July 11, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Getting to Grips with the Jobs Data
Seg 2 – How Does Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Manage the Debt Question?
Seg 3 – A Defense Budget Extravaganza
Seg 4 – Is Iran Making Overtures?
Seg 2 – How Does Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Manage the Debt Question?
Seg 3 – A Defense Budget Extravaganza
Seg 4 – Is Iran Making Overtures?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
That it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides, a production of
Libertynation dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean
and making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Libertination radio Head Coast to Coast on
the Raid America Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelides. On
today's show, we are talking the big beautiful bill, ramifications
for debt, and the ever expanding defense budget. It's going
to be quite the show. And you're back on Liutination
radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio America Network.
I'm your host, Mark Angeletis. Now we're joined by Libertination's
economics expert, mister Andrew Moran to talk about the recent
(00:57):
jobs report. And there's a couple of fascinating, fascinating points
that I kind of want to tease out from you
and examined, because as I'm sure you've noticed, Andrew The
reporting on the jobs report was so bizarre. You had
half of the internet saying it's an utter disaster. I
(01:19):
thought Trump was going to do X, Y, and Z,
and the other half was showing these numbers, and it
looked to me like the other half, the ones showing
the improvements were in the right. But what do I know, Andrew?
Why am I wrong or am I not?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Well?
Speaker 5 (01:36):
Here, here's just a factual analysis of the report. It was.
It wasn't anything great. It was a by the error
type jobs report because most of the job gains were
in government. You look at the household portion of the
jobs report, which which removes duplication, it showed a smaller number.
You know, yes, it came even higher than expected, and
(01:57):
the unemploymentary dipped, But the headline freak are a deeper
dive would suggests, yeah, I mean, is Joe Biden still
in office? So it wasn't a lot of private sector growth.
It was mostly governments, particularly at the state of local level.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Well, let's look at that. So why is there a
government sector growth at the state and local level when
we've seen that since the beginning, since the beginning of
Trump's second term. Here we've seen a lot of layoffs, resignations,
and retirements. Right.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Yeah, So if you dive deeper into the state of
local figures, you see that a lot of it is
actually an education so a lot of school boards are
hiring more teachers or more staff or of course, as
you as we all know, the last several years were administrators.
So overall, I mean it's mostly an education drivel at
the state of local level. But for you know, but
the federal level, though, it is actually declined to get
(02:50):
I think it's overall the year to date, the number
of the client of federal workers fifty nine thousand people.
So I mean at the federal level that's a good thing.
But overall, when you want a private when you want,
as Scott Best of the Treasury Secretary said, when you
want to reprivatize the government, the June jobs port doesn't
illustrate that trend.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Okay, So you had an increase in state and local
government jobs you had, how was the private sector on that.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
Well, yeah it was it was far far lower. So
overall there were one hundred and forty seven thousand new
jobs in June. The the the private sector count of
for about the problem with the Okay, So the problem
with data figure because cause because the problem is with
the they count let's say healthcare, social assistance, things like
(03:44):
that as private sector, but it's more government adjacent than
it is private sector. So if you look at the
say the the Payroll Process or ADP, it came out
with a report two days before around two days before,
and it said that the private sector actually eliminated thirty
three thousand jobs. So that shows that the private sector
(04:07):
is perhaps slowing down a trend over the last over
the past year actually has been a free So it's
the economist joke that the labor market isn't an ice age,
because yeah, companies are not hiring, nor are they firing.
They have a lot of job openings, but for the
most part they're not a standstill because before they're waiting
(04:28):
for the election results and the next part they're waiting
for now with terrors, waiting for more certainty into the
broader economy. So overall, the private sector, I mean, they
added jobs, but it's things like healthcare and social assistance
that rely heavily on government funding to add these jobs.
So when you say how does the private sector do,
there's more to it than just pointing out the private
sector paid with growth number.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Sure you mentioned the ADP there, which for a long
time was quite a what's the way it says? It
was viewed as quite a reliable indicator, but well, I
mean it didn't have a reputation now I'm talking pre
Biden times here, but now a lot of people are
(05:12):
sort of running away from it or not. Yeah, I
guess investing their ideas as much in the data that
it produces. Why is that?
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Yeah, So actually their problems actually pre date Joe Biden.
They actually through a methodology change in twenty twenty two,
but overall it's been a very unreliable indicator, mainly because
they have different because the numbers all over the place,
the changes they relying on, the on the companies that
the user services. But there it's they underestimates job growth
(05:44):
for the most part. So I did a story on this,
I think it was I think I did orned this
for libernation dot com, and I showed how if you
look at the beer of labor stistics data and compared
it to an ADP, the ADP typically underestimates that number.
But even the beer of labor sts succeeded is also unreliable.
Figure I want to go through real, uh, real labor
(06:06):
market numbers, you actually have to wait maybe a year
from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which uses actually
tax receipts to determine the real employment gains or loss.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Well, that was the story over the last four years,
wasn't it. That we'd have some job numbers that come
out from the Biden administration that we're touted us, Oh,
look a look at these great job numbers, and then
a month later there'd be revisions month to month and
a half late to be revisions bringing it down. And
then the year on your data again there there are
more revisions, bring it down and down. Do you think
(06:40):
we'll have and I don't know if there's a way
to really accurately if even predict is the right word
for this, but do you think we'll see downwards revisions
on Trump's jobs data, either monthly or on a year
by year basis? Well?
Speaker 5 (06:56):
Interesting you bring it up, because if you look at
the June jobs report, the beer labor actually revised a
few months jobs the upward, which is all I mean,
we haven't seen that years, so it was it wasn't significant,
but it wasn't upward adjustment.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
To the numbers.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Okay, so you wrote a fantastic piece on the pages
of libtination dot com that highlighted something that I think
for people who are fans of Donald Trump will be
super exciting news, and for people who are not, maybe
the opposite, and that was that this latest report shows
(07:33):
that US citizens were getting the line's share of the jobs,
and those who are not we were sinking quite a lot.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
Yeah, So if you compare the January twenty twenty five
numbers at June twenty twenty five, you see that divergence
between US born and foreign born levels and actually narrow
so since Jerry twenty twenty five, US born employment levels
actually have soared by more than two million. If you
look at employed foreign born workers, that's actually declined by
(08:06):
five hundred and two thousand. So if you go back
to let's say October twenty nineteen, when this pretty much
the saga began that there was such a huge gap
between the employed foreign and US born workers, but you know,
it's still earlier than the Trump administration, so many years
to catch up. But overall, for a lot of President
Trump supporters, this is a positive. This is a sign
(08:27):
heading that the suggests that the US economy is heading
in the right direction for the American people. Just for
so long you've always heard that all as foreigners are
taking American jobs. But now you can make the joke that, hey,
Americans are taking foreigner's jobs.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I think that that's going on a bumper sticker, Andrew.
We're going to be back with Andrew Moran after this
show break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelitis.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. I remain your host,
Mark Anderletis, we continue our conversation with libert Nation's economics editor,
mister Andrew Moran. Thanks for sticking around, Andrew. What I
really want to dig into here is this last week,
so we saw the Donald Trump signed the big beautiful
(09:19):
bill at and it's it's the most it's the most
contentious thing this week for a parliaments, oh it. But
also people who would ordinarily support many of the things
that Donald Trump does are also a little hesitant on this.
And I wonder if let's say Elon Musk in particular,
(09:42):
who's who's thrown out those particular teddies out of the
PRAM with this, But he might be right that there's
a fiscal waywardness taking place here. So what I really
want to dig into is what the the headline numbers
mean in REAC. So there's been a and there's an
(10:04):
increase within the bill, an allowable increase within the bill
of is it four trillion?
Speaker 5 (10:11):
The set of version it made it five trillions, So
I think that was that was what the House was
voting on. So I think it's either way four to
five trillion dollars efty something.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
What's a trillion dollars between friends? So now that's money
that's not being spent yet. Now you and I both
know that if that money is dangling there in front
of them, like like ripe fruit, they're gonna take it,
aren't they, And they're going to spend it.
Speaker 5 (10:38):
Yeah, absolutely, So you know we all know that's what's
going to happen. So the problem that let's say Elon
Musk has is that they tend to think that this
is going to dramatically increase national debts and dramatically raise
a deficit. Now, the one report that everyone keeps citing
is is the Congressional Budget Office, But it seems like
not a lot of people have read it because if
you look at that, if you look at their analysis
of the reconciliation package, their conclusion is that over the
(11:01):
next ten years, this bill is going to reduce outlays
by about one point two trillion dollars. At the same time,
it's going to reduce revenues by about three and a
half trillion dollars. So you see a certains I caught
it on the fiscal side of this, but they also
came out with a separate report and it said that
tariff incomes over the next ten years is going to
raise revenues by about two and a half trillion dollars.
(11:22):
So right there, if that's if that is a reliable estimate,
considering how we all know that the situation's fluid, and
you know, trade flows could be upbedded our shata. But
if it doesn't, then that two and a half trillion
dollars is going to make up for the for the
most part, that lost revenues by about you know, plus
or minus few hundred billions.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Well, you and I discussed this before when we were
trying to hammer down a more conservative figure on what
the tasks would bring in, and I posed about one
hundred to one hundred and ten billion a year, and
we kind of agreed that was an ultimately that's quite
a realistic figure rather than the half a trillion that
(12:06):
was floated when it first started with those right.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
So if you look at the monthly daily Treasury statements,
which really fascinating.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Reading, you see it, you read it so you don't
have to.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
You see that tariff income right now is generated is
a record level. I mean, it's not astronomical, but it's
about twenty five billion dollars a month a fiscal year
to date, it's already over one hundred and twenty billion dollars.
So you know, if this tried to continues, then you
could be looking at a sizeable chunk of revenue just
from the tariffs itself. Now, President Jobis come out with
(12:39):
various different policies. I mean, he wants to know, you know,
slap higher April the April second tariffs on US trading partners.
But if you just have that ten percent flat tariff
tariff percentage rate, then you have let's say, you know,
your number, which could actually be higher based on these
recent daily Treasure statement numbers.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
So there's there's all something else that just doesn't get
talked about enough with regards to to these these monumental figures.
And that's that if there is growth. And I guess
this is the point of what Donald Trump's been trying
to do, is he's trying to promote a growth engine
within the economy. He may fail, he may succeed. I mean,
(13:20):
pay his past track record suggest that he might succeed.
It's airring in his favor certainly that he might succeed
in creating a growth engine. But what kind of Let's
take the tariff revenue as out for a moment. Let's
just say that all of a sudden the world becomes
free trade.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
I know Andrew is like, all.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Right, Christmas has coming, Festivus has come early. But let's
take the tariff revenue out for just a moment. What
kind of growth is needed within the us GDP to
level out the increased debt that's been account for in
the reconciliations.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
Well, I mean overall, I mean for the whole debt
as a whole, I mean, just fro obb So so
what what what what? What? What I tend to do
is that because the obb is is that the meat
and potatoes similar to the TC the Tax Cutting Jobs Act.
So when the Tax Cuting Jobs Act came out, the revenue,
I mean, the the growth projections were very similar. It
(14:22):
was a very the growth expectations were minimal, you know,
one percent, one point eight percent, YadA, YadA, YadA. But
actually turned out within the first year the t c
g A g A actually increased GDP and actually reached
that three percent benchmark that Treasury Secretary Scott Best typically
talks about. It also raised real media incomes. Even that
(14:43):
White House it projected that I think the real meeting
becames were about four thousand dollars, actually came out to
be sixty five hundred dollars. So these varyu things happened.
Another factor too, that that's very important, especially for Trump's
version of the economy, is capital investment in the In
the in the before the pandemic, capital investment was was skyrocketing.
Of course, the pandemic changed that, and new administration also
(15:04):
changed that. But now, as you already see the first
few months of the new Trump administration, there's there's trillions
of dollars in capital that's been pouring in part of
it is the expectation of lower income tax rates, lower
corporate tax rates, you know, and then of course the
working class lower tax tax rates as well. It's going
to boost it. One thing I find comical is that
when I watched these hearies on capital health, you always
(15:27):
have lawmakers on the on one side of the aisle
saying how tariffs are going to influence certain behaviors in
the broader economy, But they never apply that to the
income taxes or any other government tax rates, which if astounding,
because of course when you have lower taxes, people are
going to respond. You know, when the under the TCG,
when they're lower tax rates, what if people do they
(15:48):
started spending more money, which, of course, I mean we
all can agree that that that can be foolish endeva
at times, but overall for economy that's two thirds consumption.
That was a positive development in the US economy. So
tax rates do influence people and does influence businesses all,
not only just tariffs.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
So I'm just thinking that there's this idea that if
you want to limit something, was this Reagan, if you
want to limit limit something, tax it, if you want
to expand it, deregulated, I think that was Reagan.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
Oh I'm parafrat.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
And then you think, well, people are wanting to put
tax on on the work that you do, and it's
not it's not an incentive to work. It's the same thing, right,
if you want to minimize something, you tax it more.
So you're by heavily taxing industry investment even down to
(16:40):
you know, your your income tax on the work that
you do on a daily basis, people aren't encouraged to
do more by by by overtaxing, which kind of nicely
brings us onto the idea of the no tax on
tips and overtime? Do you think because over time is
actually quite an important part of overall overall GDP, I guess.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Right, not really. If you look at the Beer of
Labor statistics data, you see the number of number of
working overtime is about twenty million, so it's not not
a significant share of the quantity. Of course, it's gonna
help with me.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
I mean, this is actually what I'm getting at.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
Maybe that will bolsto the number of two who actually
want to work overdione is now that work.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Is going to be exempted. Yeah, well up to a
certain amount. It's going to be exempt from tax. And
I think that's kind of the point I'm making here,
is that if you want to penalize something, tax it.
If you want to limit it, tax it, but with
the with a carve out on things like overtime, and
people won't be paying. And because of course it's it's
(17:44):
at a high rate as well, isn't it, you can
push you into a higher tax bracket. If they can
avoid that, then they're going to be more productive, aren't they.
Isn't that how things work?
Speaker 5 (17:54):
Yes, that would be And I also think it would
address some of the labor challenges in the US compt
particularly the no tax on tips, because if you look
at the let's say the Joeld stata from the Beer
of Labor Statistics, you see that there's about seven point
seven million people shorten million people in the workforce. Particularly
a significant share of this is actually in the hospitality
and leisure industry, which is a bread and butter for
(18:15):
no tax for the tipped workers. So you have that
twenty five thousand dollars deduction, perhaps more people would be
incentivized to go into that field try to make that
extra cash. And you know, of course that sector has
filled a lot of illegal immigrants. Now that they're being
kicked out or no longer welcome to the country, more
Americas can perhaps fill that need for labor.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
So jobs for Americans with a low attacks right, yeah,
I think. I mean, if it all works out, this
is a great mid term message for President Trump. If not,
it could be an even better message for the Democrats.
Andrew Moran, thanks ever so much for joining us, Thanks
for having me.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Ye think we're que freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
And read.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangelites.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
And you're here on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. IM your host, Mark Angeles,
where joins today by Liberty Nations National Security Correspondence Dave Pattison.
Thanks for being here, Dave.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
Happy to be with you, Mark, always so Dave.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
The big beautiful bill went in pasted in the Senate
and the House, and then Donald Trump signed it on
Independence Day, making it the lore of the land. And
you wrote a rather fascinating piece about the how this
impacts the Defense Department budget and how it puts it
on a almost like a wartime footing or time time
(20:00):
readiness footing, gives them the other I.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Think that that's the case. I mean, if you look
at the Reconciliation Bill as a supplemental, because it's not,
it's basically not the base budget. And it adds one
hundred and thirteen billion dollars to the defense line, which
pops the defense total top line above a trillion dollars,
(20:25):
which is not trivial.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
And as as Donald Rumsfeld used to say.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
Not nothing, not, and I think that, but more importantly,
it was essential because what the Reconciliation Bill did is
kind of prime the pump for other programs that we
are in the twenty six base budget. For example, Golden Dome.
(20:54):
There's in order to jumpstart Golden Dome, there's twenty five
billion dollars in the Reconciliation bill, so to have the
full amount of money to really move that program along.
It's going to show up in again in the twenty
six base budget, and and so you'll have that as
(21:15):
an entire budget line. And it's things like that particularly important,
I think too, was the fact that the reconciliation bill
was very keen on operations and in and what we
call the ow M budget, operations and maintenance, the things
(21:38):
that keep the the war fighter fighting wars. And it's
and it was very clear that this was consistent with
Secretary Hesith's readiness and lethality and so forth.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Yeah, it's a lot of people would argue that a
trillion dollars for defense. Bear in mind that this number
is never going to go down, right, This is a
trillion dollars a year from here on out. Perhaps not
perhaps perhaps not. It won't it won't continue at that.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
Remember that bill, it will. Remember the base budget is
not a trillion dollars. It's the combinations of the reconciliation
bill and yeah, the twenty six base budget, which makes
it a trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Okay, But to continue with the the projects. So we're
talking what eight hundred and eighty ish and the base
budget and then one hundred and thirteen or so rank reconciliation.
That's a lot of money.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
Well, by any by any measure, By.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
By any measure, is that increased spending. I guess what
people want to know is is this grand total? Is
this a making America safer? Is it be putting America
far enough ahead of any potential enemy that might or
(23:03):
either in existence now or might come into existence or
prominence going forward? And see is it all going to
be I guess see the last is it all going
to be money well spent? Because it is obviously delivered
through government programs? We know those are notoriously bad. So
let's talk about the A factor first. Here in what
(23:29):
way does the spending, the initial spending and the additional
spending make America a safer place to be? And now
you mentioned the Golden Dome? What else is there?
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Well, first of all, I think it's important to note
what's not there? Okay, and what's not there is any
money for work program CRT, for training and also for
nonsense it called climate change initiatives. And in the twenty
five budget there was electric tanks or electric tanks, oh
(24:02):
my goodness, yes, and uh, and in in the twenty
five budget that Biden put forward there but there's about
three billion dollars for climate change initiatives. That's all gone,
that's all out of there because it's just a non
value added. Uh, it should not I might I want
(24:23):
to throw out very quickly because we can also you know,
throw out the baby with the bathwater. H In many cases,
the services were clever and and I know, surprise, but
they were in that they used that money to do
capital investments in in property, okay, and and to they
(24:45):
call it because it based resilience, and they book kept
it under this climate change crap and uh, with with
all due respect to crap everywhere, you know, but but
to make buildings more capable of withstanding hurricanes and so forth,
that was necessary. During the Bush administration. We had an
(25:08):
entire program to do that. We didn't call it climate
change because it didn't have anything to do with the weather.
It's other than the fact that you were making buildings
more capable of withstanding bad weather. And that's you have
to do that. I mean, that's what that's good stewardship
of dollars in your capital count. So that's those kinds
(25:29):
of things I think are still there, but they're properly
book kept, and you know, military construction and so forth.
But I think too that the if you start to
look at at the base budget, because you have to
look at it as a total whole, I think I
made this point in one of my articles. You can't
look at it as one versus another or in isolation,
(25:52):
because the Reconciliation Bill really is the pump primer for
the twenty six BACE budget and the things that are important.
And you can argue whether it's right or wrong, but
they have eliminated wedge tail the E seven A, which
is a wax for another airborne warning and control system,
(26:17):
principally because it was, as I like to refer to them,
it was a limping gazelle, over costs, behind schedule, and
unable to perform in the environment in which it was
going to be. Now you can argue about that last part,
but the fact is is that these are programs that
(26:39):
die because they were not managed well. Wedge Tail for
the East seven has been on the books for a
very very long time, should have been fielded years ago,
but they place. They're just not very good at acquisition anymore.
And why, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
It's because you're not there in the pen anymore.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
I like to think that, I mean, you know, throw
me into that brier pat one more time.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
So well, that actually ties in with with my my
third aspect of this is we're we're kind of hoping
that if there well, there is the budget, it's done. Now,
we're kind of hoping that that the money is spent wisely.
And you've got these these programs that, as you point
out there, they're years behind and therefore correct if I'm
(27:31):
wrong on this. If a program that is engineering technology
is several years behind schedule, it's almost axiomatically going to
be obsolete or near obsolete by the time it does
reach completion. Is that about right?
Speaker 4 (27:48):
I won't go so far as to say absolutely, Let's
say that it will be behind the power curve. It
will not be as appropriate to the threat as it
might otherwise have been had it been on time. And
not only that, but you you basically you limit the
deterrence capability. If if I've got the sixth generation airplane
(28:11):
right now, then that's a deterrent, and it will be
a deterrent until somebody decides that they're going to uh
oppose me with something similar. But if I don't have
it now, then I've got I'm playing catch up, and
the idea of deterrence is then pushed to the right
(28:32):
and and it loses its effect. Now we can say,
oh yeah, but we're going to have one. Oh, yes, sir, Yes, sir,
We're going to have one. But if it's not on
the ramp as it's not flying, then it's not a deterrent.
And so I think that deterrence might write this down.
Deterrence today is worth a lot of deterrence sometime in
(28:54):
the future.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Absolutely right. We're gonna be back with Dave Patson after
this show break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelidis.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I continue to
be Mark actualleaders and we're continuing our conversation with Liberty
Nations National security correspondent Dave Patterson. Now, Dave, I want
to move on from talking about the defense built budget
and talk about something that happened this week, and that
was that Tucker Carlson had was quite a rare interview,
(29:33):
I guess for Western media with the Iranian President Masu Pajekian,
and that came out on Monday. What was your overall
take on that, Well.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
I think that the I listened to it and I
thought that, Okay, kudos to Carlson for getting the interview,
and but I think he lost in a opportunity to
be far more probing and pretty much let the Iranian
(30:07):
president filibuster if you will, talking about his point of view,
if you wanted to synthesize what was said, Uh, US
good except when supporting Israel, US bad. Israel always bad.
And so you know, the surprise, surprise, very very little
(30:29):
that could not have been predicted. But I think also
that Tucker Craulson did not have as as I mentioned,
it's probing the questions that he might have otherwise and
that and then he didn't push back when things were
obviously you know, propaganda being shoved his way.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Right, So that's yeah. He started off with basically three premises, right,
what's Iran's goal? What uh, what does Iran think of America?
And what does Iran think of Israel? The last one there,
what is the Ran think of Israel? I think I
think no, no, no interview necessary to know what Iran
thinks of Israel.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
That's true, and the whole idea, the premise that he
or his motivation for doing the interview was to ensure
that the people of the United States had a a
an accurate perception of what Iran was, what they what
they think and what their lead, their leader, what their
leadership is about. And yet you have to ask yourself, okay,
(31:32):
you're you didn't ask any you know, knock him down
dead questions. So the kinds of things that Americans would
really want to know is why do you say this
when it's absolutely not true? And we all know that.
But he didn't push back on those kinds of things.
So whether or not Americans were really informed, you know,
(31:55):
remains to be seen. There are things that are self evident,
like what do you think of Israel? Well, duh uh,
you don't go out saying death to Israel and you know,
send them Christmas presents or they.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Sure, however, they do also say death to America, right.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Yeah, and so you know, but he had a very
interesting response to that, and one that's you know, that
kind of pushes the limits of credibility and credulity, both
of the words. And he said, well, we really don't
mean death to the American people. That's not what we mean.
What we really mean is, you know, death to the
(32:33):
basically the behavior of the kinds of threats and all
of this kind of stuff that come from the United States.
And so we're really not meaning death to America and
it cans but to the kinds of things that we
all hate, right, we all hate these things, and.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Yeah, it's uh So for me, there's there's something about
motivations that I find most interesting because let's because he
wrote about before the interview came out, you wrote about
what you can expect from this, and for all intents
and purposes, you nailed it.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
That that's what we got.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
You can read Dave's I don't want to call it
a prediction, Dave Cassandra Patterson, but I had the Delphi
Oracle of national security. So please listeners do go and
check out what Dave set Forth was probably going to happen.
And he was pretty right on that, I think. But
(33:34):
as to motivations, now, I'm really just formulating ideas here
on this, but I think from both sides, there's a
couple of motivations. Number One, Tucker Carlson wanted to interview
somebody that nobody else would interview, and he did that,
or nobody else could interview as well, because the Uranian president,
(33:58):
it's not like he's he's off doing the view or
going on MSNBC. So for him it was I got
to get this guy in and I want to ask
the questions, and he knew full well that if he
asked a question. I mean, this is my opinion on this.
I might have it entirely wrong, but it's this is
(34:20):
how it seems to me. Mine answer to it is
that if you'd asked a question that would have stumped
the president or as you say, well, that's clearly a lie.
Why not tell us the truth? That would have been
the end of the interview, Because that's correct. They don't
they don't owe Tucker Carlson anything right, And then from
(34:41):
President Pajek inside, I think, and again I might have
this wrong, but it seems to me that it's an
overture before peace.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
I think you could actually make that case. Then he's
kind of testing the waters, you know, what will be
the outcome now because of his basic inclination to obfuscate
and not not really put the truth.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
He's a politician.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
Yeah, and so he runs the risk of that getting
in the way of whatever he intends to do. But
if I were to make one point here, and it's
a it's a bit of a criticism, No, it actually
is a criticism, not a bit of one with Carlson
is that he makes the point in his teaser that
he has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo to the
(35:32):
same kind of an interview, And I got to say,
wait a second. You know what you're doing here is
you're establishing some sort of moral equivalence between this this
horrific UH state Iran that is the number one UH
(35:53):
purveyor of terrorism all over the world with Israel. No,
that does not work. You have to have some other
way of bringing an alternative view. You cannot bring the
Prime Minister of Israel, which the United States stands behind
as some at least aragon of right right versus evil,
(36:19):
and put them on the stage with evil. That does
not work.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Again, Devil's advocate here, I would say that if I
were the Iranian president, I would say that you know,
we are equivalent, and therefore to get the interview, you've
got to put that equivalence forward.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
Well, then there is the alternative. I don't need that
much of the interview that much.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
And then nobody gets to hear. Otherwise, what do we
get to hear. We get to hear nothing but what
comes out of Iranian state owned media. But now you
get to hear it'd argue that that's pretty much what
we got.
Speaker 4 (36:55):
That's what you got. Yeah, you get the state owned
media talking points only they get to be on Tucker
Carlson's platform.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
But doesn't that ignore the that we both agree is
an overture towards peace? And isn't that really what is
the ideal goal?
Speaker 4 (37:13):
I think that what will that really means? To be seen?
It does not take away from the basic criticism that
you cannot have this moral EQUIVALENCYE sure and push that,
because that's what comes across well, Benjamin Netan Yahoo is
of the same moral stature as these murderers in Iran. No,
that does not work.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
Dave Patterson strong words, strong opinions, and is always great analysis.
Thanks for being here, Dave, Thank you Mert, and that,
dear listeners, is about all we have time for on
this week's edition Off Liberty Nation Radio head Coast to
Coast on the Radio America Network from our flagship station
in the nation's capital, ww RC in Washington, d C.
(37:54):
I'd like to first thank our guests for joining us
today and then leave you with a final thought. So
Andrew Moran, economics editor at lived nation dot com, and
Dave Patterson National Security correspondent, thank you both for taking
the time to come in and join us, and of
course extend my thanks to you the listeners at home
for taking the time to join us. So my parting
(38:15):
thought for this week based on what we've been discussing today.
Ronald Reagan, speaking in nineteen eighty two, when rededicating our warship,
he said, quote, when we've taken up arms, it has
been for the defense of freedom, for ourselves and for
other peaceful nations who needed our help. But now, faced
(38:39):
with the development of weapons of immense destructive power, we
have no choice but to maintain ready defense forces that
are second to none. Yes, the cost is high, but
the price of neglect would be infinitely higher end quote.
I think, and I'm sure in fact, what Reagan was
getting at there is that there's an ever change changing
(39:00):
threat in the world, and the ideals that were once
held are now being usurped by current situations and new
threats called for new attitudes. But also mont Reagan is
very much the pragmatist, and he understood that the values
(39:24):
that founded the nation, that have held the nation together
over so many years and through so much need to
remain as strong as they ever did, just something to
think about. Thank you for being here. Please remember Libity
Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this
presentation is no endorsement.
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
That it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides, a production of
Libertynation dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean
and making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Libertination radio Head Coast to Coast on
the Raid America Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelides. On
today's show, we are talking the big beautiful bill, ramifications
for debt, and the ever expanding defense budget. It's going
to be quite the show. And you're back on Liutination
radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio America Network.
I'm your host, Mark Angeletis. Now we're joined by Libertination's
economics expert, mister Andrew Moran to talk about the recent
(00:57):
jobs report. And there's a couple of fascinating, fascinating points
that I kind of want to tease out from you
and examined, because as I'm sure you've noticed, Andrew The
reporting on the jobs report was so bizarre. You had
half of the internet saying it's an utter disaster. I
(01:19):
thought Trump was going to do X, Y, and Z,
and the other half was showing these numbers, and it
looked to me like the other half, the ones showing
the improvements were in the right. But what do I know, Andrew?
Why am I wrong or am I not?
Speaker 4 (01:35):
Well?
Speaker 5 (01:36):
Here, here's just a factual analysis of the report. It was.
It wasn't anything great. It was a by the error
type jobs report because most of the job gains were
in government. You look at the household portion of the
jobs report, which which removes duplication, it showed a smaller number.
You know, yes, it came even higher than expected, and
(01:57):
the unemploymentary dipped, But the headline freak are a deeper
dive would suggests, yeah, I mean, is Joe Biden still
in office? So it wasn't a lot of private sector growth.
It was mostly governments, particularly at the state of local level.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Well, let's look at that. So why is there a
government sector growth at the state and local level when
we've seen that since the beginning, since the beginning of
Trump's second term. Here we've seen a lot of layoffs, resignations,
and retirements. Right.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Yeah, So if you dive deeper into the state of
local figures, you see that a lot of it is
actually an education so a lot of school boards are
hiring more teachers or more staff or of course, as
you as we all know, the last several years were administrators.
So overall, I mean it's mostly an education drivel at
the state of local level. But for you know, but
the federal level, though, it is actually declined to get
(02:50):
I think it's overall the year to date, the number
of the client of federal workers fifty nine thousand people.
So I mean at the federal level that's a good thing.
But overall, when you want a private when you want,
as Scott Best of the Treasury Secretary said, when you
want to reprivatize the government, the June jobs port doesn't
illustrate that trend.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Okay, So you had an increase in state and local
government jobs you had, how was the private sector on that.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
Well, yeah it was it was far far lower. So
overall there were one hundred and forty seven thousand new
jobs in June. The the the private sector count of
for about the problem with the Okay, So the problem
with data figure because cause because the problem is with
the they count let's say healthcare, social assistance, things like
(03:44):
that as private sector, but it's more government adjacent than
it is private sector. So if you look at the
say the the Payroll Process or ADP, it came out
with a report two days before around two days before,
and it said that the private sector actually eliminated thirty
three thousand jobs. So that shows that the private sector
(04:07):
is perhaps slowing down a trend over the last over
the past year actually has been a free So it's
the economist joke that the labor market isn't an ice age,
because yeah, companies are not hiring, nor are they firing.
They have a lot of job openings, but for the
most part they're not a standstill because before they're waiting
(04:28):
for the election results and the next part they're waiting
for now with terrors, waiting for more certainty into the
broader economy. So overall, the private sector, I mean, they
added jobs, but it's things like healthcare and social assistance
that rely heavily on government funding to add these jobs.
So when you say how does the private sector do,
there's more to it than just pointing out the private
sector paid with growth number.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Sure you mentioned the ADP there, which for a long
time was quite a what's the way it says? It
was viewed as quite a reliable indicator, but well, I
mean it didn't have a reputation now I'm talking pre
Biden times here, but now a lot of people are
(05:12):
sort of running away from it or not. Yeah, I
guess investing their ideas as much in the data that
it produces. Why is that?
Speaker 5 (05:20):
Yeah, So actually their problems actually pre date Joe Biden.
They actually through a methodology change in twenty twenty two,
but overall it's been a very unreliable indicator, mainly because
they have different because the numbers all over the place,
the changes they relying on, the on the companies that
the user services. But there it's they underestimates job growth
(05:44):
for the most part. So I did a story on this,
I think it was I think I did orned this
for libernation dot com, and I showed how if you
look at the beer of labor stistics data and compared
it to an ADP, the ADP typically underestimates that number.
But even the beer of labor sts succeeded is also unreliable.
Figure I want to go through real, uh, real labor
(06:06):
market numbers, you actually have to wait maybe a year
from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which uses actually
tax receipts to determine the real employment gains or loss.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Well, that was the story over the last four years,
wasn't it. That we'd have some job numbers that come
out from the Biden administration that we're touted us, Oh,
look a look at these great job numbers, and then
a month later there'd be revisions month to month and
a half late to be revisions bringing it down. And
then the year on your data again there there are
more revisions, bring it down and down. Do you think
(06:40):
we'll have and I don't know if there's a way
to really accurately if even predict is the right word
for this, but do you think we'll see downwards revisions
on Trump's jobs data, either monthly or on a year
by year basis? Well?
Speaker 5 (06:56):
Interesting you bring it up, because if you look at
the June jobs report, the beer labor actually revised a
few months jobs the upward, which is all I mean,
we haven't seen that years, so it was it wasn't significant,
but it wasn't upward adjustment.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
To the numbers.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Okay, so you wrote a fantastic piece on the pages
of libtination dot com that highlighted something that I think
for people who are fans of Donald Trump will be
super exciting news, and for people who are not, maybe
the opposite, and that was that this latest report shows
(07:33):
that US citizens were getting the line's share of the jobs,
and those who are not we were sinking quite a lot.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
Yeah, So if you compare the January twenty twenty five
numbers at June twenty twenty five, you see that divergence
between US born and foreign born levels and actually narrow
so since Jerry twenty twenty five, US born employment levels
actually have soared by more than two million. If you
look at employed foreign born workers, that's actually declined by
(08:06):
five hundred and two thousand. So if you go back
to let's say October twenty nineteen, when this pretty much
the saga began that there was such a huge gap
between the employed foreign and US born workers, but you know,
it's still earlier than the Trump administration, so many years
to catch up. But overall, for a lot of President
Trump supporters, this is a positive. This is a sign
(08:27):
heading that the suggests that the US economy is heading
in the right direction for the American people. Just for
so long you've always heard that all as foreigners are
taking American jobs. But now you can make the joke that, hey,
Americans are taking foreigner's jobs.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
I think that that's going on a bumper sticker, Andrew.
We're going to be back with Andrew Moran after this
show break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelitis.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. I remain your host,
Mark Anderletis, we continue our conversation with libert Nation's economics editor,
mister Andrew Moran. Thanks for sticking around, Andrew. What I
really want to dig into here is this last week,
so we saw the Donald Trump signed the big beautiful
(09:19):
bill at and it's it's the most it's the most
contentious thing this week for a parliaments, oh it. But
also people who would ordinarily support many of the things
that Donald Trump does are also a little hesitant on this.
And I wonder if let's say Elon Musk in particular,
(09:42):
who's who's thrown out those particular teddies out of the
PRAM with this, But he might be right that there's
a fiscal waywardness taking place here. So what I really
want to dig into is what the the headline numbers
mean in REAC. So there's been a and there's an
(10:04):
increase within the bill, an allowable increase within the bill
of is it four trillion?
Speaker 5 (10:11):
The set of version it made it five trillions, So
I think that was that was what the House was
voting on. So I think it's either way four to
five trillion dollars efty something.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
What's a trillion dollars between friends? So now that's money
that's not being spent yet. Now you and I both
know that if that money is dangling there in front
of them, like like ripe fruit, they're gonna take it,
aren't they, And they're going to spend it.
Speaker 5 (10:38):
Yeah, absolutely, So you know we all know that's what's
going to happen. So the problem that let's say Elon
Musk has is that they tend to think that this
is going to dramatically increase national debts and dramatically raise
a deficit. Now, the one report that everyone keeps citing
is is the Congressional Budget Office, But it seems like
not a lot of people have read it because if
you look at that, if you look at their analysis
of the reconciliation package, their conclusion is that over the
(11:01):
next ten years, this bill is going to reduce outlays
by about one point two trillion dollars. At the same time,
it's going to reduce revenues by about three and a
half trillion dollars. So you see a certains I caught
it on the fiscal side of this, but they also
came out with a separate report and it said that
tariff incomes over the next ten years is going to
raise revenues by about two and a half trillion dollars.
(11:22):
So right there, if that's if that is a reliable estimate,
considering how we all know that the situation's fluid, and
you know, trade flows could be upbedded our shata. But
if it doesn't, then that two and a half trillion
dollars is going to make up for the for the
most part, that lost revenues by about you know, plus
or minus few hundred billions.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Well, you and I discussed this before when we were
trying to hammer down a more conservative figure on what
the tasks would bring in, and I posed about one
hundred to one hundred and ten billion a year, and
we kind of agreed that was an ultimately that's quite
a realistic figure rather than the half a trillion that
(12:06):
was floated when it first started with those right.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
So if you look at the monthly daily Treasury statements,
which really fascinating.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Reading, you see it, you read it so you don't
have to.
Speaker 5 (12:18):
You see that tariff income right now is generated is
a record level. I mean, it's not astronomical, but it's
about twenty five billion dollars a month a fiscal year
to date, it's already over one hundred and twenty billion dollars.
So you know, if this tried to continues, then you
could be looking at a sizeable chunk of revenue just
from the tariffs itself. Now, President Jobis come out with
(12:39):
various different policies. I mean, he wants to know, you know,
slap higher April the April second tariffs on US trading partners.
But if you just have that ten percent flat tariff
tariff percentage rate, then you have let's say, you know,
your number, which could actually be higher based on these
recent daily Treasure statement numbers.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
So there's there's all something else that just doesn't get
talked about enough with regards to to these these monumental figures.
And that's that if there is growth. And I guess
this is the point of what Donald Trump's been trying
to do, is he's trying to promote a growth engine
within the economy. He may fail, he may succeed. I mean,
(13:20):
pay his past track record suggest that he might succeed.
It's airring in his favor certainly that he might succeed
in creating a growth engine. But what kind of Let's
take the tariff revenue as out for a moment. Let's
just say that all of a sudden the world becomes
free trade.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
I know Andrew is like, all.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Right, Christmas has coming, Festivus has come early. But let's
take the tariff revenue out for just a moment. What
kind of growth is needed within the us GDP to
level out the increased debt that's been account for in
the reconciliations.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
Well, I mean overall, I mean for the whole debt
as a whole, I mean, just fro obb So so
what what what what? What? What I tend to do
is that because the obb is is that the meat
and potatoes similar to the TC the Tax Cutting Jobs Act.
So when the Tax Cuting Jobs Act came out, the revenue,
I mean, the the growth projections were very similar. It
(14:22):
was a very the growth expectations were minimal, you know,
one percent, one point eight percent, YadA, YadA, YadA. But
actually turned out within the first year the t c
g A g A actually increased GDP and actually reached
that three percent benchmark that Treasury Secretary Scott Best typically
talks about. It also raised real media incomes. Even that
(14:43):
White House it projected that I think the real meeting
becames were about four thousand dollars, actually came out to
be sixty five hundred dollars. So these varyu things happened.
Another factor too, that that's very important, especially for Trump's
version of the economy, is capital investment in the In
the in the before the pandemic, capital investment was was skyrocketing.
Of course, the pandemic changed that, and new administration also
(15:04):
changed that. But now, as you already see the first
few months of the new Trump administration, there's there's trillions
of dollars in capital that's been pouring in part of
it is the expectation of lower income tax rates, lower
corporate tax rates, you know, and then of course the
working class lower tax tax rates as well. It's going
to boost it. One thing I find comical is that
when I watched these hearies on capital health, you always
(15:27):
have lawmakers on the on one side of the aisle
saying how tariffs are going to influence certain behaviors in
the broader economy, But they never apply that to the
income taxes or any other government tax rates, which if astounding,
because of course when you have lower taxes, people are
going to respond. You know, when the under the TCG,
when they're lower tax rates, what if people do they
(15:48):
started spending more money, which, of course, I mean we
all can agree that that that can be foolish endeva
at times, but overall for economy that's two thirds consumption.
That was a positive development in the US economy. So
tax rates do influence people and does influence businesses all,
not only just tariffs.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
So I'm just thinking that there's this idea that if
you want to limit something, was this Reagan, if you
want to limit limit something, tax it, if you want
to expand it, deregulated, I think that was Reagan.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
Oh I'm parafrat.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
And then you think, well, people are wanting to put
tax on on the work that you do, and it's
not it's not an incentive to work. It's the same thing, right,
if you want to minimize something, you tax it more.
So you're by heavily taxing industry investment even down to
(16:40):
you know, your your income tax on the work that
you do on a daily basis, people aren't encouraged to
do more by by by overtaxing, which kind of nicely
brings us onto the idea of the no tax on
tips and overtime? Do you think because over time is
actually quite an important part of overall overall GDP, I guess.
Speaker 5 (17:06):
Right, not really. If you look at the Beer of
Labor statistics data, you see the number of number of
working overtime is about twenty million, so it's not not
a significant share of the quantity. Of course, it's gonna
help with me.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
I mean, this is actually what I'm getting at.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
Maybe that will bolsto the number of two who actually
want to work overdione is now that work.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Is going to be exempted. Yeah, well up to a
certain amount. It's going to be exempt from tax. And
I think that's kind of the point I'm making here,
is that if you want to penalize something, tax it.
If you want to limit it, tax it, but with
the with a carve out on things like overtime, and
people won't be paying. And because of course it's it's
(17:44):
at a high rate as well, isn't it, you can
push you into a higher tax bracket. If they can
avoid that, then they're going to be more productive, aren't they.
Isn't that how things work?
Speaker 5 (17:54):
Yes, that would be And I also think it would
address some of the labor challenges in the US compt
particularly the no tax on tips, because if you look
at the let's say the Joeld stata from the Beer
of Labor Statistics, you see that there's about seven point
seven million people shorten million people in the workforce. Particularly
a significant share of this is actually in the hospitality
and leisure industry, which is a bread and butter for
(18:15):
no tax for the tipped workers. So you have that
twenty five thousand dollars deduction, perhaps more people would be
incentivized to go into that field try to make that
extra cash. And you know, of course that sector has
filled a lot of illegal immigrants. Now that they're being
kicked out or no longer welcome to the country, more
Americas can perhaps fill that need for labor.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
So jobs for Americans with a low attacks right, yeah,
I think. I mean, if it all works out, this
is a great mid term message for President Trump. If not,
it could be an even better message for the Democrats.
Andrew Moran, thanks ever so much for joining us, Thanks
for having me.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
Ye think we're que freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
And read.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangelites.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
And you're here on Liberty Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. IM your host, Mark Angeles,
where joins today by Liberty Nations National Security Correspondence Dave Pattison.
Thanks for being here, Dave.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
Happy to be with you, Mark, always so Dave.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
The big beautiful bill went in pasted in the Senate
and the House, and then Donald Trump signed it on
Independence Day, making it the lore of the land. And
you wrote a rather fascinating piece about the how this
impacts the Defense Department budget and how it puts it
on a almost like a wartime footing or time time
(20:00):
readiness footing, gives them the other I.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Think that that's the case. I mean, if you look
at the Reconciliation Bill as a supplemental, because it's not,
it's basically not the base budget. And it adds one
hundred and thirteen billion dollars to the defense line, which
pops the defense total top line above a trillion dollars,
(20:25):
which is not trivial.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
And as as Donald Rumsfeld used to say.
Speaker 4 (20:31):
Not nothing, not, and I think that, but more importantly,
it was essential because what the Reconciliation Bill did is
kind of prime the pump for other programs that we
are in the twenty six base budget. For example, Golden Dome.
(20:54):
There's in order to jumpstart Golden Dome, there's twenty five
billion dollars in the Reconciliation bill, so to have the
full amount of money to really move that program along.
It's going to show up in again in the twenty
six base budget, and and so you'll have that as
(21:15):
an entire budget line. And it's things like that particularly important,
I think too, was the fact that the reconciliation bill
was very keen on operations and in and what we
call the ow M budget, operations and maintenance, the things
(21:38):
that keep the the war fighter fighting wars. And it's
and it was very clear that this was consistent with
Secretary Hesith's readiness and lethality and so forth.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Yeah, it's a lot of people would argue that a
trillion dollars for defense. Bear in mind that this number
is never going to go down, right, This is a
trillion dollars a year from here on out. Perhaps not
perhaps perhaps not. It won't it won't continue at that.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
Remember that bill, it will. Remember the base budget is
not a trillion dollars. It's the combinations of the reconciliation
bill and yeah, the twenty six base budget, which makes
it a trillion dollars.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Okay, But to continue with the the projects. So we're
talking what eight hundred and eighty ish and the base
budget and then one hundred and thirteen or so rank reconciliation.
That's a lot of money.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
Well, by any by any measure, By.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
By any measure, is that increased spending. I guess what
people want to know is is this grand total? Is
this a making America safer? Is it be putting America
far enough ahead of any potential enemy that might or
(23:03):
either in existence now or might come into existence or
prominence going forward? And see is it all going to
be I guess see the last is it all going
to be money well spent? Because it is obviously delivered
through government programs? We know those are notoriously bad. So
let's talk about the A factor first. Here in what
(23:29):
way does the spending, the initial spending and the additional
spending make America a safer place to be? And now
you mentioned the Golden Dome? What else is there?
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Well, first of all, I think it's important to note
what's not there? Okay, and what's not there is any
money for work program CRT, for training and also for
nonsense it called climate change initiatives. And in the twenty
five budget there was electric tanks or electric tanks, oh
(24:02):
my goodness, yes, and uh, and in in the twenty
five budget that Biden put forward there but there's about
three billion dollars for climate change initiatives. That's all gone,
that's all out of there because it's just a non
value added. Uh, it should not I might I want
(24:23):
to throw out very quickly because we can also you know,
throw out the baby with the bathwater. H In many cases,
the services were clever and and I know, surprise, but
they were in that they used that money to do
capital investments in in property, okay, and and to they
(24:45):
call it because it based resilience, and they book kept
it under this climate change crap and uh, with with
all due respect to crap everywhere, you know, but but
to make buildings more capable of withstanding hurricanes and so forth,
that was necessary. During the Bush administration. We had an
(25:08):
entire program to do that. We didn't call it climate
change because it didn't have anything to do with the weather.
It's other than the fact that you were making buildings
more capable of withstanding bad weather. And that's you have
to do that. I mean, that's what that's good stewardship
of dollars in your capital count. So that's those kinds
(25:29):
of things I think are still there, but they're properly
book kept, and you know, military construction and so forth.
But I think too that the if you start to
look at at the base budget, because you have to
look at it as a total whole, I think I
made this point in one of my articles. You can't
look at it as one versus another or in isolation,
(25:52):
because the Reconciliation Bill really is the pump primer for
the twenty six BACE budget and the things that are important.
And you can argue whether it's right or wrong, but
they have eliminated wedge tail the E seven A, which
is a wax for another airborne warning and control system,
(26:17):
principally because it was, as I like to refer to them,
it was a limping gazelle, over costs, behind schedule, and
unable to perform in the environment in which it was
going to be. Now you can argue about that last part,
but the fact is is that these are programs that
(26:39):
die because they were not managed well. Wedge Tail for
the East seven has been on the books for a
very very long time, should have been fielded years ago,
but they place. They're just not very good at acquisition anymore.
And why, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
It's because you're not there in the pen anymore.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
I like to think that, I mean, you know, throw
me into that brier pat one more time.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
So well, that actually ties in with with my my
third aspect of this is we're we're kind of hoping
that if there well, there is the budget, it's done. Now,
we're kind of hoping that that the money is spent wisely.
And you've got these these programs that, as you point
out there, they're years behind and therefore correct if I'm
(27:31):
wrong on this. If a program that is engineering technology
is several years behind schedule, it's almost axiomatically going to
be obsolete or near obsolete by the time it does
reach completion. Is that about right?
Speaker 4 (27:48):
I won't go so far as to say absolutely, Let's
say that it will be behind the power curve. It
will not be as appropriate to the threat as it
might otherwise have been had it been on time. And
not only that, but you you basically you limit the
deterrence capability. If if I've got the sixth generation airplane
(28:11):
right now, then that's a deterrent, and it will be
a deterrent until somebody decides that they're going to uh
oppose me with something similar. But if I don't have
it now, then I've got I'm playing catch up, and
the idea of deterrence is then pushed to the right
(28:32):
and and it loses its effect. Now we can say,
oh yeah, but we're going to have one. Oh, yes, sir, Yes, sir,
We're going to have one. But if it's not on
the ramp as it's not flying, then it's not a deterrent.
And so I think that deterrence might write this down.
Deterrence today is worth a lot of deterrence sometime in
(28:54):
the future.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Absolutely right. We're gonna be back with Dave Patson after
this show break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelidis.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I continue to
be Mark actualleaders and we're continuing our conversation with Liberty
Nations National security correspondent Dave Patterson. Now, Dave, I want
to move on from talking about the defense built budget
and talk about something that happened this week, and that
was that Tucker Carlson had was quite a rare interview,
(29:33):
I guess for Western media with the Iranian President Masu Pajekian,
and that came out on Monday. What was your overall
take on that, Well.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
I think that the I listened to it and I
thought that, Okay, kudos to Carlson for getting the interview,
and but I think he lost in a opportunity to
be far more probing and pretty much let the Iranian
(30:07):
president filibuster if you will, talking about his point of view,
if you wanted to synthesize what was said, Uh, US
good except when supporting Israel, US bad. Israel always bad.
And so you know, the surprise, surprise, very very little
(30:29):
that could not have been predicted. But I think also
that Tucker Craulson did not have as as I mentioned,
it's probing the questions that he might have otherwise and
that and then he didn't push back when things were
obviously you know, propaganda being shoved his way.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Right, So that's yeah. He started off with basically three premises, right,
what's Iran's goal? What uh, what does Iran think of America?
And what does Iran think of Israel? The last one there,
what is the Ran think of Israel? I think I
think no, no, no interview necessary to know what Iran
thinks of Israel.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
That's true, and the whole idea, the premise that he
or his motivation for doing the interview was to ensure
that the people of the United States had a a
an accurate perception of what Iran was, what they what
they think and what their lead, their leader, what their
leadership is about. And yet you have to ask yourself, okay,
(31:32):
you're you didn't ask any you know, knock him down
dead questions. So the kinds of things that Americans would
really want to know is why do you say this
when it's absolutely not true? And we all know that.
But he didn't push back on those kinds of things.
So whether or not Americans were really informed, you know,
(31:55):
remains to be seen. There are things that are self evident,
like what do you think of Israel? Well, duh uh,
you don't go out saying death to Israel and you know,
send them Christmas presents or they.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Sure, however, they do also say death to America, right.
Speaker 4 (32:12):
Yeah, and so you know, but he had a very
interesting response to that, and one that's you know, that
kind of pushes the limits of credibility and credulity, both
of the words. And he said, well, we really don't
mean death to the American people. That's not what we mean.
What we really mean is, you know, death to the
(32:33):
basically the behavior of the kinds of threats and all
of this kind of stuff that come from the United States.
And so we're really not meaning death to America and
it cans but to the kinds of things that we
all hate, right, we all hate these things, and.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Yeah, it's uh So for me, there's there's something about
motivations that I find most interesting because let's because he
wrote about before the interview came out, you wrote about
what you can expect from this, and for all intents
and purposes, you nailed it.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
That that's what we got.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
You can read Dave's I don't want to call it
a prediction, Dave Cassandra Patterson, but I had the Delphi
Oracle of national security. So please listeners do go and
check out what Dave set Forth was probably going to happen.
And he was pretty right on that, I think. But
(33:34):
as to motivations, now, I'm really just formulating ideas here
on this, but I think from both sides, there's a
couple of motivations. Number One, Tucker Carlson wanted to interview
somebody that nobody else would interview, and he did that,
or nobody else could interview as well, because the Uranian president,
(33:58):
it's not like he's he's off doing the view or
going on MSNBC. So for him it was I got
to get this guy in and I want to ask
the questions, and he knew full well that if he
asked a question. I mean, this is my opinion on this.
I might have it entirely wrong, but it's this is
(34:20):
how it seems to me. Mine answer to it is
that if you'd asked a question that would have stumped
the president or as you say, well, that's clearly a lie.
Why not tell us the truth? That would have been
the end of the interview, Because that's correct. They don't
they don't owe Tucker Carlson anything right, And then from
(34:41):
President Pajek inside, I think, and again I might have
this wrong, but it seems to me that it's an
overture before peace.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
I think you could actually make that case. Then he's
kind of testing the waters, you know, what will be
the outcome now because of his basic inclination to obfuscate
and not not really put the truth.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
He's a politician.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
Yeah, and so he runs the risk of that getting
in the way of whatever he intends to do. But
if I were to make one point here, and it's
a it's a bit of a criticism, No, it actually
is a criticism, not a bit of one with Carlson
is that he makes the point in his teaser that
he has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo to the
(35:32):
same kind of an interview, And I got to say,
wait a second. You know what you're doing here is
you're establishing some sort of moral equivalence between this this
horrific UH state Iran that is the number one UH
(35:53):
purveyor of terrorism all over the world with Israel. No,
that does not work. You have to have some other
way of bringing an alternative view. You cannot bring the
Prime Minister of Israel, which the United States stands behind
as some at least aragon of right right versus evil,
(36:19):
and put them on the stage with evil. That does
not work.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Again, Devil's advocate here, I would say that if I
were the Iranian president, I would say that you know,
we are equivalent, and therefore to get the interview, you've
got to put that equivalence forward.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
Well, then there is the alternative. I don't need that
much of the interview that much.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
And then nobody gets to hear. Otherwise, what do we
get to hear. We get to hear nothing but what
comes out of Iranian state owned media. But now you
get to hear it'd argue that that's pretty much what
we got.
Speaker 4 (36:55):
That's what you got. Yeah, you get the state owned
media talking points only they get to be on Tucker
Carlson's platform.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
But doesn't that ignore the that we both agree is
an overture towards peace? And isn't that really what is
the ideal goal?
Speaker 4 (37:13):
I think that what will that really means? To be seen?
It does not take away from the basic criticism that
you cannot have this moral EQUIVALENCYE sure and push that,
because that's what comes across well, Benjamin Netan Yahoo is
of the same moral stature as these murderers in Iran. No,
that does not work.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
Dave Patterson strong words, strong opinions, and is always great analysis.
Thanks for being here, Dave, Thank you Mert, and that,
dear listeners, is about all we have time for on
this week's edition Off Liberty Nation Radio head Coast to
Coast on the Radio America Network from our flagship station
in the nation's capital, ww RC in Washington, d C.
(37:54):
I'd like to first thank our guests for joining us
today and then leave you with a final thought. So
Andrew Moran, economics editor at lived nation dot com, and
Dave Patterson National Security correspondent, thank you both for taking
the time to come in and join us, and of
course extend my thanks to you the listeners at home
for taking the time to join us. So my parting
(38:15):
thought for this week based on what we've been discussing today.
Ronald Reagan, speaking in nineteen eighty two, when rededicating our warship,
he said, quote, when we've taken up arms, it has
been for the defense of freedom, for ourselves and for
other peaceful nations who needed our help. But now, faced
(38:39):
with the development of weapons of immense destructive power, we
have no choice but to maintain ready defense forces that
are second to none. Yes, the cost is high, but
the price of neglect would be infinitely higher end quote.
I think, and I'm sure in fact, what Reagan was
getting at there is that there's an ever change changing
(39:00):
threat in the world, and the ideals that were once
held are now being usurped by current situations and new
threats called for new attitudes. But also mont Reagan is
very much the pragmatist, and he understood that the values
(39:24):
that founded the nation, that have held the nation together
over so many years and through so much need to
remain as strong as they ever did, just something to
think about. Thank you for being here. Please remember Libity
Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this
presentation is no endorsement.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.