May 16, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Biden Swings for the Fences
Seg 2 – Naked Politics?
Seg 3 – Welcome to the Trump Economy
Seg 4 – A Budget-Busting Future?
Seg 2 – Naked Politics?
Seg 3 – Welcome to the Trump Economy
Seg 4 – A Budget-Busting Future?
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):
No, it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterplase and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
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 Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Libty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelidis.
On today's special edition show, we are talking trouble in
Democrats City, what's happening with Joe Biden, and a whole
lot more. Please remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsor by libutination
dot com. You can access podcast breaking news analysis and
a range of biting and brilliant shows to wet trap
type freedom and your fondus for the Great American Constitution.
(00:57):
And you're on Libty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Antleties. We're
very fortunate to be joined by a longtime host of
this here radio show and Liberty Nations senior political analyst,
mister Tim donough, Thanks for coming in. Tim, Hello, Mark,
So you've been what's the what's the right way to
describe this you're writing on Liberty Nation this last week
(01:19):
or so. Uh, it's a cross between poetry and polemic.
I think it's been fantastic and the target of your.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, you could just say it's polemic poetry.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We could we could say that, we could say that.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Or poetic polemics.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, the target has been one way or the other.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
You're very welcome. It's well worth a read those of
you listening on the radio here. The particular target that
you've been looking at this week is the the rather
depressing destruction of the Democratic Party, but also in particular,
specifically their inability to understand why Joe Biden was such
(02:08):
a harbinger of their twenty twenty four demise. And it
seems that some people are realizing it, but they're still
refusing to look at any remedies towards that. And I
think it's it's an almost fatalistic approach that leading members
of the Democratic Party have at the moment towards their
(02:28):
position because unless you recognize the problem, you're doomed to
repeat it again and again. And you wrote a fascinating
peace Corps. Biden is back as infuriated Democrats cringe and
it's fantastic. Give us the brief overview just for those
who might want to go.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And read it.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, I guess the bottom line is it's a Democratic
party because their past is so distressing and they haven't
figured out the future. They're sort of stuck in the
time war and Joe Biden returning to the scene of
the crime so to speak to the public square with
(03:11):
appearances on BBC and most notably the View were definitely
cringe worthy stuff for Democrats. One of the Democratic strategists
that I quoted in the story referred to Biden's refusal
to even admit that he was in any sort of
cognitive decline and the fact that he also said on
(03:34):
the view that he would have beaten Trump and the
only reason he pulled out was not because of his
catastrophic debate or his cognitive decline, but because he didn't
want to quote divide the Democratic Party, to which the
strategist I referred to said, it's the equivalent of political insanity,
(03:56):
entirely detached from reality, and once again he's being pushed
out in public. When I think about ninety nine point
nine percent of Democrats, perhaps everyone except his wife, doctor
Joe Biden wants him to stay in the basement from
whence he came into which he returned once Kambala Harris
(04:20):
had to carry the banner for him and was so
thoroughly defeated in December. This is the last thing Democrats
wanted to see was a reemergence of Joe Biden. It
was just a reminder of everything that had gone wrong
and the man who caused the party to fall into shambles.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
But surely, tim I heard from so many pundits that
Kamala Harris was the perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign,
So one would assume that part of the blame does
fall on Kamala Harris as well.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, you know, when Democrats say that Kamala Harris ran
a perfect campaign, of course that's far from the truth.
I think though, you could make the case that she
ran an error free campaign, and that's because she took
no chances, she said nothing, She fell back on broma
(05:21):
such as I was raised in a middle class family,
which she repeated dozens and dozens of times.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
She may interject that him, I was raised the middle
class fan. Whenever she said that, I thought back to
Steve Martin in one of his earliest film roles, to Jerk,
and I believe that starts. I was raised a poor
black child. Yes, And every time she said, hey, and
I was raised in middle class, when's she going to
get the banjo out and start tap dancing on the
(05:51):
front port.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Well, she was an incredibly inept candidate, of course, but
she made no errors because she took no chances and
talked about nothing except platitudes and promides, and you know,
heavily shall we say, airbrush language from her strategists. But
(06:13):
I mean, it's not her fault that the Democrats lost
that election so badly. She did the best she could
with her extremely limited political skills. It was Joe Biden.
It's all about Joe Biden. He was ground zero for
the utter collapse of the Democratic Party. And he still
won't even admit mark that he should have either not
(06:38):
run for a second term or that he should have
dropped out much earlier when it was obvious he wasn't
up to a second term. And who you want to
blame for all this, You can blame Biden, but the
fact that he was basically, you know, the four books
that have been written specifically about the twenty twenty four
election campaign all came to the conclusion that Joe Biden
(07:03):
was essentially in a fog for months, if not years.
So who made the decision to keep him in the
obvious culprit culprit was doctor Joe Biden, and it was
it was like a bless from the past when the
two of them went together on the view and once
again Joe Biden was unable to answer a question and
(07:26):
his wife had to step in to answer it for him,
just like she had had to step in to run
his last cabinet meeting because he was so out of
it that he couldn't even answer questions even when they
were prescripted for his cabinet members.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
I find it quite rich that the people who, even
though Elon Musk was leally appointed to his position at
the head of those with one hundred and twenty I
think one hundred and twenty day tournament, the self same
people had no words that Jill Biden was running a
cabinet meeting for the president. I mean, nobody elected Jill Biden,
(08:06):
not a single not a single vote, not a Senate
confirmation for Jill Biden. And yet she was leading a
cabinet discussion, presumably about things which would be classified to
a certain level, presumably without any particular clearance other than
the fact that she's Joe Biden's wife.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Well, not only that, but his closest advisor, who, by
many accounts, was calling the shots.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
The smartest guy he knows, right.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Hunter Biden. I mean Hunter Biden was in the Oval
office and serving as a de facto chief of staff
after he'd been convicted of real crimes, unlike Donald Trump.
And so, I mean, the whole thing was just a
pathetic show. And I think the bottom line, Mark, is
(08:58):
that Joe Biden costs the Democrats so dearly that they
may not recover for years, if not a generation.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
We'll continue analyzing this after we get back from the shortbreak.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
For your Freedom and your Liberty Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alities.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio or Reminia host
Mark Adalidies, we continue our conversation with Liberty Nations senipitcal
analyst Tim Donner. Tim, thanks for sticking around now, we
were talking about the problems that the Democratic Party has faced,
and specifically with Joe Biden refusing to admit that his
(09:49):
disastrous presidency was anything to do with the disastrous again
defeat of Kamala Harrison November twenty twenty four. But there
is one person within that party, at least one now
who seems to think that the problem was that they
didn't run a primary. Now, pretty much everybody and I'm
(10:11):
including specifically Democrat voters or traditionally Democrat voters who would
have liked to say in who their standard bearer was.
But we had Amy klobachar Minnesota Center from Minnesota last week,
I think it was, and she said, you know, everything
we look at in the rearview mirror after you lose
an election, Yes, we would have been better served by
(10:32):
a primary, but we are where we are now. She's right,
of course, because there were a lot of people who thought, well,
this is very undemocratic of the Democratic Party. But I
wonder if she's misdiagnosed here, because even if they did
hold a primary, is there any way that the party
(10:55):
apparatus couldn't get behind Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, if you look back on that period of time
in July, when Joe Biden dropped out of the race
and endorsed Kamala Harris. The problem that the party had
was the same one that they had for the four
years of the Biden presidency, is that they were cowardly.
They wouldn't stand up and say what they really meant,
(11:21):
They wouldn't stand up to progressives, and they allowed the
progressive wing of their party to manipulate Joe Biden into
every kind of insane political idea, which is a major
part of the reason they lost the election. Likewise, it's
fine for Amy Klobashar to say that now, but where
(11:42):
why she's six months ago or eight months ago more precisely,
when it came time to pick who the next nominee
would be after Joe Biden dropped out. But by all accounts,
there wasn't a single voice raised in today's Democratic Party
(12:03):
because they were too scared because she's a black woman,
and they were too scared because the progressive wing of
the party, the wacko wing of the Democratic Party would
have been up in arms. All the white progressives would
have been all upset that the black woman wasn't selected.
So it's pure cowardice that led to Kamala Harris assuming
(12:29):
the candidacy of Joe Biden, and you know, to say
six months later, gee, we should have had a primer
talk about too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's no courage there, right, there's no test.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Reveals that there wasn't one ounce of courage by anybody
who would stand up in that party other than the
single exception of Dean Phillips, the man who challenged Joe
Biden never had a chance. But the congressman also from
an I think from Minnesota, who said Joe Biden is
(13:04):
too old, he's going to lose. We have to come
to grips with it. But you know, other than a
guy like James Carville or other strategists who were not
directly involved in the administration, not a single person was
willing to step up and say this is crazy, we
can't win this way. And for Joe Biden to say
(13:25):
that he would have won if he had stayed in
the race, in fact, it's very possible he could have
lost forty five states because people, even liberals, are not
going to vote for a guy who is essentially a zombie,
which is what Biden had become. By the end of
his term.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, although I agree with almost every word of your
assessment up until the point where you say nobody's going
to vote for a guy who's a zombie. I don't know.
I think people.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Will five states, might have five, maybe ten. But let's
put it this way. Kamala Harris only lost a popular
vote by about a point and a half. I think
Biden would have lost by five, six, seven, maybe eight
points because people could see, yeah, even though they were
in denial. You know, It's one thing to have a
(14:20):
scandal like Watergate, where people don't really know what's going
on behind the scenes, but this was a real time meltdown.
People could see it with their own eyes in real time,
and to just deny it. You know, who are You're
going to believe me or you're lying? Right?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Absolutely absolutely, And I wonder if we don't have a
because people don't get to see the president on a
day to day basis. Very few people get to see
the president on a day to day any president, and
with Joe Biden was that was driven to a maximum
that he was he was not physically seen by a
(15:02):
large swath of actual human beings. He was, however, presented
to the public through the lens of the Fourth State,
which bears as much responsibility I think as the National
Committee for covering for Joe Biden. And now we have
so many voices saying, yeah, of course he was. Of
(15:25):
course he was in distress, in significant distress, and we
tried to tell you. And I've been looking. I've been
scouring the internet for times when they told us, you
know that, when they told us that Joe Biden was
in mental distress, and find it.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I think it was on November sixth, the election. No,
I mean the best example of that Margage Jake Tamper,
the famed anchorman who you know, was part of the
cover up, although it's not even a cover up because
everybody could see what was happening, but the denial of
(16:07):
elite media, of legacy media, who refused to tell the
truth even though he could see it. And then he
now he's written a book saying how disaster, how disastrous
it was that Biden didn't drop out of the rays
and it's his fault they lost. Oh nice of you
to tell us, now, No wonder seventy percent of the
(16:29):
American people don't trust the media, and I'm surprised it's
not even higher than that.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
The other thirty percent think you're talking about Alex Jones.
I mean, you know, I watch Alex Jones as well
as he's very entertaining. So that there's one more two
things I actually like to follow up on that before
we move on to a different subject. Is Number one
is just a quick thought, and that's press Jordan Peterson.
He says that a total tear in society is one
(16:59):
in which everybody about everything to everyone, including themselves, all
the time. And I wonder how close we came to
that with the Joe Biden presidency, where every saying he
is and I quote almost everybody who had a word
to say about Joe bia positive word, so he's as
sharp as attack sharp as it was a lie. They
(17:22):
knew it was a lie, The people who were listening
knew it was a lie, the voters knew it was
a lie, and seemingly the only person who didn't know
it was a lie was Joe Biden. And yet everybody
went along with it. And for me, I know it's
a tangential point, but for me, we were that close.
I think too. With that, I'm holding my fingers very
close together to accepting one of the first tenets of totalitarianism,
(17:46):
where we accept that a lie can be the truth
because it's better for something, whether.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It's the sort of thing where you say, if you
tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. And
the truth is in this case, as you know about
the old expression the emperor has no clothes. Yeah, but
that story came from the basis that there was somebody
who finally would say, hey, the emperor has no clothes.
(18:15):
Everybody could see it, nobody would say anything until one
person stepped up, a young child. I think, as a
story goes, who said, what's wrong here? The emperor has
no clothes? And this is what we had to deal with.
I mean, when you think about after January sixth, I
think you'd have trouble finding one percent of political analysts
(18:38):
and even normal people across the country who would have
thought Donald Trump had a chance of ever returning to power.
And yet here is thanks to Joe Biden in large part.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Indeed, now wait and be back with Tim Donna after
this show break. Don't go anywhere no I thought was free.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Freedom of speech.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and rate.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeledes, 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 (19:26):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. I remain your host,
Mark Anthelties. We are continuing our long form conversation with
longtime host of this here radio show and Liberty Nations
senior political analyst, Tim Donna. Thanks for sticking around, Tim.
So I want to move the conversation to what's happening
with Donald Trump, and it's something that it's really becoming
(19:48):
apparent to me now. That's something that I have been
writing about and talking about for some weeks. Now that
the areas that a lot of people on the left
are criticizing Donald Trump for, they're all long game situations.
So deporting illegal migrants. We thought actually stopping the flow
(20:09):
of people across the border was a long term issue
to deal with, but apparently it turns out that was
just political will that was needed and they dropped straight away.
But tariffs in particular, and now things seem to be
coming together, so deportations are going ahead. The tariffs that
so many people were worried about, and the stock market
in particular was worried about. Now that there's trade deals happening,
(20:33):
the markets pretty much back to where it was increasing.
And these things seemed to be playing out pretty much
as Donald Trump presumably predicted they would. And I'm wondering,
just to kick this conversation off him, is if there
were not such negative obstructionism, would these things have happened
(20:57):
sooner or more of effectively?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
I don't think so, because the tariffs were something that
incited skepticism in most circles, including conservative circles. Yeah, you know,
free market economists had never been a fan of tariffs.
Of course, it had a short term effect on the
market in terms of the supply chain, in terms of
(21:22):
the costs, didn't really see a big difference in the
cost of living, but it certainly would if it continued
the way it did. I think that things have turned
Trump's way faster than I thought, because but I did
predict that. You know that the market, which panic it
(21:43):
always panics at the slightest drop of a pin, that
the market would head northward as soon as there was
a first trade deal and it had a modest recovery
when the US UK trade deal was announced. And now
with the deal all but done, not only is the
(22:04):
market responding and returning to where it was before the
whole Liberation Day announcement, but I think it's going to
accelerate because now countries don't want to be left behind
in the Trump tariff regime. You have UK in line,
you have China pretty much in line. We've been told
(22:25):
that a trade deal with India is pretty close, that
could possibly be delayed because of their skirmishes with Pakistan.
You know, there's almost one hundred more than one hundred
other countries standing in line waiting to make a trade deal.
So I think every time you get a new trade deal,
the market is going to rise. I'm no financial expert.
(22:50):
I don't know the stock market as well as some
people do, but I would suspect that it's probably a
pretty good time to invest because you're only going to
see more and more trade deals now. As Donald Trump
Junior said when Liberation Day tariffs were announced, he said,
if I were in the other country, I'd get in
(23:10):
line now to make a deal, because if you're the
last one in or late in the game, you're not
going to get as good a deal because Trump will
have that much more leverage over the entire process.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Absolutely right, there's and there's something that goes hand in
hand with that. And I'm just pulling up here so
I've got the figures. So there was a Neapolitan News
Service poll that came out recently and it was less
than half of Americans realized that economic growth, faster economic
(23:47):
growth actually reduces the federal budget deficit. And I think
it was like just forty five percent of people realize that.
And so when Trump's says that he's a you know,
it's going to bring down the deficit and presumably pay
off some debts to boot along the lines, not everybody
(24:08):
seems to it. It's like less than half of people
realize that you get to that through blossoming your economy, which.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, that was something that's lagging. Ronald Reagan sort of
introduced the concept that when you lower taxes, you actually
bring in more revenue, which seems counterint it but the
fact is, when you lower taxes, okay, people will have
more money to spend. Corporations can hire more people, who
(24:41):
in turn pay taxes, and the revenues to the government
actually go up to a certain point. There's an old
thing called the last Laffer curve, which basically said, there
is a point beyond which you don't want to go
in lowering taxes at the cost of federal revenue. But
there is a sweet spot, yeah, in there. And Trump
(25:05):
understands that. He understands that, you know, with all the
jobs that are going to be created through this tariff regime,
more people will be employed, and therefore more taxes will
be raised. And all I can say, Mark, is I
can't wait for the day when we turn on that
debt clock that keeps turning over millions of dollars every
(25:31):
single day and seeing it either stalled or going in reverse.
That's when I think we can believe that we're making
a serious tent in what it is, even though most
people don't think about it or aware of it, a
catastrophic national debt which has to be reversed at some
(25:51):
point or else will have no money at the federal
level for anything but interest payments in defense. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, it's the It's the albatross, isn't it. It's the
alma truss tied around the neck. Is It'd be the
albatross tied around the necks of grandchildren for the grandfather's
ills in the federal spending.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
So you have this.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Situation where it appears that things have actually moved at
a somewhat faster pace than your I anticipated. How much
how important is it that each of these particular ventures
that President Trump is trying come to full fruition before
the midterms really heat up?
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, I think this is why the President announced so
early in its term the whole tariff REGI Liberation Day,
because he knew it would need time to crystallize, you know,
and be cemented into place, and so he did it
about what twenty months before the midterms. And frankly, if
(27:02):
his strategy is unsuccessful by that time or hasn't reached
fruition by that time, it never will. But I think
we're seeing already that it's a matter of the decree
of success rather than whether he'll be successful or not.
(27:23):
I think a big question is what kind of revenue
gains we can enjoy experience once, you know, the smoke
clears in the dust settles in all these negotiations, Because
I think one thing people don't realize is that these
trade deals are very complicated. They ordinarily take months and
(27:47):
months to negotiate because there's so many it's just a
matter of saying, here's a tariff, here's your tariff, here's
my terrorff. There's so many other non teriff for relations
did issues that have to be worked out precisely between countries,
and so actually you could say the UK US Trade
(28:10):
Accord was actually put in place pretty quickly. And now
we have China, which I think with China, what Trump
has done has he has he has played the art
of the deal perfectly because China was really suffering. People
were losing their jobs. Ports were full of ships with
(28:33):
merchandise they couldn't ship out, and you know, for an
export economy, China could hardly afford for this to go
on for long.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So that certain that that really is something worth pointing out.
So there were there were no ships coming in to
the US or feure ships coming into the US, and
a lot of I don't want to say chicken knittlers,
because you know that there's some very serious concerns with
you know, what's happening with the economy for for American livelihoods.
(29:06):
But there are a lot of people where that well
this is going to hurt us more. But it's it's
really not that situation because China, as you say, it's
an export economy. So when they stop exporting all of
the and let's be fair, a lot lot there are
some very valuable things that come out of China, but
a lot of it is is trinket junk.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You know, famous famously.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
So yeah, and so another part when those aren't coming out,
When those aren't going out, people are losing their jobs.
So if those things aren't if those things aren't coming
into America, who really cares? Well.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Another thing that Trump understands in the art of the
deal is that it should be a plus some game, not
a zero some where one side wins in the other
side loses, because those kind of deals are not sustainable.
They will generally foment political opposition in the country that
(30:04):
loses the negotiation. Trump understands that it needs to be
a win win where both sides increase their standing in
the context of a trade deal. And you know, I
think we could see that with the UK they got something,
the US got something, and we're the outlines of this
(30:28):
China deal appear to basically resulting in the same thing
where you know, China will catch some breaks, the US
will catch some breaks. I think the big question is
how much revenue is going to be added when everything
is finally in place. Because Trump's dream, and we talked
(30:49):
about this poor is to replace the income tax for
lower income Americans with tariff revenue. But yeah, that's a
long way away.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
It's ambitious, and my trust in government in general leaves
me think, well that there's a lot of extra cash
sitting around, government will find a way to spend it.
We'll be back with Tim Donner after this shortbreak.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
For your Freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
And we're back for our final second with Liberty Nations. Seni,
political analysts and long time host of this here show,
Tim Donner, I want to talk about budgets, and I
made the point to you off camera that to me,
it seems that historically, at least the political left has
wanted all spending, sorry, no spending to be discretionary and
(31:47):
they want all of it accounted for and no cuts
in anything, whether that's trans comic books for Ecuador to
gay liberation plays in Ireland. For the ambassador, because you know,
a good ambassador can't do without a gay liberation play
every every year or so.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
It goes without saying cor and the more.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
Conservative historically, and this is this, I wouldn't say this
is necessarily true now, but historically conservatives have really wanted
everything on the table, including you know, everything can be cut,
and that that includes defense, that includes all of these
programs that are that are ring fenced. And I wouldn't
(32:31):
say that's necessarily necessarily true now, not even for Donald Trump.
Then you brought up a great point that I think
is worth exploring with our listeners about Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
When Jimmy Carter came to Washington, he wanted to enforce
something that he had been able to do when he
was governor of Georgia, and the concept was zero based budgeting,
which is contrary to Washington, where the typical mindset is, well,
of course, we're going to get to the same budget
as last year, and an increase of two percent or
(33:05):
four percent or five percent, it's just presumed. But Carter's idea,
which he was never able to pull off because he
didn't have anywhere near the kind of political support he
needed for it, was what he called zero based budgeting,
where you would each department, each cabinet secretary, each agency
(33:25):
would start each new year, fiscal year with a budget
of zero, so that hey had to justify everything afresh
from the year before. This is the way many corporations
are run successfully. No, you're not entitled to the same
budget for your department. You have to defend it and
(33:47):
tell us why we should devote resources to it. And
this is really this is in a way what Trump
is doing from the executive level to the extent that
he can, because of course Congress ultimate holds the purse strings.
But this is what DOGE has done. They've gone and
said to these agencies, defend this grant, defend that expenditure.
(34:12):
What is this all about? And if they can't defend it,
it's being cut. So effectively, DOGE is the closest we've
ever come to zero based budgeting because those positions, federal
UH employment positions and those agency expenditures that are not
defensible are getting cut. Hmm.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
You know, I hear he's saying. The thing that springs
into my mind is is modern art where you have
a splodge of paint or a banana taped to a wall,
but then you have a little uh, four x six
card on the wall with lots and lots of words
explaining why this is actually an important banana to the wall,
(35:01):
and the more words they use to explain, and the
longer words they're using, some real fifty dollars words there.
There used to be ten dollar words but inflation, you know,
and they use all these words, and so the average
person thinking, oh, you know, maybe I'm not smart enough
to understand why this banana tape to the wall is
good art. And that's why they put all these different,
(35:25):
these long fifty dollars words in there, because it doesn't
actually make any sense. It never made any sense. And
what they're doing is they're selling a concept based on
a bit of a lie. And this is what I
seem to think happens when people try to justify the
government spending. If you can't say this program, we need
(35:46):
this one because it actively delivers old people three meals
a day, three hundred days out of the year, and
this is what it costs them. Why And you should
be to explain it in a minute, if you call
you in a minute's.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Absolutely it should be less than that. But yeah, you know,
this is what Elon Musk has said all along. When
he sees people violently against Doze and what he's trying
to do in cutting unnecessary pork and you know, waste,
fraud and abuse. Famously, he says, Okay, tell me which
(36:29):
of these expenditures should be Say which of these budget
lunch should be saved that we're cutting, and tell us
why defend it? But yeah, Left, the Trump haters, the
people who hate government efficiency, apparently they just opposed the process.
(36:52):
They oppose it in general on general principle, which is
not nearly good enough when you have the crazy programs
that are being cut eighty percent. I think there's five
employees left now at the Agency for International Development because
everything they spent money on about ninety five percent didn't
(37:16):
help anybody. Accept some special interest group overseas and advocating
for you know, four left ideology that's entirely out of
touch with the American people. So they oppose it in general,
but they cannot defend the specifics.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
It's so interesting that you bring that up to him,
because there was a poll by Rasmussen this last week
Rasmussen reports, and it was seventy one percent of those
who vote Democrat, and worryingly, I think it was. There's
almost half of those who vote Republican believe that would
(37:57):
support a hypothetic law that would imprison Musk for his
role in the Department of Government deficiency.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
Well, you cannot create a law specifically designed to send
one person to jail. I know that's part of the Constitution,
but I find that not only startling and inexplicable, but
very disturbing. The only thing I can think of is that,
(38:26):
you know, big corporate media, along with the leftists howling
into the darkness, have convinced ordinary Americans who are not
knowledgeable of the process, that he's slashing vital programs and
firing federal workers who are absolutely vital to the national security,
(38:49):
in the economy and everything else. And so the level
of ignorance to believe to have that many people believe that,
even among Democrats is It's truly frightening how uninformed and
unenlightened so many people are who don't follow politics, so
(39:10):
they just read the top line of a story and
they believe what they read.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
And that, unfortunately, is where we are. Tim Donna, thanks
ever so much for being with us today.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
Always a great pleasure. Mark.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
Thanks, And that's all we have time from this week's
edition of libertal Nation radio head coast to coast on
the Radio American Network. I've been your host, Mark Angeladies.
I'd like to thank our special guest today, Tim Donner,
longtime host of the Sere Radio Show, and of course
you for listeners for taking the time each week to
join us and listen in and do please remember Liberty
Nation does not endorse candidate's campaigns or legislation, and this
(39:44):
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):
No, it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterplase and freedom is special and way.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
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 Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Libty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angelidis.
On today's special edition show, we are talking trouble in
Democrats City, what's happening with Joe Biden, and a whole
lot more. Please remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsor by libutination
dot com. You can access podcast breaking news analysis and
a range of biting and brilliant shows to wet trap
type freedom and your fondus for the Great American Constitution.
(00:57):
And you're on Libty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Antleties. We're
very fortunate to be joined by a longtime host of
this here radio show and Liberty Nations senior political analyst,
mister Tim donough, Thanks for coming in. Tim, Hello, Mark,
So you've been what's the what's the right way to
describe this you're writing on Liberty Nation this last week
(01:19):
or so. Uh, it's a cross between poetry and polemic.
I think it's been fantastic and the target of your.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, you could just say it's polemic poetry.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
We could we could say that, we could say that.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Or poetic polemics.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, the target has been one way or the other.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
You're very welcome. It's well worth a read those of
you listening on the radio here. The particular target that
you've been looking at this week is the the rather
depressing destruction of the Democratic Party, but also in particular,
specifically their inability to understand why Joe Biden was such
(02:08):
a harbinger of their twenty twenty four demise. And it
seems that some people are realizing it, but they're still
refusing to look at any remedies towards that. And I
think it's it's an almost fatalistic approach that leading members
of the Democratic Party have at the moment towards their
(02:28):
position because unless you recognize the problem, you're doomed to
repeat it again and again. And you wrote a fascinating
peace Corps. Biden is back as infuriated Democrats cringe and
it's fantastic. Give us the brief overview just for those
who might want to go.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And read it.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, I guess the bottom line is it's a Democratic
party because their past is so distressing and they haven't
figured out the future. They're sort of stuck in the
time war and Joe Biden returning to the scene of
the crime so to speak to the public square with
(03:11):
appearances on BBC and most notably the View were definitely
cringe worthy stuff for Democrats. One of the Democratic strategists
that I quoted in the story referred to Biden's refusal
to even admit that he was in any sort of
cognitive decline and the fact that he also said on
(03:34):
the view that he would have beaten Trump and the
only reason he pulled out was not because of his
catastrophic debate or his cognitive decline, but because he didn't
want to quote divide the Democratic Party, to which the
strategist I referred to said, it's the equivalent of political insanity,
(03:56):
entirely detached from reality, and once again he's being pushed
out in public. When I think about ninety nine point
nine percent of Democrats, perhaps everyone except his wife, doctor
Joe Biden wants him to stay in the basement from
whence he came into which he returned once Kambala Harris
(04:20):
had to carry the banner for him and was so
thoroughly defeated in December. This is the last thing Democrats
wanted to see was a reemergence of Joe Biden. It
was just a reminder of everything that had gone wrong
and the man who caused the party to fall into shambles.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
But surely, tim I heard from so many pundits that
Kamala Harris was the perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign,
So one would assume that part of the blame does
fall on Kamala Harris as well.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, you know, when Democrats say that Kamala Harris ran
a perfect campaign, of course that's far from the truth.
I think though, you could make the case that she
ran an error free campaign, and that's because she took
no chances, she said nothing, She fell back on broma
(05:21):
such as I was raised in a middle class family,
which she repeated dozens and dozens of times.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
She may interject that him, I was raised the middle
class fan. Whenever she said that, I thought back to
Steve Martin in one of his earliest film roles, to Jerk,
and I believe that starts. I was raised a poor
black child. Yes, And every time she said, hey, and
I was raised in middle class, when's she going to
get the banjo out and start tap dancing on the
(05:51):
front port.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Well, she was an incredibly inept candidate, of course, but
she made no errors because she took no chances and
talked about nothing except platitudes and promides, and you know,
heavily shall we say, airbrush language from her strategists. But
(06:13):
I mean, it's not her fault that the Democrats lost
that election so badly. She did the best she could
with her extremely limited political skills. It was Joe Biden.
It's all about Joe Biden. He was ground zero for
the utter collapse of the Democratic Party. And he still
won't even admit mark that he should have either not
(06:38):
run for a second term or that he should have
dropped out much earlier when it was obvious he wasn't
up to a second term. And who you want to
blame for all this, You can blame Biden, but the
fact that he was basically, you know, the four books
that have been written specifically about the twenty twenty four
election campaign all came to the conclusion that Joe Biden
(07:03):
was essentially in a fog for months, if not years.
So who made the decision to keep him in the
obvious culprit culprit was doctor Joe Biden, and it was
it was like a bless from the past when the
two of them went together on the view and once
again Joe Biden was unable to answer a question and
(07:26):
his wife had to step in to answer it for him,
just like she had had to step in to run
his last cabinet meeting because he was so out of
it that he couldn't even answer questions even when they
were prescripted for his cabinet members.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
I find it quite rich that the people who, even
though Elon Musk was leally appointed to his position at
the head of those with one hundred and twenty I
think one hundred and twenty day tournament, the self same
people had no words that Jill Biden was running a
cabinet meeting for the president. I mean, nobody elected Jill Biden,
(08:06):
not a single not a single vote, not a Senate
confirmation for Jill Biden. And yet she was leading a
cabinet discussion, presumably about things which would be classified to
a certain level, presumably without any particular clearance other than
the fact that she's Joe Biden's wife.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Well, not only that, but his closest advisor, who, by
many accounts, was calling the shots.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
The smartest guy he knows, right.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Hunter Biden. I mean Hunter Biden was in the Oval
office and serving as a de facto chief of staff
after he'd been convicted of real crimes, unlike Donald Trump.
And so, I mean, the whole thing was just a
pathetic show. And I think the bottom line, Mark, is
(08:58):
that Joe Biden costs the Democrats so dearly that they
may not recover for years, if not a generation.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
We'll continue analyzing this after we get back from the shortbreak.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
For your Freedom and your Liberty Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alities.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio or Reminia host
Mark Adalidies, we continue our conversation with Liberty Nations senipitcal
analyst Tim Donner. Tim, thanks for sticking around now, we
were talking about the problems that the Democratic Party has faced,
and specifically with Joe Biden refusing to admit that his
(09:49):
disastrous presidency was anything to do with the disastrous again
defeat of Kamala Harrison November twenty twenty four. But there
is one person within that party, at least one now
who seems to think that the problem was that they
didn't run a primary. Now, pretty much everybody and I'm
(10:11):
including specifically Democrat voters or traditionally Democrat voters who would
have liked to say in who their standard bearer was.
But we had Amy klobachar Minnesota Center from Minnesota last week,
I think it was, and she said, you know, everything
we look at in the rearview mirror after you lose
an election, Yes, we would have been better served by
(10:32):
a primary, but we are where we are now. She's right,
of course, because there were a lot of people who thought, well,
this is very undemocratic of the Democratic Party. But I
wonder if she's misdiagnosed here, because even if they did
hold a primary, is there any way that the party
(10:55):
apparatus couldn't get behind Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, if you look back on that period of time
in July, when Joe Biden dropped out of the race
and endorsed Kamala Harris. The problem that the party had
was the same one that they had for the four
years of the Biden presidency, is that they were cowardly.
They wouldn't stand up and say what they really meant,
(11:21):
They wouldn't stand up to progressives, and they allowed the
progressive wing of their party to manipulate Joe Biden into
every kind of insane political idea, which is a major
part of the reason they lost the election. Likewise, it's
fine for Amy Klobashar to say that now, but where
(11:42):
why she's six months ago or eight months ago more precisely,
when it came time to pick who the next nominee
would be after Joe Biden dropped out. But by all accounts,
there wasn't a single voice raised in today's Democratic Party
(12:03):
because they were too scared because she's a black woman,
and they were too scared because the progressive wing of
the party, the wacko wing of the Democratic Party would
have been up in arms. All the white progressives would
have been all upset that the black woman wasn't selected.
So it's pure cowardice that led to Kamala Harris assuming
(12:29):
the candidacy of Joe Biden, and you know, to say
six months later, gee, we should have had a primer
talk about too little, too late.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's no courage there, right, there's no test.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Reveals that there wasn't one ounce of courage by anybody
who would stand up in that party other than the
single exception of Dean Phillips, the man who challenged Joe
Biden never had a chance. But the congressman also from
an I think from Minnesota, who said Joe Biden is
(13:04):
too old, he's going to lose. We have to come
to grips with it. But you know, other than a
guy like James Carville or other strategists who were not
directly involved in the administration, not a single person was
willing to step up and say this is crazy, we
can't win this way. And for Joe Biden to say
(13:25):
that he would have won if he had stayed in
the race, in fact, it's very possible he could have
lost forty five states because people, even liberals, are not
going to vote for a guy who is essentially a zombie,
which is what Biden had become. By the end of
his term.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, although I agree with almost every word of your
assessment up until the point where you say nobody's going
to vote for a guy who's a zombie. I don't know.
I think people.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Will five states, might have five, maybe ten. But let's
put it this way. Kamala Harris only lost a popular
vote by about a point and a half. I think
Biden would have lost by five, six, seven, maybe eight
points because people could see, yeah, even though they were
in denial. You know, It's one thing to have a
(14:20):
scandal like Watergate, where people don't really know what's going
on behind the scenes, but this was a real time meltdown.
People could see it with their own eyes in real time,
and to just deny it. You know, who are You're
going to believe me or you're lying? Right?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Absolutely absolutely, And I wonder if we don't have a
because people don't get to see the president on a
day to day basis. Very few people get to see
the president on a day to day any president, and
with Joe Biden was that was driven to a maximum
that he was he was not physically seen by a
(15:02):
large swath of actual human beings. He was, however, presented
to the public through the lens of the Fourth State,
which bears as much responsibility I think as the National
Committee for covering for Joe Biden. And now we have
so many voices saying, yeah, of course he was. Of
(15:25):
course he was in distress, in significant distress, and we
tried to tell you. And I've been looking. I've been
scouring the internet for times when they told us, you
know that, when they told us that Joe Biden was
in mental distress, and find it.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I think it was on November sixth, the election. No,
I mean the best example of that Margage Jake Tamper,
the famed anchorman who you know, was part of the
cover up, although it's not even a cover up because
everybody could see what was happening, but the denial of
(16:07):
elite media, of legacy media, who refused to tell the
truth even though he could see it. And then he
now he's written a book saying how disaster, how disastrous
it was that Biden didn't drop out of the rays
and it's his fault they lost. Oh nice of you
to tell us, now, No wonder seventy percent of the
(16:29):
American people don't trust the media, and I'm surprised it's
not even higher than that.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
The other thirty percent think you're talking about Alex Jones.
I mean, you know, I watch Alex Jones as well
as he's very entertaining. So that there's one more two
things I actually like to follow up on that before
we move on to a different subject. Is Number one
is just a quick thought, and that's press Jordan Peterson.
He says that a total tear in society is one
(16:59):
in which everybody about everything to everyone, including themselves, all
the time. And I wonder how close we came to
that with the Joe Biden presidency, where every saying he
is and I quote almost everybody who had a word
to say about Joe bia positive word, so he's as
sharp as attack sharp as it was a lie. They
(17:22):
knew it was a lie, The people who were listening
knew it was a lie, the voters knew it was
a lie, and seemingly the only person who didn't know
it was a lie was Joe Biden. And yet everybody
went along with it. And for me, I know it's
a tangential point, but for me, we were that close.
I think too. With that, I'm holding my fingers very
close together to accepting one of the first tenets of totalitarianism,
(17:46):
where we accept that a lie can be the truth
because it's better for something, whether.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It's the sort of thing where you say, if you
tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. And
the truth is in this case, as you know about
the old expression the emperor has no clothes. Yeah, but
that story came from the basis that there was somebody
who finally would say, hey, the emperor has no clothes.
(18:15):
Everybody could see it, nobody would say anything until one
person stepped up, a young child. I think, as a
story goes, who said, what's wrong here? The emperor has
no clothes? And this is what we had to deal with.
I mean, when you think about after January sixth, I
think you'd have trouble finding one percent of political analysts
(18:38):
and even normal people across the country who would have
thought Donald Trump had a chance of ever returning to power.
And yet here is thanks to Joe Biden in large part.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Indeed, now wait and be back with Tim Donna after
this show break. Don't go anywhere no I thought was free.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Freedom of speech.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and rate.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeledes, 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 (19:26):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. I remain your host,
Mark Anthelties. We are continuing our long form conversation with
longtime host of this here radio show and Liberty Nations
senior political analyst, Tim Donna. Thanks for sticking around, Tim.
So I want to move the conversation to what's happening
with Donald Trump, and it's something that it's really becoming
(19:48):
apparent to me now. That's something that I have been
writing about and talking about for some weeks. Now that
the areas that a lot of people on the left
are criticizing Donald Trump for, they're all long game situations.
So deporting illegal migrants. We thought actually stopping the flow
(20:09):
of people across the border was a long term issue
to deal with, but apparently it turns out that was
just political will that was needed and they dropped straight away.
But tariffs in particular, and now things seem to be
coming together, so deportations are going ahead. The tariffs that
so many people were worried about, and the stock market
in particular was worried about. Now that there's trade deals happening,
(20:33):
the markets pretty much back to where it was increasing.
And these things seemed to be playing out pretty much
as Donald Trump presumably predicted they would. And I'm wondering,
just to kick this conversation off him, is if there
were not such negative obstructionism, would these things have happened
(20:57):
sooner or more of effectively?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
I don't think so, because the tariffs were something that
incited skepticism in most circles, including conservative circles. Yeah, you know,
free market economists had never been a fan of tariffs.
Of course, it had a short term effect on the
market in terms of the supply chain, in terms of
(21:22):
the costs, didn't really see a big difference in the
cost of living, but it certainly would if it continued
the way it did. I think that things have turned
Trump's way faster than I thought, because but I did
predict that. You know that the market, which panic it
(21:43):
always panics at the slightest drop of a pin, that
the market would head northward as soon as there was
a first trade deal and it had a modest recovery
when the US UK trade deal was announced. And now
with the deal all but done, not only is the
(22:04):
market responding and returning to where it was before the
whole Liberation Day announcement, but I think it's going to
accelerate because now countries don't want to be left behind
in the Trump tariff regime. You have UK in line,
you have China pretty much in line. We've been told
(22:25):
that a trade deal with India is pretty close, that
could possibly be delayed because of their skirmishes with Pakistan.
You know, there's almost one hundred more than one hundred
other countries standing in line waiting to make a trade deal.
So I think every time you get a new trade deal,
the market is going to rise. I'm no financial expert.
(22:50):
I don't know the stock market as well as some
people do, but I would suspect that it's probably a
pretty good time to invest because you're only going to
see more and more trade deals now. As Donald Trump
Junior said when Liberation Day tariffs were announced, he said,
if I were in the other country, I'd get in
(23:10):
line now to make a deal, because if you're the
last one in or late in the game, you're not
going to get as good a deal because Trump will
have that much more leverage over the entire process.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Absolutely right, there's and there's something that goes hand in
hand with that. And I'm just pulling up here so
I've got the figures. So there was a Neapolitan News
Service poll that came out recently and it was less
than half of Americans realized that economic growth, faster economic
(23:47):
growth actually reduces the federal budget deficit. And I think
it was like just forty five percent of people realize that.
And so when Trump's says that he's a you know,
it's going to bring down the deficit and presumably pay
off some debts to boot along the lines, not everybody
(24:08):
seems to it. It's like less than half of people
realize that you get to that through blossoming your economy, which.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, that was something that's lagging. Ronald Reagan sort of
introduced the concept that when you lower taxes, you actually
bring in more revenue, which seems counterint it but the
fact is, when you lower taxes, okay, people will have
more money to spend. Corporations can hire more people, who
(24:41):
in turn pay taxes, and the revenues to the government
actually go up to a certain point. There's an old
thing called the last Laffer curve, which basically said, there
is a point beyond which you don't want to go
in lowering taxes at the cost of federal revenue. But
there is a sweet spot, yeah, in there. And Trump
(25:05):
understands that. He understands that, you know, with all the
jobs that are going to be created through this tariff regime,
more people will be employed, and therefore more taxes will
be raised. And all I can say, Mark, is I
can't wait for the day when we turn on that
debt clock that keeps turning over millions of dollars every
(25:31):
single day and seeing it either stalled or going in reverse.
That's when I think we can believe that we're making
a serious tent in what it is, even though most
people don't think about it or aware of it, a
catastrophic national debt which has to be reversed at some
(25:51):
point or else will have no money at the federal
level for anything but interest payments in defense. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, it's the It's the albatross, isn't it. It's the
alma truss tied around the neck. Is It'd be the
albatross tied around the necks of grandchildren for the grandfather's
ills in the federal spending.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
So you have this.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Situation where it appears that things have actually moved at
a somewhat faster pace than your I anticipated. How much
how important is it that each of these particular ventures
that President Trump is trying come to full fruition before
the midterms really heat up?
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Well, I think this is why the President announced so
early in its term the whole tariff REGI Liberation Day,
because he knew it would need time to crystallize, you know,
and be cemented into place, and so he did it
about what twenty months before the midterms. And frankly, if
(27:02):
his strategy is unsuccessful by that time or hasn't reached
fruition by that time, it never will. But I think
we're seeing already that it's a matter of the decree
of success rather than whether he'll be successful or not.
(27:23):
I think a big question is what kind of revenue
gains we can enjoy experience once, you know, the smoke
clears in the dust settles in all these negotiations, Because
I think one thing people don't realize is that these
trade deals are very complicated. They ordinarily take months and
(27:47):
months to negotiate because there's so many it's just a
matter of saying, here's a tariff, here's your tariff, here's
my terrorff. There's so many other non teriff for relations
did issues that have to be worked out precisely between countries,
and so actually you could say the UK US Trade
(28:10):
Accord was actually put in place pretty quickly. And now
we have China, which I think with China, what Trump
has done has he has he has played the art
of the deal perfectly because China was really suffering. People
were losing their jobs. Ports were full of ships with
(28:33):
merchandise they couldn't ship out, and you know, for an
export economy, China could hardly afford for this to go
on for long.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
So that certain that that really is something worth pointing out.
So there were there were no ships coming in to
the US or feure ships coming into the US, and
a lot of I don't want to say chicken knittlers,
because you know that there's some very serious concerns with
you know, what's happening with the economy for for American livelihoods.
(29:06):
But there are a lot of people where that well
this is going to hurt us more. But it's it's
really not that situation because China, as you say, it's
an export economy. So when they stop exporting all of
the and let's be fair, a lot lot there are
some very valuable things that come out of China, but
a lot of it is is trinket junk.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You know, famous famously.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
So yeah, and so another part when those aren't coming out,
When those aren't going out, people are losing their jobs.
So if those things aren't if those things aren't coming
into America, who really cares? Well.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Another thing that Trump understands in the art of the
deal is that it should be a plus some game, not
a zero some where one side wins in the other
side loses, because those kind of deals are not sustainable.
They will generally foment political opposition in the country that
(30:04):
loses the negotiation. Trump understands that it needs to be
a win win where both sides increase their standing in
the context of a trade deal. And you know, I
think we could see that with the UK they got something,
the US got something, and we're the outlines of this
(30:28):
China deal appear to basically resulting in the same thing
where you know, China will catch some breaks, the US
will catch some breaks. I think the big question is
how much revenue is going to be added when everything
is finally in place. Because Trump's dream, and we talked
(30:49):
about this poor is to replace the income tax for
lower income Americans with tariff revenue. But yeah, that's a
long way away.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
It's ambitious, and my trust in government in general leaves
me think, well that there's a lot of extra cash
sitting around, government will find a way to spend it.
We'll be back with Tim Donner after this shortbreak.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
For your Freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
And we're back for our final second with Liberty Nations. Seni,
political analysts and long time host of this here show,
Tim Donner, I want to talk about budgets, and I
made the point to you off camera that to me,
it seems that historically, at least the political left has
wanted all spending, sorry, no spending to be discretionary and
(31:47):
they want all of it accounted for and no cuts
in anything, whether that's trans comic books for Ecuador to
gay liberation plays in Ireland. For the ambassador, because you know,
a good ambassador can't do without a gay liberation play
every every year or so.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
It goes without saying cor and the more.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
Conservative historically, and this is this, I wouldn't say this
is necessarily true now, but historically conservatives have really wanted
everything on the table, including you know, everything can be cut,
and that that includes defense, that includes all of these
programs that are that are ring fenced. And I wouldn't
(32:31):
say that's necessarily necessarily true now, not even for Donald Trump.
Then you brought up a great point that I think
is worth exploring with our listeners about Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
When Jimmy Carter came to Washington, he wanted to enforce
something that he had been able to do when he
was governor of Georgia, and the concept was zero based budgeting,
which is contrary to Washington, where the typical mindset is, well,
of course, we're going to get to the same budget
as last year, and an increase of two percent or
(33:05):
four percent or five percent, it's just presumed. But Carter's idea,
which he was never able to pull off because he
didn't have anywhere near the kind of political support he
needed for it, was what he called zero based budgeting,
where you would each department, each cabinet secretary, each agency
(33:25):
would start each new year, fiscal year with a budget
of zero, so that hey had to justify everything afresh
from the year before. This is the way many corporations
are run successfully. No, you're not entitled to the same
budget for your department. You have to defend it and
(33:47):
tell us why we should devote resources to it. And
this is really this is in a way what Trump
is doing from the executive level to the extent that
he can, because of course Congress ultimate holds the purse strings.
But this is what DOGE has done. They've gone and
said to these agencies, defend this grant, defend that expenditure.
(34:12):
What is this all about? And if they can't defend it,
it's being cut. So effectively, DOGE is the closest we've
ever come to zero based budgeting because those positions, federal
UH employment positions and those agency expenditures that are not
defensible are getting cut. Hmm.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
You know, I hear he's saying. The thing that springs
into my mind is is modern art where you have
a splodge of paint or a banana taped to a wall,
but then you have a little uh, four x six
card on the wall with lots and lots of words
explaining why this is actually an important banana to the wall,
(35:01):
and the more words they use to explain, and the
longer words they're using, some real fifty dollars words there.
There used to be ten dollar words but inflation, you know,
and they use all these words, and so the average
person thinking, oh, you know, maybe I'm not smart enough
to understand why this banana tape to the wall is
good art. And that's why they put all these different,
(35:25):
these long fifty dollars words in there, because it doesn't
actually make any sense. It never made any sense. And
what they're doing is they're selling a concept based on
a bit of a lie. And this is what I
seem to think happens when people try to justify the
government spending. If you can't say this program, we need
(35:46):
this one because it actively delivers old people three meals
a day, three hundred days out of the year, and
this is what it costs them. Why And you should
be to explain it in a minute, if you call
you in a minute's.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Absolutely it should be less than that. But yeah, you know,
this is what Elon Musk has said all along. When
he sees people violently against Doze and what he's trying
to do in cutting unnecessary pork and you know, waste,
fraud and abuse. Famously, he says, Okay, tell me which
(36:29):
of these expenditures should be Say which of these budget
lunch should be saved that we're cutting, and tell us
why defend it? But yeah, Left, the Trump haters, the
people who hate government efficiency, apparently they just opposed the process.
(36:52):
They oppose it in general on general principle, which is
not nearly good enough when you have the crazy programs
that are being cut eighty percent. I think there's five
employees left now at the Agency for International Development because
everything they spent money on about ninety five percent didn't
(37:16):
help anybody. Accept some special interest group overseas and advocating
for you know, four left ideology that's entirely out of
touch with the American people. So they oppose it in general,
but they cannot defend the specifics.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
It's so interesting that you bring that up to him,
because there was a poll by Rasmussen this last week
Rasmussen reports, and it was seventy one percent of those
who vote Democrat, and worryingly, I think it was. There's
almost half of those who vote Republican believe that would
(37:57):
support a hypothetic law that would imprison Musk for his
role in the Department of Government deficiency.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
Well, you cannot create a law specifically designed to send
one person to jail. I know that's part of the Constitution,
but I find that not only startling and inexplicable, but
very disturbing. The only thing I can think of is that,
(38:26):
you know, big corporate media, along with the leftists howling
into the darkness, have convinced ordinary Americans who are not
knowledgeable of the process, that he's slashing vital programs and
firing federal workers who are absolutely vital to the national security,
(38:49):
in the economy and everything else. And so the level
of ignorance to believe to have that many people believe that,
even among Democrats is It's truly frightening how uninformed and
unenlightened so many people are who don't follow politics, so
(39:10):
they just read the top line of a story and
they believe what they read.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
And that, unfortunately, is where we are. Tim Donna, thanks
ever so much for being with us today.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
Always a great pleasure. Mark.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
Thanks, And that's all we have time from this week's
edition of libertal Nation radio head coast to coast on
the Radio American Network. I've been your host, Mark Angeladies.
I'd like to thank our special guest today, Tim Donner,
longtime host of the Sere Radio Show, and of course
you for listeners for taking the time each week to
join us and listen in and do please remember Liberty
Nation does not endorse candidate's campaigns or legislation, and this
(39:44):
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.