, and and tariffs.

(07:37):
So far, it's uh, we got a couple of good
texts in here. We'll get some of these five six, six,
nine zero. Is is the text line? We got one
here from the nine seven zero? So is Trump actually
likes a week dollar? He said he makes more money
that way. Well, there's I mean, there's some truth to that.

(07:58):
A weekond dollar does have certain benefits, particularly for multinational
corporations in US exporters.

Speaker 2 (08:04):
It makes American goods more competitive abroad.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
It can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back
into dollars.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
But let's be clear.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
The United States, we all know, is a consumer driven,
import heavy economy, and so a weekend dollar makes imports
more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are
benefits on the corporate side, which Donald Trump tends to
think of things from that perspective, it hurts households by
increasing the cost of everyday goods. So that's really my

(08:36):
problem is with the way that we do things is
sort of a fair versus equitable argument here? What are
the Texters touched on this seven to zero? You understand
we have a thirty seven trillion dollar debt that must
be paid off.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
We're all going to have to pay in some form
of tax.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
Now, the texture here says a consumption tax tear for
sales is the most fair. To a degree, you're going
to have to have some sort of compound thing. And
let me be clear, because I'm not speaking for this
from a low income bracket. Okay, So I'm coming at
this from a different perspective. That's a brag. That's just
to give you guys an idea here. I tend to

(09:14):
air on the side of keeping things cost effective for
the least among us in order.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
To keep the economy humming along.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Now, if we wanted to do some sort of compound
sales tax and then upper bracket income tax and an
effort to try to pay things off, but a thirty
seven trillion dollar debt, I mean debt service alone is
almost at the point where it's out of control. And
so and what I mean by that, of course, is
the interest we're paying on the debt that we owe.
So you know, even trying to do things like that
is still not going to touch on this. And we've

(09:42):
had gimmicks since Trump's been in office. The doge thing,
I mean Okay, in spirit, I'm behind it.

Speaker 2 (09:49):
I am what you would call.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
I'm more of a libertarian, but there's some classic liberal
leanings in the sense that I prefer small government and
you know, and lower taxes, which is what classic liberal means,
not the way the word is thrown around now. I
I am for making government more efficient. I am for
eliminating uh spending, which would be a good thing. The
dose things didn't really eliminate much. And this, this current

(10:13):
administration is by far spending the most of any administration
historically ever. And so that's this is this is sort
of the problem is, uh, you could you can bring
in some new money on these things. And it's weird
how they brand these tariffs is sort of bringing in
money from foreign countries, which they're not. Uh, it's it's
a tax on Americans. You But in the end, we're

(10:34):
we're paying for this stuff and and and if we're
doing it in a manner that causes prices to rise,
we're shooting ourselves in the foot to do it.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
And so that that's sort of the thing.

Speaker 1 (10:42):
We are a consumer driven economy, we are an import
heavy economy, and and putting tariffs is not going to
change trade deficits is not going to onshore manufacturing. You'd
have to put tariffs at at absurdly high rates in
order to re onshore manufacturing. Because we're such a global economy,
the parts to even us zembole things are imported on
these things, so even if it's made in America, you

(11:04):
can still have eighty percent of it or whatever imported
from another country, and those tariffs are affecting those components
and those kinds of things.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
This is a compound issue.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
There aren't simple answers here, and that's I think the
thing that I want to get to. I mean, on
the one hand, I applaud this administration for at least
trying something different, but at the same time, I'm agast
at what they're trying because it's not something that's going
to be effective, and in the end, all it's going
to do is continue to drive inflation, push costs up,
and make things less affordable for everyday Americans. And then

(11:32):
the fact that that they want the Fed to cut rates,
which I get why they want to do that, they
want to refinance data at a lower rate, totally get it.
At the same time, if you're going to do that,
Lowering rates like that tends to drive inflation, tends to
create hyper inflation because it makes money more accessible and
in lay stage capitalism which you have as businesses try
to eat up that portion of the dollar just erodes

(11:53):
purchasing power in the end. And so there are you know,
there's a lot that goes into this. There's a lot
that this is a compound issue. It is not a
simple fix. And anybody sitting there telling you that that
there's a simple explanation for all this is the first
person that you should ignore.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
I'll be the first one to tell you there is not.

Speaker 1 (12:14):
A simple explanation or a simple fix for any of this.
But I'd love to hear you guys's thoughts on it
at five six six nine zero, where you're out on
all these things. Are you okay? Are you willing to
pay higher prices? Because you're going to pay higher prices?
And I'll tell you one of the most common pushbacks
I get, well, just buy American.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
You don't have to worry about it. Well, yeah you do, because,
as we just pointed.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
Out, a lot of them made in America stuff has
imported components, and you're still paying a tariff. It still
drives costs up, and that's not the only thing. What
happens when you see cost rising as a business on
a competitor, they're raising their rates, they're raising their come
what do you do, well, you raise your rates and
costs to go along with it because you want to
increase your and expand your margins. Right, So it really
isn't just that American goods aren't going to go up

(12:55):
and the others are. Eventually they all go up. That's
sort of the thing. Inflation never come. We don't have
deflate the rate of inflation. When people talk about that
going down doesn't mean inflation's going down. It means the
rate at which it's being compounded is slowing.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
And so so that's the thing. At the end of
the day.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
I air from the philosophically, from the side of the
fence that I don't want the least among us to
not be able to afford to have a standard of
living that's commiserate with the American dream. Now does that
mean I want people free loading off eat.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
But I do want them to be able to have
the access and the ability to be able to to
be able to make ends meet and have enough expendable
income to be able to have a life. That that
again falls in line with what we considered the American
dream five six sixty nine zero is the text line.

(13:44):
We had quite a few come in seven two Fiat currency,
the Fed fractional reserve lending, NAFTA, it's all a scam
house of cards that is propped up by my military empire.
Why don't you economy experts explain how really how this.

Speaker 2 (13:57):
Really is to the layman. We can get into that
in a little bit.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
I just with you on NAFTA being a scam again,
that free trade agreement. What happens with those free trade
agreements when we do those with countries who have a
lower minimum wage in US, we outsource low skilled jobs
and get back cheaper product. And that's what NAFTA was about.
There were problems with NAFTA, and I agree with you there.
I wouldn't call it a scam though.

Speaker 4 (14:18):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
Fiat currency, the Fed fraction reserve lending we can get into.

Speaker 2 (14:22):
We can get into that. I'll explain.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
I assume most of you know what that is, but
I never know what the baseline knowledge level is, so
we can get into some of that as well. I
do want to get into this dead internet fury thing
next because something that fascinates me, and you guys can
tell me I'm a nerd or whatever at that point,
but we'll get a chance to get into that. We
got to hit a break when we come back on
the Roskiminski Show. We will get into that as well
as some of your texts and some of this other stuff,
mister ros Kiminski Show, Benjamin, I'll righte filling in KWA

(14:45):
live down here at Broncos Training Camp.

Speaker 4 (14:48):
Guys.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
K at Training Camp is powered by Chevron.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
It's committed to our local communities and safely delivering affordable,
reliable energy that powers Colorado forward. A lot of great
texts coming in. Five six x nine zero is the
text line. I appreciate each and every one of you
there three oh three. Finally a breath of fresh air
and common sense on Trump's smiths guided tariff policies.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
Thank you, seven to zero. I like it when you
fill in. You're a great host.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well, you know, anytime you send compliments and my ego
and Vanity are going to read them, so I appreciate
you guys doing them.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Three oh three, Benjamin. I think people think Trump knows
what he's.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Doing because he was a businessman, but economics and business
are very different. Not a fan of tariffs, but mostly
like Trump.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
Well, hey, you know, I'm.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
One of those people that says, if we only agree
on one thing, let's find that thing we agree on
and make that thing that you know, as good as possible.

Speaker 2 (15:40):
And so I'm with it on that. This is one
of those things that did just bugs me.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
Like I said, I'm a nearly a free trade absolutist,
and so this is one of those things that bugs me,
says se One nine best terriff free to zero trade
deficit fear is falsely generated. Key to mortgage rates and
interest on debt is bring down that very same debt.
And that's will and colorisplace. Yeah, that is the that
is the key to all that. But uh, we've you know,

(16:06):
we've we've kind of gotten hung up on this trade
deficit thing as if that means something. It really it
just means we we you know, we were importing more
than we export. Uh, And that's that's not necessarily a
bad thing. Again, that's that's a key to you having
a healthy economy if you could afford to import more
than you're exporting, then you've got a healthy enough economy
to support it.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
Right, So that that's that's one of those things that.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
That I think is uh it missed gone uh seven
to look at uh look at Albright just be slapping
the morons today. Well done, breath and fresh air for
this otherwise rudderless station.

Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well, I you know, I love what. I love what
Ross and I.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
Are good friends, and I love for the debates that
Ross and I get to get into. Mandyuh love to
talk to her about this kind of stuff. I think
that having differing opinion is good for us all. I
think debates, I think uh uh strengthens our positions or
allows us to challenge our positions on some things.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
I'm not right on everything, but.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
I love I love to learn new things, and I
love to find the things that maybe I'm incorrect about.
I love to be exposed to new things and and
debate those and so I think that I think that's
good for us all. We'll have a little bit of
broncos chat in the next hour. I think our man
Ryan Edwards is going to join us, he of the
Plaid shirts, who will join us a little bit later,

(17:20):
talk a little bit about training camp, and you can
kind of hear the music start to go in the
background as this thing gets cranked up a little bit
here five six six nine zero.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
For anything you guys want to get.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
To here, what I do want to get to is
this dead Internet theory. And that's something I was talking
about earlier. There was a report out of Fortune magazine
yesterday where a cybersecurity company had analyzed for years a
lot of Internet traffic, social media posting, things like that
to try to get a handle on just how much
content out there is real human generated content and how

(17:57):
much of it is just bots.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Because we've seen an explosion of.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
That with the advent of AI and a lot of
these things. We've seen an explosion of that in recent years.
And so I wanted to get into this back in
theory because dead Internet theory was something that was floating
around four chan, and for those of you who don't
know what that is, it's like an Internet message board
back in the late twenty tens, but it's really solidified
and amplified back in twenty twenty one, when there was

(18:23):
a thread out there called dead Internet theory most of
the Internet is fake, and that was on the forum,
Gore Wrote's Macintosh Cafe and writing about the theory for
The Atlantic, Caitlyn Tiffany described the post as the ertext
setting the shape of the theory to come, and she
even managed to contact the original poster was a California

(18:45):
man who claimed to earnestly.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
Believe the words that he.

Speaker 1 (18:49):
Wrote in his post describes a sense of an unease, paranoia, loneliness,
deep disappointment at the state of the modern Internet, and
he suggested or theorized that AI had successfully drowned out
the majority of online human activity, reshaping the Internet into
a more controlled, algorithmic form that exists basically only to

(19:11):
sell products and ideas. But the theory goes further than
simply condemning today's.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
Internet is dull, corporate slop.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
The post suggests that we rarely interact with real humans
on the Internet, or even see posts created by them,
and he delves into some strange ideas, suggesting the popularity
of such memes as raptor Jesus, the Bachelor frog, Hey
the fra ag. Those things our evidence of an evolving
AI life form changing its shape. If that sounds a

(19:40):
little weird for you, I'll get into why that is,
shortly the post, which was written back in twenty twenty one,
before the commercial release of chat GPT, before AI, had
becomes such a hot topic. Although sort of always a
subject to speculation and discussion, now the theory has become
something of a meme and semieronic description of the Internet,

(20:03):
right people, you know, dead internet theory is something when
you see obvious bots, people post the dead Internet theory
and there you go. And last week, the dead edit
theory was widely cited after a post on Twitter drew
attention to the platform's bot infestation. A popular post on
Twitter comparing the sound of Kazak to a diesel engine

(20:24):
trying to start in winter sat at twenty four thousand
likes and two thousand reposts, and whether the caption is
relevant is sort of difficult to say, as the video
was mistakenly uploaded with no audio, so many users assumed bots.

Speaker 2 (20:43):
Were mindlessly liking the post.

Speaker 1 (20:45):
One of the people underneath the post, realise is, had
posted the twenty thousand likes on a video that doesn't
have sound. This website is so cooked, you know, just
as evidence, and this led Twitter users to repost the
video declare the site you know it cooked quote unquote. Nowadays,
it's a common talking point on Twitter. Regular Twitter users

(21:08):
have long been complaining about the amount of inane, irrelevant,
and clearly AI generator replies that.

Speaker 2 (21:14):
Have infested it.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
Especially lately, a swarm of bots have descended on the site,
turning reply chains into endless, pointless pleasantries between no one.
It's a bunch of bots talking to each other, and
we've seen that several times over. I pulled up some
examples here, Cat and Bars said, X, It's like Twitter,

(21:37):
except anytime you post your replies immediately start to fill
up with scam accounts, spam accounts, and cryptobots pretending to
be real accounts, and then somebody immediately replies, but have
you heard the good news about bitcoin?

Speaker 2 (21:48):
So it's just funny to watch now.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
Although Twitter users still managed to find witty and weird
replies from fellow humans, the proliferation of bots is it
is affecting the end user experience, and others have noted
it not just Twitter. Generator of AI is being used
to auto field product descriptions names on Amazon. For several months,
artists and writers have lamented that the Internet is being
filled with AI generating pictures that have no value beyond novelty,

(22:13):
AI generated writing that absolutely no one wants to read.
The Libertarian Shipwreck said, the AI apocalypse doesn't look like Terminator.
It looks like society is being battered by waves of
AI generated misinformation and gibberish until the sense of reality
breaks down and those societies drowned in an ocean of
AI generated nonsense. And quotes a passage that was written

(22:39):
as AI generated fiction purporting to be a real book,
and it's absolute nonsense. The rapid accumulation of AI generated
garbage was predicted by critics the moment that technology was introduced.
Those predictions are frankly coming to fruition, like the great
plastic garbage patch that floats on the surface of the
Ocean and the Pacific.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
The AI generated.

Speaker 1 (22:59):
Slop starting to rise to the top, though, and this
is becoming a problem, and it's not quite dead in
a theory. Humans are still providing the majority of content
and conversation on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, TikTok, etc. But it
seems as though the conspiracy theory could become depressingly close
to reality these days. There are bots out there, but
the theory does not describe the Internet.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
Of today, let alone twenty twenty one.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
Social media sites have always taken measures to try to
block spambots that still do even as the bots are
evolving aided by generator AI at the moment general that
is not capable of creating good content by itself, simply
because AI cannot understand context, and that's been the gatekeeper.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
In these sort of situations.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
At the vast majority of posts that go viral, which
are unhinged opinions, witticisms so stude observations or reframing of
the familiar in a new context, etc.

Speaker 2 (23:54):
Or not AI generated.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
But the Internet might feel boring, broken, spammy algorithmic, but
we're not drifting alone in the sea of electronic non
playable characters. Other than reposting content made by people. Bots
don't lead the Internet in the way the theory suggest
influencers do, and the bots follow their lead. So these,

(24:17):
you know, as aforementioned witty, weird commentary, willful misinterpretations, personal
attacks on hinge opinions, all that kind of stuff that
goes viral and fuel online discourse, are still flowing from
human users, but the AI generated garbage surrounding it appears
to be increasing and So this is what we saw
from Fortune magazine who did this this article and had

(24:38):
this this cybersecurity company showing that something that almost half
of traffic on most social media sites was bot generated,
up to seventy five percent, seventy four point six percent
on Twitter, seventy four point six percent of traffic generated

(25:00):
measure traffic generated was bot originated. It was just a
mindless reply bot sitting in there, putting mindless garbage out there.
And I think that that's a byproduct of the system
we have in place. For most people who get paid
by Twitter, and in the interest of full disclosure, I
do as I do. The premise of getting paid is

(25:22):
driven by views, and so people do whatever it takes
simply to maximize those views, not really caring about the
rest of it. They don't really care about content, don't
really care about being correct, don't really care about.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
Those kinds of things.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
And you see this a lot, especially in somewhat sports,
but especially in politics. You see quite a bit of
it with these these pseudo political influencer accounts that don't
really have any connection to anything important. They've never done
anything in their life but build a brand, and you
see it. You know, specifically on the left the Crescentstein's
Harry Sisson than the new one. The guy's last name

(26:01):
starts with the K, can't think of it, purports to
be a financial guy. Know, there's no experience in finance,
and and and they've crafted these things and the entire
premise behind their account is to drive engagement. Now you
see it on the right wing as well, with these
these garbage accounts too. Gunthor eagleman Is who's one, for instance,
has no you know, it's it's just an engagement bet account.
It has no connection to anything realistic. And so that's

(26:24):
that's what uh, these things do. And it's sort of
crafted and Internet that that is really just just built
to put out misrepresentations, have a bunch of bots feed
off that and amplify it, and and then turn around
and and make money, rake the money off the views
that they get from these kinds of things. And to me,

(26:45):
that's that's a depressing thing. I mean, how much of
our uh so much of our lives are fueled by
online interaction. How much of that interaction is even real
at this point? Uh, And so that's that's one of
those things that I maybe it maybe for me.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
It's depressing. Maybe it's not for you. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
But there's a lot of great studies. My good friend
Leland Conway used to work over at k How We
do a YouTube show, Twisted View, Get the Chance, talk
a lot about politics, pop culture and things like that.
We were talking about this the other day. I read
a great study something like this was sixty eight percent
of men up to the age of eighteen to thirty
four have never asked a woman.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
Out in person. That blew my mind.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
Because the invention of all the dating apps and everything else,
they just they do it through a computer screen. Now
they just you know, have never have never sat in
a bar, just hey, you want to go grab a
drink sometime, any that kind of stuff.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
Something like almost seventy.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
Percent of man eighteen to thirty four have never asked
a woman out of person. That is a mind blowing
number for me. And so so much of our lives
and our daily interactions and everything you have to do
with online, whether it's email, chats or zoom or teams.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Now with those you get the video component.

Speaker 1 (27:57):
And there's an element of free interaction, but so much
of that is so much of our lives are engulfed
in that and to find out that so much of
this traffic is not real, I don't know, blows my mind.
So you guys, I don't know if that's a topic
you guys want to get into a lot of tweets
coming in excuse me, text coming in on the text line.
Hopefully you guys aren't pots talking about the tariffs, so

(28:19):
we'll probably pivot back to that top of the hour.
I know we'll have Brandi Kristal, our former colleague, will
be on about ten to fifteen talk a little bit
of Camp. Ryan's going to be on right Edwards will
be on ten thirty. Get a little chance to talk
about Broncos here in the next hour. But I wanted
two as I'm filling in for Ross to a little
bit of Ross's show as well. Five six six nine
zero is the text line three zero three.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Man, you nailed it.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
I'm an importer of high precision C and C gear, gearboxes,
et cetera, machining equipment, none of which has made in
the States, been made in Germany, Switzerland, Korea for one
hundred years, will never be made here. One small examples
when GM buys one of our machines and has to
pay these tariffs, which of course they aggressively resist. Then
those costs get passed down the line. Trust me, the
general public has not seen the full effing to these
tariffs on pricing yet, but they will soon.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
This is one very small example of.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
How it is affecting business and may knock us out.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
Well.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Yeah, and that's that's what I was trying to get
to with components and stuff. And I appreciate you texting
in there and and and affirming that. I think if
you look at the forward looking data on this the
tariffs a lot of this stuff, people are like, well,
prices haven't risen that much so far, And that's true.
They have risen, but they haven't risen that much so far,
And that's true largely because you're dealing currently with pre
tariff inventory, right A lot of these companies had existing

(29:30):
inventory that that they got it costs before these tariffs
were added in, and so they're selling that right now
and not having to pass.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
The cost along. You look at the third and fourth
quarter data forward leaning.

Speaker 1 (29:39):
Data on this stuff, though, and it definitely suggests that
price ice are coming specifically in Q four, you know,
And and and that's one of those things I worry about.
You know, we're talking a little bit in the in
the last segment, how I tend to err on the
side of okay, is this going to maintain.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Affordability for the least of us? Well, you're talking about
the Christmas season, the buying season.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
You know, these people going to be able to afford
those kinds of things, and that's tends to be more.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
My worry is on that one of the texters.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
To text it in and say, you know, it said
that high income people pay most of the taxes, And
you're right, and I do, and I want my taxes
to be lower.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
I do, don't get me wrong.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
But at the same time, like I understand there's an
equitability to this too, Like I make more, I have
a bigger social responsibility to be able to have to
pay a little bit more. That's as part of the deal.
I accept that as part of the thing. Now, don't
get me wrong. I want my taxes to be as
low as they possibly can. I want government to be
as cheap and efficient as it possibly can be. I'm
not you know, I'm not against those kinds of things,
but I understand that to reduce it to a spider

(30:40):
Man meme. Here, with great power comes great responsibility. With
enhanced wealth comes you know, a greater social responsibility to
be able to take care of it. I don't want
people free loading on the bottom end. We have to
find a better system and a better safety net that
allows people to pick themselves back up and become contributing
rather than to be dead weight on that. But at

(31:00):
the same time I understand that that uh, you know,
like I said, having a little bit more uh means
that I'm going to have a little bit more responsibility,
you know, in the in the social space. So that's
that's that's just And again that's my take on it.
You guys don't have to feel the same way. It's
just the way that that I do. Seven too, I

(31:22):
love the people who hate tariffs, hate debt, hate taxes,
but want the debt paid off somehow. Well, I mean,
that's that's sort of the problem here, though, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
I Mean, that's the thing.

Speaker 1 (31:30):
We we all want the debt paid off, but none
of us want to pay it, and so that that's
the thing. But we have to find a way. My
thing is that we have to pay it.

Speaker 2 (31:39):
All. We do have to pay it off. We got
to pay this debt off.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
We've got to get we've got to figure out a way
to get it under control and get it paid off.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
And and part of that's going to be significantly reduced
government spending.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
I mean that that is part of it.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
But the way in which we do it, I think
is where uh, there's agreement or disagreement in some of
these cases. Like for me personally, I don't like the
idea of passing that bet along or at least passing
the brunt of paying.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
That back to the least of us. We've got to find.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
Ways to continue to allow the least of us to
be able to pick themselves up by the bootstraps while
those of us who have been able to do so.
And I say that coming from you know, I know
what it's like to be dirt poor.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
I know what it's like to wonder where your.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
Next meal is coming from.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
I do. And those of you who know me into
my backstory will know some of that.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
But you know, you have to find ways to be
able to You can't keep that mechanism by placing the
burden of paying this debt back on the least of us,
because again, all we're doing. When you do that and
those people can't afford ultimately to buy products, well, then
what happens, Well, then business slows down because they're not
having as much product bought by those people who need.

(32:47):
We need to be able to do that. You have
to balance that. You have to balance the inherent inflation
that comes from that by placing more money back into
the porest among us hands. Which is why, in my opinion,
the way to do that with the the least or
the lower income brackets is with tax rebates, you know,
and that will help rather than placing money back in

(33:09):
their hands. It reduces the burden that they have and
then it doesn't erode the purchasing power.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
And that's something we can get into another time.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
I don't have a ton of time, uh to be
able to get into that five six, six, nine zeros
of text I read. It has a lot of bots,
and many moderators remove content for stupid reason.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
I'm not a big Reddit user. I haven't been.

Speaker 1 (33:26):
That's that's one of those things I wish that I were.
I used Twitter a ton, but I've not been the
biggest Reddit user in the world. Uh, So I'm not
familiar with that I'll have to I have to look
at that. I just know that on my like for instance,
with Twitter, so much fake and fallse spam, uh, interaction
from these bots, and it is it's something that for me,

(33:49):
and it reduces the experience, you know, it's uh, it's
it's it degrades the user experience because I don't know.

Speaker 2 (33:58):
I tried.

Speaker 1 (33:59):
I built my Twitter audience, which is looking right here,
two hundred and twelve thousand followers. I built it retail,
I built it by interactivity, and so now so much
of the responses are dominated by bots and meaningless. Like
I don't want to respond to that. I don't want
to feed into that. I don't want to I want
to respond to real people. That's part of the reason

(34:19):
I'm even in this industry. You know, I've been retired
for a while. I enjoy interacting with people. I enjoyed learning,
I enjoy entertaining, and so for me, wasting that time
on bots is you know, it's not something that I
think that I want.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
To contribute to. I want to find a way to
diminish them. Two on four, What.

Speaker 1 (34:39):
Gets me is how many people engage with and think
these crazy AI stories and photos are real.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Yeah, on Facebook. I see it all the time.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
People they these stories are designed, they're made up. There
was a bunch of them with the Broncos players don't
money or the coach or the ownership here denouncing woke
stuff or something, and they're totally fake stories. But that's
what they're designed to do, design to hit on a
preconception that you have and get you to amplify them
for whatever they're for, whatever their ends are. Three oh

(35:07):
three is this Ben Albright? I never knew he was
a genius like Ross. You know, I like to think
I'm fairly intelligent, but you know, you start thinking you're
the smartest guy in the room, and that usually means
you're the you're the.

Speaker 2 (35:18):
Mark, So you never want to go that far with it.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
Seven twolve good points you make on the economic report.
It's only one quarter, and these are not the revised numbers.
I think they often change when the final report comes
out later. Yeah. Yeah, we saw that with the jobs
report today. You know how they were revised down the
rosy government numbers. And this administration is not the first administration.
The last one did it too, to have rosier numbers
in the actual picture. But we'll get into that a
little bit later, you guys, listen to Roskaminski Show and

(35:43):
Benjamin all Bright filling in.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
We got to hit a break.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
We'll be back right here on koa Kwait Training campowered
by Chevron, committed to our local communities and safely delivering affordable,
reliable energy that powers Colorado Forward. Had a lot of
fun talking to you guys about the data, Internet theory,
last last segment, jobs report, and a lot of the
economics and the tariff stuff that's going on. Five six
six nine zero is the text line. A couple of

(36:05):
great text coming in here. Good morning, Benjamin. Don't think
I've heard you fill in for us before. Welcome to
the Jungle. I appreciate it. I love get a chance
to fill in for Ross. Three six oh been, always
appreciate you. Filling in for Ross genuinely feels like a.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
Very similar show. That's a compliment down the middle.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
Topics and conversations, fun nerdy sports, random things.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
Keep it up.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Wet blanket all Bright, Hopefully we'll get rid of that
wet blanket all For those of you don't get that,
that's a Broncos reference from me being a bit dour
at times.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
On some of the Broncos three oh three.

Speaker 1 (36:31):
Benjamin addressed the massive trade imbalance with China, how that
affects our national security?

Speaker 2 (36:35):
Your solution?

Speaker 1 (36:36):
Thanks, enjoy the discussion. I will get into that in
the next hour. And you know, for my bones to
pick with Trump, that's one I tend to agree with
him on almost poleheartedly. The trade imbalance with Chinese is
the one imbalance you do need to kind of keep
your eye on, and that does affect our national security.
We can get into that a little bit later. We're
going to talk with our own Zach singers here talk
a little bit about Broncos here since we're down here

(36:56):
at Broncos training cab Zach, how you.

Speaker 2 (36:58):
Doing doing great? The real serious stuff, Yeah, the real series, the.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
Hard hitting, big j journalism that we're that we're doing
out here. The Broncos says, to get warmed up out
here on the on the field. What what have you
felt out of this training camp so far? What have
you seen out of this team so far as compared
to last year.

Speaker 5 (37:15):
Well, I feel like Nick Ferguson and Nick Cosmonder and
I might be fighting over a paycheck because I'm also
on the Troy Franklin train here?

Speaker 2 (37:23):
Are you are you his agent?

Speaker 1 (37:24):
As I give Nick Ferguson my partner broke this country
like quite a bit of guff since he's hyping up
Troy Franklin calling him his agent and he's getting a
fee getting the kickback?

Speaker 2 (37:32):
Are you are you getting a kickback on Troy Franklin? Cot.

Speaker 5 (37:34):
I know you were battling Scarlett fever over the past week,
but he's been tearing it up with Bella and I
know you know it's it's training camp. We have to
see it come to fruition in more meaningful settings. But
like he struggled with last training camp, I think everyone
will remember he was maybe the roughest receiver out here.

Speaker 2 (37:52):
He was constantly in the doghouse.

Speaker 5 (37:54):
You could see him tumbling down the depth chart throughout
training camp.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
And it's been the exact opposite.

Speaker 5 (37:59):
It seems like, if anything, he's he's climbing up through
the ranks and he just keeps having speed, He keeps
stacking strong days, and I think everything that was a
major deficiency for him last year seems to at least
have improved to a respectable ability. I have yet to
see him drop a pass thrown his way. He's the
only in completions I've seen were like Riley Moss breaking

(38:19):
up a pass and he had a couple on the
sidelines where the defender was right there. It got bobbled
up and he came down with the ball. It was
just out of bounds. But the problem last year wasn't
you know, struggling to keep his feet in bounds. He
was struggling to catch the ball. And he seems to
have mastered that at least well. Yeah, and he kind
of reminded you of his namesake.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Troy Franklin reminds you a little bit of Clifford Franklin
from the Replacements movie, the movie starring Keanu Reeves where
had old speed in the world, but they had to
put the elephant uh you know what on his uh
on his elephant clue on his gloves in order to
make him catch a football because he couldn't catch.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
And that was sort of the thing with Troy last year.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
You know, as a guy you saw you saw the speed,
saw the athleticism, but uh, it was a guy that
had struggled with concentration, hit some some drops with her
that was in training camp, was in games.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
We saw it play itself out in games as well.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Good to see that he's you know that he's looked
a little bit better this training camp and hopefully he'll
be able to get that career on track.

Speaker 2 (39:08):
Of course, he had the great synergy with.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
Bo back there at Oregon. Hell has Bow looked so
far through this training camp to you, he's been a guy.
He's going into a second year here. Things should seem
a little more fluid.

Speaker 5 (39:21):
Yeah, And I think it does. I think it looks fluid.
It looks more intentional all of his decisions. I think
it last year, even like past training camp, I think
it was for a lot of the season a rookie
trying to come up with the answers as the problems
were thrown at him, you know, like laying the track down.

Speaker 1 (39:38):
As the cart ran over it Looney Tunes style. And
this year it's more he already has the answers to
the test. He's been in this system for a year
and it's the first time in a long time he's
been able to build on top of a foundation. It's
the first time since high school where he has the
same offensive coordinator, play caller, offensive play caller that he
had the prior season, and I think that allows him

(40:01):
also a lot of the same weapons. That has been
a revolving door for him, and I think you're seeing
him built that chemistry with these guys. There's a saying
we had when I was in the Army and that
the slowest smooth, smooth as fast, right, And that's what
that really means is as you start practicing the thing
correctly and doing it, you know, at the lowest, you know,
at a lower rate of speed, it starts.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
To naturally pick up.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
You naturally get the right habits and you stop thinking
about all the things that go into something, and it
speeds up, and then you eventually get a core competency
and after that excellence. Peyton Manning used to have that
mantra you know, early on, especially in his career with
the Colts, and you see that is it is bou
kind of that guy where you see him like just
doing things the right way and it just naturally starts
to speed up as he thinks about it less.

Speaker 5 (40:43):
Yeah, I think so, And that that constant improvement, I
think is an underrated skill in the NFL.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
You don't see consistent improvement from a lot of guys.

Speaker 5 (40:51):
Plenty of guys Plateau, I think and Drew Locke is
guilty of that in bow Nicks.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Seeing him work some red zone stuff right now, I
guess they're just walking through, yeah, right here in front
of us.

Speaker 5 (41:00):
But I think he just continues to look smoother and smoother,
And I think having you know, Sean Payton at the
helm of that, he continues to infuse him with confidence.
You know, he's a pretty gruff, hardline coach. I think
the one guy he.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
Consistently heaps praise on is Bownecks.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
Well, Zach, we gotta hit a break here just a minute.
I appreciate you coming out. You're gonna be producing for Mandy,
and appreciate you filling in for me on Broncos Country
Night while I was out.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
With the Black Death. Yeah, and then I'll be back
in tonight after the Rockies. There you go. Well see you.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Guys can hear Zach right here on kaa at Zach Segers.
We always appreciate it having him. We gotta hit another
break when we come back.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Our old friend.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
Brady Christal gonna join us over there at Gorilla Sports.
Now he's gonna sit in here and talk about what
he's seen out here at training Camp. You guys are
listening to Rosskaminski show here on Kawa Kawait Training Camp.
Power by Chevron, committed to our local communities and safely
delivering affordable, reliable energy that powers Colorado forward. Thanks to
Zach Seegers for stepping in there in the last time
we talk a little bit of broncos I want to

(41:58):
get back to the text line here and you guys
talk about that trade imbalance with China.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
We can get into that. The three ozho three one.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
Minute of ban I heard had more than more information
than three years of CNBC. Well, all right, I don't
I don't really watch much CNBC, but I certainly appreciate
the uh the compliment there. The earlier the three oh
three different threell three said, address the massive trade imbalance
with China and how that affects our national security, your solution.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Thanks, enjoy the discussion. Well, as far as.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
Solutions, I'll be a little short on that, but I
will tell you the impediments to those solutions. For those
who don't understand US trade deficit with China, which has
been a long standing issue. The US buy is significantly
more from China than we sell to them. In twenty
twenty two, that deficit was three hundred and eighty two billion.
It decreased in twenty twenty three to two hundred seventy
nine billion, but it's still it's still a massive imbalance.

(42:53):
And the reason for that is is China is sort
of the opposite of us. They are an export oriented economy.
They've actively pursued policies to boot boot exports, including subsidies
and a focus on onshoreing manufacturing. But the main part
of that, I'll get it a couple other things, you know,
market access, state, capitalist, whatever, The main part of it
is currency manipulation. China has two currencies, the off shore

(43:13):
and the on shore one, and what that allows them
to do is devalue or increase the value on one
or both of those currencies to move around UH and
and and continue their sort.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
Of trade war against well, the rest of the world.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
But it it it allows them to make its exports
cheaper than they should be because they can deflate their
dollar without having as much impact due to the dual
currency system, and that's something that we can't compete with.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
They've they've sort of.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
Created a system that makes this makes it nearly impossible
for us to compete with that.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
We have several barriers to be able to get into that.
I don't have enough time right now left to those
segments to really really get into that. But that's to me,
that's the biggest.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
Part of that, the fact that no matter what we do,
they still have uh, the currency manipulation in their back
pocket that allows them to do a lot of It
allows them to get away with a lot of what
it is that they try to do. Why does this
matter to the United States? You know, job losses, The
influx of cheaper Chinese good you know, could lead to

(44:18):
job losses in US manufacturing.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
That's that should be fairly obvious.

Speaker 1 (44:21):
A large trade effosite can make a country more vulnerable
to economic shops and UH and disruption of global supply
chain UH, which we you know, that was one of
those things we saw, you know during COVID is the
you know, the supply the logistics and supply chain issues,
UH and and what that led to the economic shock
there and the hyperinflation UH on the back end. In fact,
somebody had a great text earlier about energy and the

(44:44):
right reducing energy costs reduces costs around the world, and
that that's another part of that we can get into
a little bit later. And then there's a you know,
the national security impact of this is the text A
pointed out, and you know, an increase reliance on China
for UH article goods like you know, semiconductors, clean energy technology,
they raise national security concerns and so there there is UH,

(45:08):
there is definitely a concern with that.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
The the US China.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
Trade relationship is a major factor in global trade and balances,
and UH its impact extends to other countries, especially those
relying on UH Chinese supply chains. And that's why you've
seen you know, the the India, Russia, Vietnam, you know,
tariff situation because what people have done to get around
that as these things have ramped up is attempt to

(45:34):
use them as a middleman importer UH to get around
some of these terraffs, and that's something that they're you know,
that they're working on as well. And we can get
into that a little bit more in the next segment.
I might have Ryan Edwards in for a few minutes
talk a little bit more about the Broncos, and we'll
get back into why UH and how people are China's
using these other countries to middleman UH and and get

(45:56):
around some of these tariffs, and and why it's a problem.
We can deal a little bit deeper on that. I
don't That's the thing. The text are asked for a solution.
I don't have a solution to that. I understand, and
I recognize the problem. I recognize that the solution that
we've we've posited so far is not a realistic solution.
But as long as China has the ability to manipulate currency,

(46:18):
we we're you know, we're batting from with two strikes.
We're coming up to the play with two strikes on
us already. So that creates a problem.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
We got to hit a break.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
We come back, We talk a little bit with Ryan
Edwards about what he's seen down here at Broncos camp
so far. Guys, listen to Ka Roussinski show. Benjamin all right,
Philly it we'll be back out here at Broncos training
camp and we're gonna Ryan Edwards. I wanted to talk
a little bit economics, trade deficit security in China, so
we brought on Ryan.

Speaker 2 (46:44):
No, we did not bring out you and off for that.

Speaker 4 (46:45):
Well, No, I'm really glad you obviously lean into some
of my background. But you know, again, I'm not here
for that. You know that I'm here to talk about
the Broncos. So maybe that's something we'll do off air,
but I appreciate you thinking of me.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
That's that's what we do here.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
We'll get back into that actually here a little bit
later in this segment.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
I want to continue this discussion on.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
China and what the deficit with them means in terms
of national security and solutions. And we appreciate you guys listening.
But we are out here at Broncos Campuball.

Speaker 2 (47:16):
We're out here.

Speaker 1 (47:17):
It only makes sense to talk about these very Broncos
first playoff berth in nearly a decade this past season,
high expectations for the team this year. Do you think
that it's possible or even probable that they win the
AFC West of What are the odds of a return
back to the playoffs with a team that looks to
be building on its successes last year.

Speaker 4 (47:36):
Well, they certainly are confident out here, and this is
probably the most confident I've seen both sides of the
ball in.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
About a decade.

Speaker 4 (47:44):
I mean to be honest, I mean I'd say maybe
there was a blip in there.

Speaker 3 (47:46):
With the Russell Wilson season.

Speaker 4 (47:48):
So I'm not going to completely say that that didn't exist,
even though I want to block it out of my mind.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
But that season, we came into it with a lot
of expectations.

Speaker 4 (47:56):
The defense was still pretty good, and you thought, Okay,
Russell Wilson's and the missing piece. Obviously that didn't work out,
and a lot of the expectations and things we thought
Nathaniel Hackett was gonna bring did not happen. But you know,
you sort of fast forward from that, and bo Nix
looks like, at least from his floor in his first season,
especially after the first few games, it's hard to picture

(48:17):
your mind him completely falling off. Maybe there's some regression,
maybe there's some things that he doesn't do quite as well. Maybe,
I mean, that's always a possibility, but I have a
hard time believing that he just completely falls off.

Speaker 3 (48:28):
They're gonna have.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
A better run game, which is gonna help support him,
and I like what they're doing with the offensive line
going a little bit more wide zone. I think that's
gonna be a better identity for that group. And then again,
the defense just on not only on paper, but what
we've seen out here in practice every single day for
the last week or so has been nothing.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
Short of tremendous. So there's a lot of reason for optimism.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
To your point about the division, I mean, it's sort
of a we'll see, you know, Steve Attwater line.

Speaker 3 (48:53):
We'll see.

Speaker 2 (48:54):
But if they get into.

Speaker 4 (48:56):
The mix of the playoffs, I'll just say it like this,
this very dangerous team.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
Yeah, you talked about the run game, and to that end,
they they they've certainly made a commitment to that this offseason.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
You look at bringing in JK.

Speaker 1 (49:08):
Dobbins, a free agent from the rival Chargers, You draft RJ. Harvey,
the running back out of Central Florida. Javontay Williams has
gone now with the Dallas Cowboys. This running game is
ostensibly revamped. And you mentioned the wide zone, which is
a departure from what they did last year. A lot
of power gap type stuff running between the big ups.
You know, is this I don't want to say that

(49:30):
this is a throwback to the Shanahan days. Obviously it's
not going to be with when you see, you know,
four receivers out there, a lot with with what Sean
Payton likes to do. But we could see maybe a
return to more of the ground game.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
Does that cut into Bonix's.

Speaker 4 (49:45):
Numbers, I mean it could, but it could also support it.
I mean that there's certainly room for growth of the offense.
It's not like they were the number one offense and
you're trying to repeat those numbers. I remember us always
talking about on Broncos Country Tonight, where Alex Smith took
over for the Chiefs offense that was already number one
in the league. So Patrick Mahomes certainly did more with
the offense, but there was only room to grow so much,

(50:05):
and he still was able to do that. Obviously, he
had an MVP season there with fifty passing touchdowns.

Speaker 3 (50:11):
But yeah, I mean, I think there's still room for
him to grow.

Speaker 4 (50:14):
And the fact is is he could eclipse thirty five
passing touchdowns and the running game be better, you know what
I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (50:20):
Like, they can be better in the red zone. They
weren't one of the best red zone teams last year.

Speaker 4 (50:24):
He was one of the best red zone quarterbacks, but
they as a team really struggled to run the ball
in the red zone. So I think it all can
kind of be very complimentary without taking away from both well, I.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
Think had some great strengths last year, gets rid of
the ball quickly, doesn't take a lot of sacks, sort
of the anti Russell Wilson in that regard.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
But what would you say is the area of his
game he most needs to improve?

Speaker 3 (50:44):
Well, I'd like to see.

Speaker 4 (50:46):
I mean, he was one of the if not the
best quarterback throwing on the run, and that's a great
thing to do.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
You already have that tool in your tool belt.

Speaker 4 (50:54):
So now it's kind of like, okay, well, can you
show some competency in the pocket. Can you nowhere your
receivers are going to be without having to break contain
and do something magical there?

Speaker 3 (51:04):
Now, you're right, he got rid of the ball fast.

Speaker 4 (51:06):
He was elusive, but not running away from the play
or fading away and then taking really bad sacks and
ended up killing drives. So continue with those things. So
one of those things like, hey, you did some things
really well. Continue to sharpen those tools. But then let's
add this other dimension where from the pocket you can
sort of diagnose and see things before they play out.

(51:27):
I felt like at times last year he did rely
on his athleticism to bail him out. It's not such
a bad thing when you're a rookie, but as you
continue to grow in the league, you need more.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
We saw the Broncos get the deal done with Courtland Sutton.
He left a little money on the table to come
back and be probably a Bronco for life, you know,
at least that's the phrasing right now. A couple other
contracts out there, Zach Allen probably getting done here soon.
But Nick Benitos just kind of riding the market out.
And we saw this morning reports out there that the
relationship between Michael Parsons and Dallas Cowboys had started to

(52:01):
several people tweeting me today suggesting that the Broncos should
dangle Nick Benito from Michael Parsons. And while Parsons would
be a fit here, I'm not sure Nick Benito would
really be much of a fit in what Dallas does.
They're on defense with his hand in the dirt. But
what do you think about that idea? Do you think
the Broncos should get Benito done? Is he doing the
right thing waiting on the market, you know, for himself,

(52:22):
and how do you think that ends up?

Speaker 4 (52:24):
You know, I think it sounds like like a fun
Madden trade. He doesn't sound like real life. He would
certainly be an admission from Jerry Jones that they messed
that up, and he isn't quite willing.

Speaker 3 (52:34):
To admit that.

Speaker 4 (52:36):
But yeah, I do think that you want to take
care of your guys, especially the homegrown players, and it
really goes a long way in the locker room when
a guy performs to a certain level that take care
of those guys does Zach Allen, of course, is not homegrown.
You acquire him free agency, but he's sort of assimilated
to this team. He's a leader on this team as
a captain. So I think that that one, as you mentioned,

(52:56):
will probably get done. The Nick Benito one that is
a little more fascinating. Again, I think it would go
a long way for the locker room to see him
rewarded for the play that he has. And it's not
really just the one year wonder. I know we talked
about that sometimes as the thirteen and a half sack explosion,
but he was he built from an eight sack season
the year before, so he's been building to this and

(53:17):
if he puts up a fifteen sacks season, then he
is going to probably want thirty plus thirty five million
in that range, and that's going to get more expensive
as long as you wait. So if the Broncos can
somehow get this thing done in the twenty five to
twenty eight range, now I'd probably go ahead and pull
the trigger.

Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yeah, inflation just and out there on the you know,
on the products out there. It's on the products here
in the field. The contracts only go up as far
as that kind of stuff goes. We saw Johnny Walker
got hurt, someone that the Broncos had made a significant
free agent investment in. You know, when that original report
came out that they'd spend one hundred and sixty thousand
dollars on Johnny Walker, I thought this was a report

(53:55):
on Jerry Jones's drinking, But in the end it turns
out that was actually a player, and my favoritely named
player as far as that goes. As we look at
this so far, we've seen some linebacker injuries. Drake Greenlaw
pulled up, you know in yesterday, Alex Singleton back out here,
but he's got a bandage on the broken thumb. Drew
Sanders getting hurt the inside backup position, which I talked about,

(54:15):
having a lot of injuries, you know, on the show
over the last couple of weeks. I did not expect
this much injury on that. Could that be a problem
for this team this season?

Speaker 3 (54:23):
I don't think so.

Speaker 4 (54:24):
I mean, Sean was asked about that yesterday and I
kind of echo, they get a chance if you go
glass half full, which I know has not a been
all bright thing, but if you go glass half full,
blanket half dry, if you go glass half full, you'd
say this is an opportunity in training camp, especially early
in training camp, to look at your depth and to
see how they performed. Lavelle Bailey's looked sensational out here
and it's nice to see him get some extra run.

(54:46):
You're seeing Drake Greenlaw by the way out here. He's
just not in pads or helmet, but he's stretching. He
did the full stretch. He's when they did sort of
walk through seven on seven, he was out there.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
With the guy. So Sean Payton said, it's not a
series injury.

Speaker 4 (55:01):
That would back that up by the fact that he's
walking around and being out here with the guys today,
seeing Alex Singleton out here. If you have those two
guys plus Lavelle Bailey's plus Justin Sternad You're you're probably
in pretty good shape.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Final thoughts, what what are you looking forward to? And
of course next week we got a preseason game. We
had one last night with the Chargers and lines, but
we got a preseason game for the Broncos next week
against the Niners. What do you expect to see that
first preseason game?

Speaker 4 (55:24):
Well, you're gonna see a lot of the backups. Uh,
so we get we get a for it. We'll obviously
talk a lot about Park Charedce did them the all
Spark We we the all Spark nice Transformers reference.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
Yeah, so we'll we'll we'll see a lot of the backups.
I'm excited to see, even though the top six wide.

Speaker 4 (55:40):
Receivers are mostly spoken for, I am excited to see
Joking Davis, I'm excited to see Jerwan Newton, some of
these other younger receivers, see what that room is gonna
look like. Maybe in a couple of years as you're
still kind of building through some of the youth there.
But yeah, it's it's gonna be fun to watch that game.
It's always fun to watch that game. And I think
more than anything, because we've been out here a tree
camp every single day, and you want to see sort

(56:02):
of the execution of it in an actual game, even
though the game has no ultimate meaning other than some
of the plays.

Speaker 3 (56:08):
That are happening on the field. But I'm looking forward
to all that.

Speaker 4 (56:10):
And yeah, I mean, you got pads day today, so
we'll kind of see how much work they're able to
get in today. I think we're gonna have a little
bit of a mini scrimmage tomorrow when you and I
are out here from nine to news. That's right, you, Yeah,
it's gonna be. It's gonna be a fun couple of
days here. And then they got two days next week
before they head out to San Francisco.

Speaker 3 (56:24):
For their joint practice on Thursday.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
So it's kind of coming to an end training camp
in a lot of ways, or at least more than
halfway through.

Speaker 3 (56:31):
And I can't wait to watch the rest.

Speaker 1 (56:32):
Well, looking forward to it Tomorrow, nine am to noon,
right here on Kway, you and I doing training camp.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
We'll talk Broncos the whole time. We'll skip some of
this this.

Speaker 1 (56:40):
Economic stuff and and get down to brass tacks on
the serious issues that are hitting the the people where
the Broncos are at Tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (56:46):
Well, I will.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
But again, if you can somehow manufacture a dad joke
into economics, you'll you'll make it.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
I feel like we'll get an hour of Toto in
there as well if I can, if I can find
a way, you know the top Gun soundtrack, did you know?
Oh it's a little bit. Ryan appreciates you jumping on there.
I always appreciate you and look forward to talking to
you tomorrow. We'll to right here on KOA nine to noon,
myself Ryan Edwards, and of course he hosts with Dave
Logan three to six KO Sports.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
Here him a little bit later today.

Speaker 3 (57:13):
Sounds good, brother, Thanks appreciate him.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
Benjamin Albright here filling in for Ross Kaminski on The
Ross Kaminski Show five six six nine zero. Is the
text line we've been talking a little bit about. We
talked a little bit about tariffs, talked a little but
debat internet theory, the jobs report that's out and how
significantly downgraded UH that was. We've we've been talking most
recently about UH trade balances with China and why those

(57:42):
present an issue and a text or extra solution. I
don't really have, you know, a solution for that, and
I sort of explained why previously dual currency manipulation presents
a gigantic problem, which it's the Chinese have masterfully done.
Whether you're if you're not rooting for China, you can
at least recognize it. They've created given themselves an economic
tool that allows them.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
To get away with what it is they're doing.

Speaker 1 (58:05):
But the the growing US deficit since the pandemic is
obviously renewed concerns about global imbalances and is fueled an
intense debate on cause and consequence UH. They are increasing
worries that that China's external surpluses result from industrial policy
measures design to stimulate exports UH support economic growth amid

(58:30):
weak domestic demand in China. Some worry that the resulting
overcapacity could lead to kind of a China Shock two
point zero, which is a surge of exports that would
displace workers and herd industrial activity everywhere. The trade and
industrial policy view of external balances is incompleted best and

(58:51):
really what we should replace that with is more of
a macro view. External balances are are ultimately determined by
necroeconomic fundamentals, right, while the link to trade and industrial
policies is a bit more tenous.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
So to understand the pattern.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
Of global external imbalances, we need to understand the macroeconomic
drivers of desired saving relative to desired investment, not only
in China, but also the rest of the world and
including most importantly right the United States. And while the
countries contribute to global imbalances, the United States and China
together account for about one third of the global current

(59:29):
account balance. China's trade surplus increased substantially at the beginning
of the pandemic. Initial exports of medical equipment surged, consumers
around the world increased purchases of good relative services due
to social distancing, and then domestic demand in China we
can substantially starting in late twenty twenty one, following a

(59:52):
large scale property market correction and repeated lockdowns in twenty
twenty two that hurt Chinese consumer confidence. So the resulting
drag on China's real economy has been pretty significant. Investment
has contracted, household saving rates increased, and at the same
time that domestic demand in China weakened, global demand was

(01:00:13):
boosted by a significant dissaving and that's particularly here in
the United States, where the fiscal deficit grew substantially relative
to the pre pandemic era and household saving rays had here.
So the result is that China's trade ballast now stands
in between two and four percent of GDP, depending.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
On the methodology you're using.

Speaker 1 (01:00:33):
And I don't want to get too deep in the
weeds on that, but that composition reflects both weak imports
and a large rise in.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
China's global exports share.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
So the trades surplus as a share of economic output
is smaller than during the China Shock of the two thousands,
which at its peak was about ten percent of China's GDP,
but they account for a substantially larger share of the
global economy, so much so that even though It's trades

(01:01:02):
or plus is smaller relative to its economy as a
share of global output, has remained fairly stable over time,
and that's why you get spillovers from trade developments in China,
and they continue to be quite sizable for the rest
of the world. There are several analysis out there, stylized
simulations using IMFs Group of twenty model, et cetera, that

(01:01:24):
illustrate macroeconomic factors are driving these developments, and they include
negative domestic demand shocks in China, mostly due to property
market downturn and low household confidence, as well as the
desaving shock here in the US due to elevated government.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
And personal spending. So the macro view predicts that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
The out clubs pretty close to what the data shows,
largely because of weaken domestic demand. China's current account surplus
is boosted by about a one point five percent percentage points,
close to the incre seen in the data relative to
its pre pandemic level. So the persistent surge in China's
domestic savings results in a large depreciation of its real

(01:02:08):
effective exchange rate. And if I'm jargoning you guys to
death five six exten zeros a text line, you can
ask me to explain some of this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
But the.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Domestic savings rate there's resulting in a large appreciation it's
real effective exchanging that's consistent with data since twenty twenty one.
So the relative price adjustment supports export growth and depresses
important demand in China. The US presents a mirror image,
largely because of strong domestic demand. The US current account
balance deteriorates by around one percentage point in most models

(01:02:40):
close to the decrease scene, and the data relative to
its pre pandemic level, and the persistent decline in US
domestic saving has led to a rise in r US
real interest rates that broadly offsets the negative effective increased
Chinese saving.

Speaker 2 (01:02:56):
On global rates. And this draws back to what we're.

Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Talking about, with which your own power and President Trump
wanting him to cut rates versus him wanting to keep
rates steady. Right now, there are people that are are
are hurting for money or or are elockting the mortgages
behind interest rates that want that that reduced. But the
reality is if they reduce that there are broader implications.
Uh and and you know, there's there's sort of a

(01:03:19):
hyperinflation risk with with reducing those rates. That said, I
understand why President Trump wants to reduce those rates. The
main reason is that right now he needs them in
order to refinance debt. Our previous Treasury Secretary of Finance
quite a bit of debt, but high it'd done it
at higher interest rates. And now we're in a problem

(01:03:39):
where uh, you know, we've all seen balloon and debt.

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
We've all seen.

Speaker 1 (01:03:43):
Uh, you know, the the I don't want to say
claims of insolvency, but certainly the uh, the after effects
of uh, the the.

Speaker 6 (01:03:50):
Increased debt as it rises due to the rates that
we're paying on that, and President Trump wants to wants
to what's to refine the debt basically, And I get that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
I totally understand that that is something that it will
eventually have to happen, But as it sits right now,
because we're already seeing the inflationary impact of the tariffs,
the FED is less willing to reduce those rates to
create even more inflation and create a cycle of hyperinflation

(01:04:23):
because of the access to money. So these are again
compound issues. And anybody, as we point out last night,
everybody telling you if there's a simple fix or a
simple solution for any of this is the person you
should least.

Speaker 2 (01:04:34):
Trust in the room. But there are these are the
benchmarks for all this.

Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
So when people ask why aren't they doing these things,
it's not that Jerome Powell is sitting there trying to
be political or whatever is the guy was appointed by Trump.
The reality is is that there are broader implications than
just the narrow specific focus that people want these things for.
Like you listening at home may want to refinance your mortgage. Cool,
I want to save money too. Donald Trump may want

(01:05:02):
to refinance our debt cool. I would love for us
to have debt at a lower interest rate.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
That's a good thing.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
There are broader implications, however, across the market in terms
of doing that, and you know when those when these
kinds of things create these types of inflations, and when
you compound them with some of the policies we already
have again these tariffs, which you know, targeted tariffs can
be a tool to use. Broad tariffs are almost always
a disaster, and we're starting to see that again the

(01:05:28):
jobs report, We're seeing the Q three, Q four outlooks
on on price increases, those kinds of things. Broad tariff
implementation is almost always a bad thing, and we really
are seeing that the results of that are going to
be coming within the next within the next six months.
I want to get more back into this your texts
as well. Five six, six, nine zeros. The text line
Benjamin Albright sitting in for Ross Kaminski.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
Here we come back. We'll get into a.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
Little bit more of that as well as talk a
little bit more of Broncos as well in the next
hour live here for Broncos training camp.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
We gotta end up break.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
You listened to k Kwait Training Camp has powered by Chevron,
committed to our local communities and safely delivering affordable, reliable
energy that powers Colorado forward. Five six six nine zero
is the text line. A lot of great texts coming
in from you guys, and I appreciate all the feedback.
As we were out here at Broncos Camp, we'll we'll

(01:06:21):
have our old friend Bernde Cristol on here, but fifteen
to twenty minutes or so, talk a little bit about
the Broncos. I wanted to continue to talk about the
news of the day, though we got into dead internet
theory on the in the first hour.

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
Talk a little bit about job support.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
We'll get back into that here, a little bit trade
and balance in China, and then the tariff situation. We
had quite a few texts coming in here. Some of
these let's see here the seven to two to zero again.
The Fed and Fiat currency is completely evil. Private central
banking has made us debt slaves. Well, I don't know
about evil, but I will say that there there are
components to it I certainly disagree with. But it is

(01:06:57):
the system that we have now. And if you've got
a better solution. I'm all ears, I'm certainly willing to listen.
I don't know about the word evil there though, because
evil requires intent, and I don't know that that was
the intent. It's just more the result. The two on
four and this is the one I want to get to, says,
So I guess big reductions in spending are out well,

(01:07:21):
that would be I mean, there are only two ways
to solve the the.

Speaker 2 (01:07:25):
The debt issue.

Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
At the end of the day, when you boil it
all down, there are two ways to do it. One
is reduced spending, the other's increased revenue, right, and really
we need a combination of both in order to solve it.
The problem with reduction and spending is that we talk
a lot about that and then never do it. The
Doge thing was a bust, and we saw that it
was a lot of pr but the reality is they
didn't save hardly any money.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
And you know, you hit the falling out with Musk
and Trump over that.

Speaker 1 (01:07:50):
And I wholeheartedly support reducing government to the least expensive
entity that gets proper results that we can There's a
lot that we can do with that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
There's a lot of bureaucracy and government some of it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
Some things are going to run, you know, in government,
they're going to run in a deficity because it's a
service based thing and it's not a profit based mechanism.
Government is not a business, and you can't run it
the same way. But there are things that we can
do to reduce spending that we're simply not doing. And
then you know, they talk a lot. This administration particularly

(01:08:23):
has talked a lot about reductions and spending, but they're
outspending the Biden administration day to day right now. Matter
of fact, through what was it through I'd have to
go back and look, but I think it's through April
through May. They spent something like two hundred billion more
than the previous administration through the first hundred days something
like that. They're outspending day to day over the nine
of the last ten years, they are outspending day to

(01:08:44):
day what the previous administrations have. The loan exception, that
would be twenty twenty one when COVID spending by the
government was obscene and through the roof. And so that's
sort of the thing. Donald Trump talks a lot about
not spending and doing the things, but you know, the
talk versus the action don't match here.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
And and and that's that's another bone.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
That I have to pick, is because what we're seeing
here is is an increase in spending, and we're seeing
an increased tax burden on the on citizens.

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
And some of it's just stupid.

Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
I mean, we're spending we're reallocating a billion dollars from
the Sentinel program to come out to come back and
and retool uh this airplane uh that the Qatar had
been trying to give away for years and finally found
a sucker and us to take it.

Speaker 4 (01:09:32):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
We're we're spending a billion dollars retrofitting this thing and
and then Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:09:35):
Gets to keep it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
You're you're ripping off the taxpayers for a billion dollars. Man.

Speaker 2 (01:09:39):
That's that's that, ain't it? Uh? And So this is
one of those things.

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
Where when we look at these things, there are things
that we could quit spending.

Speaker 2 (01:09:46):
Money on that we're not.

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
Uh, there are and I mentioned this, there are two
ways that we can solve the deficit.

Speaker 2 (01:09:53):
One reduced spending, right.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
So there are there are ways to make things more efficient,
There are ways to cut government waste and and spending,
and we just have not done that. Despite the pr mechanism.
That was the dose thing that that ultimately fell apart.
The other is increase revenue, which they are trying. That's
the one they're trying to do. They're not decreasing spending,
but they are increasing revenue through tariffs, through taxing, you right,

(01:10:15):
indirect indirect taxes. But that alone is not going to
be nearly enough. In fact, the tariffs doesn't even cover
you know, doesn't even cover the service on debt, let alone,
the debt itself attacking the principle, which to me, if
you're going to make these trade deals, those are some
things that you should be doing as canceling debt, you know,
with some of these countries, or reducing interest if at

(01:10:37):
all possible in any cases where you can. The other
the second one, and this is going to be far
less popular, is I assume we're about to get a
lot of pushback on the text line here five six
six nine zero is to increase revenue.

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
How do you increase revenue?

Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
Right, Well, you either increase taxes or you increase the
tax base. You increase the number of people paying taxes
in effort to increase revenue. And so that's where I
think we're shooting ourselves in the foot where we're sitting
here spending billions of dollars deporting immigrants. The fiscally savvy

(01:11:12):
solution would be to amnesty everybody and add them to
the tax base immediately. That keeps your taxes at their
same level, or reduces them and increases the number of
people paying in allowing us an opportunity to increase revenue again,
which can be used for debt service and debt to
begin with.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
So there really aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:11:35):
I mean, again I said earlier, anybody who says they
have a simple solution as not somebody you should trust.
But the reality is we're constrained by what actually needs
to happen. We owe a lot of money, and we
have two ways to solve it. There aren't any other
two ways to do it. Now, how you want to
get creative with that, that's fine, But for me, I

(01:11:58):
feel like that we could stopped spending the money deporting
all these people and at the same time turn around
and add them to our tax base. And that's that's
a double net positive here in terms of attempting to
reduce the tax burden on ordinary American citizens while at
the same time reducing the expenditures from government. So that
to me, it seems like the Trump administration is shooting

(01:12:19):
itself in the foot with that particular policy. There are
several other people out their job creation. It creates an
increased tax pace, sure does, but we're not in a
job creation mode where loop or hemorrhaging jobs.

Speaker 2 (01:12:31):
The job report that came out today, I went back.

Speaker 1 (01:12:33):
And severely revised the rosy White House numbers that were
out there. And I don't want to sit there and
pick on the Trump administration because of by an administration
put some some rosie numbers out there that got down
great as well. But at the same time, I you know, again,
yes it does. Creating jobs does, but how do you
create jobs. Well, you expand the number of citizens that

(01:12:53):
you have, and all of a sudden good and services
need to increase, and by by default, you do that.
So again, I know everybody hates me talking about amnesty,
but it's the smart economic move in terms of increasing
your tax base, increasing job creation, increasing services creation, and
reducing government spending. It's the one thing that encompasses all
those right now. So just my two cents on that.

(01:13:17):
Let's see we got seven two go back to Boulder.
You need to talk about football and not politics.

Speaker 2 (01:13:21):
Police.

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
Well, I'm not talking about politics, talking about economics. But
thank you for them.

Speaker 2 (01:13:25):
Nine to seven. Oh, we're cutting so much government waste.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
I don't think you understand President Trump is having to
fix the last four years that was a dumpster fire. Well,
we're really not cutting government waste. We're we're spending more
than we did under that administration. I would love for
us to be cutting government waste. But again, the dose
thing was basically pr It didn't cut the numbers that
everybody said it did. It was great in theory, but
it didn't do what it needed to do, and so

(01:13:48):
we we've not followed through on that promise. We've also
you know, it wasn't just the last four It's been
a long a long time coming.

Speaker 2 (01:13:58):
It's not just the last four year years.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
I mean the Trump administration Trump won was one of
the worst administrations in history in terms of being a uh,
in terms of government spending. That that's a problem with
it even uh and apparently Trump supporters is not willing
to admit.

Speaker 2 (01:14:12):
But you can just go back with the data. I mean,
it's as clear as day.

Speaker 1 (01:14:15):
The Biden administration was terrible, and Trump somehow was as
bad or worse in cases.

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
So those are things out of control.

Speaker 1 (01:14:21):
Government spending is a problem and continues to be a problem, uh,
and we're not going to solve that until we a
reduce spending and b raise revenue.

Speaker 2 (01:14:29):
And so at the end of the day, those are
the things that we have to do.

Speaker 1 (01:14:33):
However, you however you want to come to that, however
we want to come to that, you know, those are
those are.

Speaker 2 (01:14:40):
The ways that we we have to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:42):
A lot of texts coming in and of course a
lot of people don't want to do the amnesty thing
because and you know, I knew that was uh, that
was going to be there, but we did some complements
three h three Benjamin A while, so nice to hear
someone on the station speak the truth about the administration
besides the Morning News nine to seven zero. You realize
we wouldn't have to spend all the money deporting that
weren't allowed here in the first place by Joe Biden. Well,

(01:15:04):
whoever you want to attribute that to. What I'm saying
is we need to welcome them in. We have to
grow the tax base, like again, in order to circumvent
this you either have to raise taxes. You have to
raise revenue. So you either have to raise taxes or
increase your tax base in order to do that. And
I'm saying, let's not raise taxes, Let's raise the tax base.
Let's increase increase the number of people that are paying in.

(01:15:27):
Let's let's let's cut subsidies on subsidizement being here illegally,
amnesty of them, get them in here legally and get
them paying, whether that's through UH and you know these
tariffs and a national sales tax, or whether that's through
an income tax or both, in whatever way, that's how
you have to raise revenue.

Speaker 2 (01:15:41):
We got a break, We.

Speaker 1 (01:15:42):
Come back breandany Cristeal is going to join us to
tuck a little bit of Broncos and we'll finish this
discussion out at the at the bottom of the r
I do appreciate all your texts coming in and I do
want to get to those.

Speaker 2 (01:15:49):
So five six six nine zero, we're gonna ait the
break here. We'll be back KA.

Speaker 1 (01:15:52):
I'm down here at Broncos Training Camp KA Training Camp.
Power by Chevron committed to our local communities and safely
delivering affordable, reliable energy that Powers Colorado Forward.

Speaker 2 (01:16:05):
A lot of great text coming in there.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
You guys really really lit up the text line there,
and we'll get into a lot of that stuff here
again bottom of the hour. I do want to get
into because a lot of you have very strong opinions
on that proposition, which would be, you know, adding immigrants
back to the tax base in order to increase revenue
and then decrease your overall tax burd And I'll get

(01:16:28):
into we get into the Manu Shaw on that bottom
of the hour, joy real quickly. Here by Brandon Christall,
formerly here at Kay now Guerrilla Sports. As we look
out here at Broncos training camp today, day seven, back
out here in pads.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
What have you noticed so far out of this football team?

Speaker 1 (01:16:44):
Well so obviously by league rule, and maybe people don't
know this, but they can only go three days in
a row in pads.

Speaker 2 (01:16:48):
Some teams only go too.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
We remember famously Nathaniel Hackett had the regen days after
two straight days of hard practices. But yesterday they dial
it back to shells. Today they're back into full pads.
We expect a few scrimmage like situations tomorrow before the
off day Sunday, but the biggest observation to this point
we know there's still a good chunk of practice left,
at least in terms of team periods, is the defense

(01:17:10):
is ahead of the offense, certainly in the run period.
But even when they jump over here and we have
seven on seven going on in front of us, so
don't have a great vantage point for the pass rush
drills on the back side of the practice field.

Speaker 2 (01:17:21):
Is the defense was still ahead of the offense. Here.

Speaker 1 (01:17:23):
There was a bone next to lucaskroll connection early, but
that was about the only play of note with the ones,
some really sticky defense and Michael Bandy torching the third
defense from Sam Ellinger. A couple of times, Bandy seems
to be open and catches stuff throwing his way to Nott.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
He's not a big target and he's certainly not going.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
To be on the fifty three in anyone's estimation, but
he's gonna make it hard for them to not keep
him around on the practice squad again, where he's been
a part of that over the last couple of years. Yeah,
I've been obviously offensive coordinator Joel Lobardi's guy, paying back
to his time with the Chargers when Lobarti.

Speaker 2 (01:17:54):
Was there as well.

Speaker 1 (01:17:57):
As we look at this thing so far, I think
the common debate has really been more about how many
wide receivers are going to keep, how many how many
running backs are going to keep, and who those guys are.
We kind of know who the top six, you know,
wide receivers are or the sudden Marvin Mims.

Speaker 2 (01:18:12):
You know you have something on there.

Speaker 1 (01:18:13):
Okay, yeah, yeah, shocker right now, Devon Vley, Uh, you know,
Franklin in Sherfield and and Pat Bryant who was just drafted.
But after that, it's it starts to be a question mark.
You've had a couple of these undrafted guys kind of
show out, whether it's Newton Davis, you know, show out
a little bit, Ryan formerlyky Reese White.

Speaker 2 (01:18:33):
Yeah, Jackson had had to catch yesterday. So some of
these guys.

Speaker 1 (01:18:36):
It's gonna be interesting to see and probably boil down
to performance in preseason games. Uh, whether these guys maybe
maybe forced the Broncos to hang on to a seventh
receiver or you know, keep a keep a couple two
or three on the practice squad. Well and Sean Payton
addressed that yesterday a little bit talking about the running backs,
but mentioned Julian McLoughlin, who was slated for a practice
squad spot until they hit the field in San Francisco.

(01:18:59):
Any he's like a one hundred yards later and he'd even
mentioned that not one, but two touchdowns I believe in
that game. And then he scored a touchdown to each
of the preseason games, and it was like, Nop, this
kid's one hundred percent. You gonna have to be on
the fifty three because he's not clearing waivers at all,
and there'll be multiple teams that want them the one
area and we don't.

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
It'll necessarily be wide receivers.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
But where Sean Payton and George Peyton have really taken
advantage of the system is we know that if they
want to keep Michael Burton and we could throw in
one other vet a Matt Pert someone like that, there's
people that they can cut their vested veterans so they
don't they don't get subject to waivers, they won't get claimed.
They can sign right back to the practice squad the
next day and then activated on the first two weeks

(01:19:41):
of games, and then put back on the fifty three
in week three.

Speaker 2 (01:19:45):
So we know they'll do that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
But all those receivers you mentioned at least two, if
not three, will be on the practice squad. I have
a hard time thinking unless one of them goes nuts,
that any of them crack the fifty three out of
camp right, and.

Speaker 2 (01:19:58):
I think there's something too, I mean a lot. This
is procedural. You missed the mentioned that veterans invested veterans.

Speaker 1 (01:20:03):
The reason you don't have them on day one on
your roster but then you bring them back after the
first week is just because there is invester veterans. Their
salaries become fully guaranteed for the seasons if you have
them there, whereas you wait a week and then all
of a sudden, it's not so it's it's a procedural.

Speaker 2 (01:20:15):
But with practice squad rules, expanded practice.

Speaker 1 (01:20:17):
Squad, you know what sixteen eighteen people on the practice
squad now, and you could you get a number of
collumps like you could call them up for the practice
squad like four times before you get to sign them to.

Speaker 2 (01:20:25):
The roster with game to activations.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
It makes it easier to carry these guys on the
practice squad, call them at four times. Then if you
have an injury, the spot naturally opens up to bring them.

Speaker 2 (01:20:35):
Yeah, and not only that.

Speaker 1 (01:20:37):
So let's use Michael Burton as an example and then
say Adam Troutman, Okay, Michael Burton can start the year
on the practice squad play the first two weeks. You
couldn't theory especially, and I don't have Adam Traptan's contract
in front of me. If he has a year left,
you can cut Adam Troutman in week three and then
activate him for weeks three and four from the practice squad, So.

Speaker 2 (01:20:53):
You can game the system a little.

Speaker 1 (01:20:55):
And also the thinking is inevitably someone's gonna end up
on ir right, and so that's going to open the
roster spot. That's going to make it a little bit easier.
I think when you come to roster construction, where we
always overlook is are they keeping eight on lineman nine
or even sometimes ten and and or safeties versus corners
and all is your special team dason this year?

Speaker 2 (01:21:13):
In this case, this year, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:21:15):
Trent Sherfield, the last what two years Raymond Smith, right,
So it's a corner versus a receiver, So that still
affects your construction even if they may not.

Speaker 2 (01:21:23):
Play as much. Although the way Sherfield's looked.

Speaker 1 (01:21:26):
In the offense last one from you got about a
minute left. You know, we look at this team. I
think a lot of people are optimistic after the playoff
appearance last year. From what you've seen so far, is
this the team that looks ready to challenge for a
playoff spot, maybe maybe even a playoff win and move
forward the playoffs this year?

Speaker 2 (01:21:41):
I think so.

Speaker 1 (01:21:42):
And we know who the other usual suspects are, but
it looks like they'll be still battling with maybe the Bengals, Steelers, Chargers.

Speaker 2 (01:21:48):
I guess we'll see about the Chiefs. Raiders will have
something to say about.

Speaker 1 (01:21:51):
But I'm still gonna let the Chiefs win the division
until they prove it. But I think absolutely they're a
team that once they get in it won't just be
like hey we made it, it's we can win some games.

Speaker 2 (01:22:00):
Yep, b K.

Speaker 1 (01:22:01):
We We appreciate the time as always limited, though it
may be.

Speaker 2 (01:22:04):
Look forward to catching up with your dinner soon. Thanks
ye twice in sixteen hours, there we go.

Speaker 1 (01:22:08):
Yeah, uh brot Ross Kaminski show. We we come back.
We get back into more of the uh this migration
discussion and back into why that could help your taxes.
Listen to KWA live down here at Broncos Training Camp.
Kawa Training Camp powered by Chevron, committed to our local
communities and safely delivering affordable, reliable energy The powers Colorado.

(01:22:29):
Ford to thank Ryan Hubbards, Zach Seegers, and Berni Christoalph
for joining us TUGB without Broncos.

Speaker 2 (01:22:33):
We've had a great discussion on tariffs.

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
We talked about debt, internet theory, the jobs report and
right now you know, got into it a little bit.
And right before BKA joined us there talked a little
bit about immigration and UH and everything. So I want
to reset this because we had a lot of great
texts coming in and I want to try to get
to all these and get to all your questions and
your comments, and some of you had.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
Some some really good points. Yeah, I want to get
to all that we were talking with this.

Speaker 1 (01:22:54):
This conversation initially started on on debt, debt service and
how we're going to pay it down, and my problem
with the tariffs and and how they're a bit regressive
and you know, in those kinds of things. But the
reality is in order to pay down our debt, there
are two ways to do that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
A reduce spending, b raise revenue.

Speaker 1 (01:23:10):
We've already seen that this administration is not willing to
reduce spending. The dose thing which most of those cuts,
you know, weren't even cuts, it was they were claiming
savings on things that that had already been paid out,
was largely at this point looks like a pr stunt.
Plus the way that they went about it, which is
basically just pulling the plug on things, and then you know,
seeing who complains that the power was out, is not

(01:23:32):
a way to reduce spending.

Speaker 2 (01:23:34):
I love the idea.

Speaker 1 (01:23:35):
I am absolutely here for government to exist in its
smallest iteration that gets the job done as possible. I
am one hundred percent with you on that. At the
libertarian me once the smallest effective form of government that
we can find, right, I am with you on reducing spending.
The problem is we get a lot of politicians to
talk about it and not a lot that act on it.
In fact, the Trump administration is currently outspending the Biden administration.

(01:23:57):
This blows my mind, you know, it blows my mind
that this administration is out spending the previous administration day
to day right now, and it's it's it's an absolute problem.
So reducing spending is one way that we can you know,
making make headway on debt. The other raise revenue. And
there are only two ways to raise revenue. Either you
increases the taxes per taxpayer or you increase the person's

(01:24:19):
paying in. And so that was for me why I suggested, Hey, look,
I know people hate it, but at the end of
the day, amnesty solves a bit of that, you know,
in terms of what it is that that we want
to do. You have you add more taxpayers to the system. Uh,
we're not paying money to deport them or incarcerate them.

(01:24:41):
You know, we're getting the back in. But it requires
and that's an oversimplification, but it requires more behind it
than they verify employment system penalties for you know. Uh
coming here, and somebody on the text line talked about
the Dignity Act saying, I think it was the two
one four with the Dignity Actor the same in large
the tax base or not to the extent MC would uh,
not quite to that level. And and it's for those

(01:25:06):
who don't know about the Dignity Act. And there's a
ton to it. But the idea is is that you
would pay you would pay a fee and and that
fee would be paid at over several years, and you
would not technically be a citizen, but should be granted
legal status.

Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
There are problems with it, and it's it's it's unlikely
to pass anyway, which you know, really makes it a
moot point. But the idea that that you were going
to do that without some of these things that they
have in there.

Speaker 2 (01:25:32):
Uh, And it claims it is going to beef up
enforcement and all that.

Speaker 1 (01:25:35):
I'm not buying some of the the aspects of it.
The bill to a bipartisan bill. Elvirus. Salazar is a
Republican on of Florida and Veronic Escabar is Democrat of Texas.
It sort of presents itself as a middle path because
this discussion, frankly is dominated by absolutists, either advocating completely
open or entirely closed borders. And I'm I'm not on

(01:25:56):
either side of that. I don't want to completely open borders,
I don't want entirely closed porters, but I do think
that as a matter of practicality, there are two ways
to be able to do this. Again, how are we
going to attack this massive amount of debt reducing spending? Fine,
and that helps, but that doesn't solve the problem, you
still have to raise revenue. So if you're going to

(01:26:16):
raise revenue, you either have to increase the taxes on
your current taxpayers or increase the number of taxpayers that
are coming in in an effort to keep it the
same or lesson. And I tend to err on the
side of the latter. So for me, you know, as
I look at this, uh, that's the way I go
with it. And I know everybody as soon as I say,

(01:26:37):
amstey And by the way, the text line lit up
after I did that. They you know, they were adamantly
against that. There are several texts in here.

Speaker 2 (01:26:46):
I want to get to.

Speaker 1 (01:26:48):
The three to zero three's economic stimulus increases tax payer
base two Section one seventy nine and bonus depreciation fuels
capital expenditures manufacturer increasing orders increase additionally in compor manufacturers. True, however,
that also increases inflation, which in turnaround makes cost of
living uh and and quality of life reducted or reduced
in those particular situations. There are let's see what we

(01:27:12):
had a one here. I was trying to bookmark here
because I wanted to read it was it was a
really good one that countered one of my points, uh,
and I wanted to I wanted to get to that
if I finally this here is from the three oh three.
Nobody wants GDP growth. What we want is per capita
gb GDP to grow. If we let one hundred million
in who can't read, GDP will grow up a per
capital decrease and all who have been here a while

(01:27:32):
will get much poorer.

Speaker 4 (01:27:34):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
In their suggestings to poort everyone, well, no, I disagree
with with the premise there. I understand what you're getting at,
and you are correct in terms of per capita or
GDP versus GDP growth.

Speaker 2 (01:27:44):
I disagree with with the.

Speaker 1 (01:27:46):
Premise on the back side of that, though, uh, saying
that everybody will get much poor, not necessarily, you know,
bringing people in, and usually that's the thing about most
migrants that come in. While we get these stories of
the bad actors, and we need to get the bad
actors out of there. Crime rates are much lower with
immigrants versus the populace as a whole, and most people

(01:28:06):
are motivated coming here in the first place by a
better life. Most of the people that come here by
that want to work, they want to improve their status.
That's The reason they migrated here in the first place
is they wanted to get away from the lower quality
of life somewhere else and creative better quality of life here.

Speaker 2 (01:28:21):
Most of them are like that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:22):
And so if we can get and increase our tax
base by increasing those kinds of people that are that
are driven for that kind of thing and have that
sort of repatriated patriotism in the United States, I'm all
for it. Increasing the number of people that are paying
in reduces the obligation that you or your children and
grandchildren are going to have in order to pay in

(01:28:43):
and get rid of this debt to begin with. It
reduces the costs on things, and it allows us to
do things that we want to do. You know, with
any anything that holds or reduces cost right now at
the register is going to encourage the Fed to reduce rates,
which is going to allow you to finance your mortgage
at the lower rates, saving you money, and so on

(01:29:03):
and so forth. And so I think there are again
a compound problem, and there aren't simple solutions. But in
terms of broad strokes, the one thing out there that
we are government spending money on is increasing our costs
and it is decreasing the number of people paying in
is these deportations. I'm all for deporting people that have

(01:29:25):
committed crimes. You commit a crime, you know, we punt
you out here as fast as we can. But incarcerating
or deporting people costs us money, right, it costs us money.
Keeps those people from being productive in the workforce, It
keeps those people from being an economic positive, and creates
economic liabilities. And so, however we feel about the legality
or illegality, and undocumented immigration is a civil thing, so

(01:29:46):
the illegality is the wrong term to use there. But
however we feel about that on a principled measures are
as a measure of practical reality, as a measure of
economic reality, it is fiscally beneficial for us to import.

Speaker 2 (01:30:00):
People and have them paying taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:30:02):
Now, going back to what you're talking about with the
Dignity Act, they don't because they would not have citizenship
status and they would just have a legal status with that.
And this is my largest bode to pick with that
they would not be paying into Social Security on that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
Which is something that we sort of need.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
So for me and the way that I look at
that and the way that I come from it is
what makes the most what makes the most fiscal sense overall,
And that's what makes the most you know, fiscal sense.
To me, the problem with our legal immigration system is
I hear all of you, you know, saying right now,
I hear all of you groaning and unison saying, well,

(01:30:39):
we're fine with legal immigration. Is that our legal immigration
system is so convoluted. My mother works as an immigration
attorney for a long time, and I understand, I believe me,
I understand exactly how convoluted and difficult that process is.

Speaker 2 (01:30:53):
That's something that needs to be streamlined.

Speaker 1 (01:30:55):
We should put our do nothing Congress on that and
streamline that process and make it easier for people to
be able to migrate here who want to do so
in a productive manner.

Speaker 2 (01:31:06):
The one part about.

Speaker 1 (01:31:06):
This, the Dignity Act, that I like is the idea
of I don't want to say paying to become a
US citizen, but there being a fee that you pay in.
And I think that if we could do that, you know,
at ten thousand dollars, that's that's payable out over you know,
ten years or whatever for each individual coming in. That
incentivizes you to work, It incentivizes you to want to

(01:31:28):
be here. And now you have an an equity stake
in the United States that would that would theoretically incentivize
you to want to be here and want to be
doing the correct things. And so there are elements of
that as the text are brought up that I think
are good. But you know, on the flip side, there
are you know, we we have to find solutions that work,

(01:31:50):
and just deporting people doesn't work. It costs us money,
it removes people, and it shrinks you know, our are
even even shrinks. Are GDP shrinks the amount of goods
and services that we sell. It's not it sounds good
to people who don't dive in on this, but when
you dive in on it, the reality is we need
to be increasing our number of taxpayers, not decreasing it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:13):
From uh, let's see what we've got.

Speaker 1 (01:32:14):
The three zero three talk about the Mandy Show, which
will be on next to Mandy Conn will be up
next and she'll probably but everything I said and have
well thought out of argument for they said to Mandy
show speak for everybody to say, what all of Joe
Biden's illegals removed? We already had enough illegals here prior
to the ten to twenty million that they let in
illegally that were shipped and bussed to the border via
massive source funds.

Speaker 2 (01:32:35):
I don't know what that is source funds. I think
you met Soros, which is not George Soros was not
paying for that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:41):
We all want them gone whatever and however we make
that possible. We want illegal migration system that only allows
a certain number of people in per year. But Joe
Biden's illegals have got to go. Well, I mean sounds
to me like you read some very planted stuff. I
think there are some truths to glean out of what
you said. However, I don't agree with all of it.

(01:33:02):
I just got through saying the reason that you want
more taxpayers here again, we can go back to.

Speaker 2 (01:33:09):
This. We have this debt.

Speaker 1 (01:33:10):
We have to pay it off, right, and there are
only two ways that we can do that, reducing spending
and raising revenue.

Speaker 2 (01:33:17):
And there are only two ways we can raise revenue.

Speaker 1 (01:33:20):
That is to increase the number of money each taxpayer
is paying, or to increase the number of people paying in.
That's the wholy way you can make that number go up.
So at the end of the day, where are you
getting those people from? Because I guarantee you you're not
telling me right now. Me as a libertarian former Republican,
I guarantee you not telling me you want your taxes raised.

(01:33:40):
I guarantee you're sitting there right now not telling me
you want your taxes raise. So, if you don't want
your taxes raise, the only way to get around that
is to increase the number of people paying in. And
how do we do that? You tell me, I am
all ears. I am willing to listen to your counter
arguments here. I'm not closed off just because I may
disagree with some things that you say.

Speaker 2 (01:34:00):
I'm not closed off. I'm here to listen.

Speaker 1 (01:34:04):
Two one three pend it incentivize you to sit outside
Kmart with other immigrants taking turns walking to the gas
station to get beers for the guys.

Speaker 2 (01:34:10):
It really doesn't if you have if we propose a
fee like.

Speaker 1 (01:34:14):
I said, ten thousand dollars on east new migrant coming
in paid out over O to the government over ten years,
it does not incentivize you to sit out in front
of Kmart. You have to pay that off or you
get deported. Right, so, it incentivizes you to be working.
I've got someone else who says you don't know immigrants
and what they do to our country and system.

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
I probably know better than you.

Speaker 1 (01:34:33):
Again, my mother worked as an immigration attorney. I've been
around it for decades. I understand the system. I understand
the problems. I understand how convoluted it is and how
difficult it is, and I understand better than most how
most people want to come here to just make a
better life. Despite the stuff you read on some of
these blogs out there or whatever, is there.

Speaker 2 (01:34:52):
Crime that comes from it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:53):
Sure are there bad actors and a criminal element trying
to infiltrate. Absolutely, And I'm not suggesting that we should
tolerate that. We have laws in place for what is
legal and illegal in this country already, and if people
violate that, they.

Speaker 2 (01:35:06):
Should be booted from this country immediately.

Speaker 1 (01:35:08):
But those who don't, we've got to find ways to
make it easier. We've got to increase our tax spase.
We have to increase the number of people paying in
or this is just never going to work. You're going
to wind up paying for it, and you're going to
continue to wind up paying for it all while sitting
there wondering where your money's going. And so at the
end of the day, that's that's where that goes. A
lot of texts coming in here. Good Lord, I can't

(01:35:30):
get to all these seven to two. If you read
the Dignity Act by Gabe Evans. I have we talked
about that a little bit as earlier on in this
segment three h three Benjamin, what about the requirement coming
as far as work. If you're receiving medicaid, won't they
put more tax dollars in the system.

Speaker 2 (01:35:49):
Yeah, there are. That's that's the part of this.

Speaker 1 (01:35:51):
We need to reform certain we don't need to be
given handouts to people that aren't working or paying into
the system. I understand there's a humanitarian component to it,
and we want to help people and doctors can't refuse
treatment and those kinds of things.

Speaker 2 (01:36:02):
I'm here for that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:03):
But at the same time, we have to find ways
to continue to incentive both the carrot and the stick.
Incentivize productivity and decentivize being a net drag on the system.
And deportation doesn't do that. A free trip back home
doesn't do that. They came here, they earned the money,
they get a bus ride back home. That that doesn't
do that. There has to be there has to be

(01:36:24):
both an incentive for them to want to work here,
which most of them inherently have. There's a small number
of bad faith actors again that that gets talked about
the news, but the reality is most people that are
here want to be here because they wanted to improve
their lot in life to begin with.

Speaker 2 (01:36:38):
But we do need to have penalties on the back
end of that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:41):
So there we go seven too of been low skill,
low income people do not pay taxes. Well, there are
ways around that too. We could we could ditch the tariffs,
we could ditch the we could ditch all income taxes
and go with There was a proposal about a decade back,
I know, a campaign that I worked on and Mike
Cuckaby supported, and that was the Fair Tax, which is
essentially a national sales tax with with a prebate to

(01:37:03):
eliminate to eliminate low income problems, you know, a monthly
prebate on that. So there are there are proposals out there.
I don't think any of them are perfect, but there
are some that are better than what we have.

Speaker 2 (01:37:17):
But at the end of the.

Speaker 1 (01:37:18):
Day, if you take nothing away from what I talked
about today, there are we have to pay down the debt,
and I'm all for if we get these tariffs out
of here, we can we can reduce the we can
have the Fed reduce the rate, you know, because our
risk of inflation goes down, and that helps with refinancing
debt and those kinds of things. But at the end
of the day, there are two things. It's reduced spending

(01:37:39):
or raise revenue, right, and that's that's how we do it.
So we can reduce spending, which this administration has certainly
talked about, although they are outspending the Biden administration day
to day so far through their first whatever days they are,
they've been in.

Speaker 2 (01:37:53):
And the others raise revenue. And there are only two
ways to raise revenue.

Speaker 1 (01:37:57):
You either increase the tax burden on your American citizens
or you increase the number of people paying in. It's
just that simple. And so for me, I don't want
to increase taxes on anybody. Okay, Well, that means I'm
forced into option be here, which is increasing the number
of people paying in.

Speaker 2 (01:38:11):
How do we increase the number of people paying in?

Speaker 1 (01:38:14):
And that boils back down to my argument about amnesty
and or streamlining the legal immigration system so that we're
able to get more of those people in here and
paying into the system.

Speaker 2 (01:38:26):
I understand if you disagree with me. I understand if
you vehemently disagree with me.

Speaker 1 (01:38:30):
None of the options that I presented are have all
positives to them, some of them, they all have negatives
to them. But at the end of the day, setting
aside everything else and looking at this as a practical
financial matter of how we are going to reduce and
eliminate debt to a sustainability point here in the United States.

(01:38:51):
There's only two paths to doing that, and the second path,
which is raising revenue, only has two paths to being
able to do that. So unless you come up with
a way if the United States to magically make money
while not increasing taxes or increasing the number of taxpayers,
I am all ears and ready to listen to it.
I again, like I said, I love to challenge myself

(01:39:12):
and I love to have these kinds of debates with
you guys, you know, on this kind of stuff as well.
So I'm not some hardened dyed in the wool you
must do things my way.

Speaker 2 (01:39:21):
I'm willing to be moved on it.

Speaker 1 (01:39:22):
Just give me the numbers. I appreciate you guys listening.
Let me fill it in for ross Cominskate today. Mandy
Connell is going to be up next right here on
Kowa