December 19, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – The Aphorism Agenda
Seg 2 – The Three Stories That Shaped the Year
Seg 3 – Retrospective Rebates from the Big Beautiful Bill
Seg 4 – So Long to the Trade Deficit
Seg 2 – The Three Stories That Shaped the Year
Seg 3 – Retrospective Rebates from the Big Beautiful Bill
Seg 4 – So Long to the Trade Deficit
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, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
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 markangelaitis.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Liutination radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio American Network.
I'm your host, Mark Antonidies. We've got quite the addition
for you today, but please remember Liberty Nation radiosponsor by
liberty Nation dot com, you can access podcast breaking news
analysis and range of biting and balance shows to what
your HAVEPP touch freedom and je fondness for the Great
American Constitution. Hello and welcome to Liberty Nation radio Head
Ghast Coast on the Radio American Network. I'm your host,
(00:54):
Mark Antheledies. We're very fortun to have with us Liberty
Nations enterprise mister Joe Shaffer, and we're going to be
discussing this last year just gone and most significantly. The
three stories that Joe Shaefer thought really shaped the narrative,
the news narrative of the air. How are you, sir,
(01:14):
I'm very good.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I hope you're ready for a conversation because I've got
things to say.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Oh dear, dear lord. Okay, well we're starting this one up,
all right, Joe. It's coming up to the end of
the aar It's a great time to reflect on what
were the big moves and shake of stories of the year.
And for everybody, they're going to be different. You know,
some people will say, are the quarter point basis cuts?
I'm looking at you, mister Andrew Moran, who's also on
(01:41):
the show. Later, was the big deal, Joe? What were
they for you?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You know where I come from, and I think it
is clear to the reader. I don't spell it out,
but we've got very good readers and they know what
I do. I write about various topics, but to me,
they're all related. Is a higher core. You know, it's
like branches on a tree, so you're reading about the
individual branches, but it's really about the tree. And so
(02:08):
this is this is an interesting point. I'd like to
kind of start the conversation with this interesting point this.
You know, I notice things, and this is related to
what we're going to be talking about here. So you know,
I'm on X a lot. I do Google searches for
my articles and whatnot. I've been noticing these aphorisms and
(02:29):
they're meant to buttress the status quo, the establishment, painting
the left and the right extremes as similar problems, and
it's saying, basically, the center is normal, the center is good.
So let me give you a quote because I want
your reaction to it. You can tell me if I
get here right. But I think this is really subversive.
(02:51):
Subversive establishment propaganda is what I would call it. So
I saw this on X and I saw it like
on a Google search. I'm like, I keep seeing this?
Do I keep seeing this? So this is the quote.
This is direct quote. Everything is a conspiracy when you
don't know how anything works. You see what they're doing.
I'm asking you, Mark, Mark, do you see what they're
(03:13):
doing there?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I see exactly precisely what they're doing. They're trying to
make you a perpetual victim of the Dunning Krueger effect.
Is how that really looks to me? Everything is conspiracy
when you don't understand how it works. So what they're
saying is that it's your fault because you're not one
of the elites. You're not one of the educated masses.
(03:34):
That's why you think it's conspiracy, because you're just stupid.
Is that pretty much your take on it. It might
take one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
It's just so great how it's the idea. It's so condescending. Yeah,
you're too dumb to figure this stuff out yourself, so
let us do the thinking for you. You know, that's exactly
what it's about. And I would say strongly that the
truth is the exact opposite of that statement. More people
(04:04):
out there don't want to know how things really work
because then they'll have to confront uncomfortable truths, and that
takes them out of their comfort zones. You know, not
knowing what is going on behind that curtain. It gives
you a sense of relief. It blocks your view, which
you could easily pull aside the curtain. But I think
(04:24):
a lot of people want that curtain there. It's kind
of a security blanket.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
That's the purpose of the curtain, right, They say, you
don't see the reality behind things. Yeah, I like the
way you brought up the way that it's aphoristic speaking,
because you know, aphorisms, they're supposed to be like undeniable knowledge. Now,
Fredrik Nietzsche was great for writing in aphorisms. But you know,
(04:50):
like you never cross the same bridge twice, right, you
never cross the same stream twice. It resonates with us
because it holds an undeniable truth. But what they're trying
to do, or what the purveyors of these new aphorisms
are trying to say, here's a truth, here's a truth
that you just haven't understood before, and we're here to
(05:12):
help you, when in reality, yes, they're essentially saying, you're
just too stupid to leave it with us. And it's
it is, And I think our listeners really should do
their best to go and read some of Joe Shaffer's
work over on the Payers oflutination dot com. You will
see that it is very much a body of work,
(05:33):
and it does have, as Joe points out, individual branches,
but the trunk of the matter is really what's important there.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
I think, yeah, and I'd like to tell you know,
I'll talk with that because it is a problem for
me and I'm not complaining, but I.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Get called Joe Joe Shafer is not complaining, not.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Complaining, but I get called the bombs for where I
get all the conspiracy theorists. You know, I don't like it.
I don't like being called that. I do a lot
of a lot of research. As you know, I dring receipts,
and my take is not, Wow, Joe Shaffer is great,
Joe Shaffer wrote, is It's like, I want people to
have this information and they can make their own conclusions
(06:12):
based on that information. Now it's coming from a perspective,
my perspective. But you take that information and you decide
the value to it. But here is my key thing.
This is crucial to me presenting as mirror. I got
to read it, I wrote, actually wrote this down because
it's so important to base. So let me look at
a litt cheat sheet here presenting as mere policy failure, incompetence,
(06:37):
or incorrect political viewpoint, that which is deliberate arson with
an attempt to destroy destroy the national sovereignty and structural
integrity of this country. For me to present that as
just you know, oh, that's a mistake. They got the
wrong political ideas. That's a disservice to the reader. I
think our readers are more intelligent than that, and they
(06:59):
realize that, Look, the establishment is pulling something out us.
So this is an orchestrat to think. If you don't
see the orchestration of the last three decades or so,
I don't even know what to tell you. So for
us to present and we don't do I don't think.
I think we're very good helimination. We don't present it. Ah,
this is a policy failure. Or these people, you know,
they mean well, but they're doing it wrong. Now, these
(07:20):
people don't mean well. They are trying to change the
fundamental nature of this country. And so I get called
a bombed or But to me, it's a disservice to
present it to the reader in any other way.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, So back to the original effort, it was, if
you think it's a conspiracy, then you just don't know
about you're not well enough form. If we just consider
just this last year, or even the last few years,
how many so cold, so cold conspiracies there were. There's
(07:55):
no inflation, there is inflation, but it's good for you
or job as sharp as attack that is repeated ad
nauseum on every major left leaning network. Don't believe your
lying eyes. Readers and listeners, don't believe what you can
see with your own eyes. Follow the narrative that's being
constructed for you. Now, with that in mind, we're going
(08:18):
to take a very short break, and then we're going
to come back, and I'm going to demand from mister
Joe Shaefer his top three stories for the last year.
Don't go anywhere else.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alitis.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I continue to be Mirk
Angelini's and Joe Shaeffer continues to be Liberty Nation's enterprise reporter,
and we are continuing this fascinating conversation. But now I'm
going to have to nail you down, Joe, What were
for you your top stories of the year this the
year just got twenty twenty five? What are the ones
(08:58):
that had the most impact, What are the ones that
made you think the most? And which ones do you
think our readers and listeners should go and hunt out.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
But yeah, I think these are the ones that are
not necessarily my favorite in terms of what I wrote,
But just the most important storylines of the year, in
things that we are going to see in the year
to come. And like i'd like to stress again, these
are three totally different topics. But for the intelligent reader,
and we have intelligent readers, you will be able to
(09:27):
connect the thread again, branches on the same tree. You know. Now,
you know I'm kind of a dumb guy. I don't
know how things work. And you know you're a dumb guy.
You don't know how things works. That's why your British
government doesn't let you think for yourself. There, so do
your benevolent British government won't let you do that. But
let's let's try to see if we can maybe figure
out how things work a little bit here. So my
(09:49):
first article was there were two articles I wrote about
the Marxist roots of MS thirteen and Trenda Arragua. I
hope I pronounced that right, I believe I the venez
A Whalian gang two criminal gangs brought into America. These
are military aged men and in very oftentimes ex Communist
(10:11):
military paramilitaries that was the founding stock of MS thirteen.
Came out of El Salvador, a country racked by revolution.
These were communist militants who came to Los Angeles in
the nineteen eighties, and that's that's the founding roots of
MS thirteen in America. Trende Aragua came from Venezuela, Hugo
(10:33):
Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro. Those were avidly Marxist governments.
They intentionally sent these military aged men to America to
undermine America. It's like it's like Castro did dumping his
criminals from Cuba into Miami in the nineteen eighties. That's
exactly what we have here. So we have communists, you know,
(10:57):
this is like not not not exactly the real communists
on the streets fomenting this revolution. And I'd like to
point out I hope I'm not going too long, but
this is a key point. I wrote an article about
how the Biden administration helps fund this and let me
read my chie sheet, and so I reported September thirty
(11:17):
the Bided Administration, under the elastic guides of Climate Justice,
because this is how they do things, announced in December
twenty twenty three that I was giving a fifty million
dollar federal grant to a group called the Climate Justice Alliance.
The Climate Justice alliance was co founded by Cindy Wisner.
She is literally a veteran maoist revolutionary. And so this
(11:40):
is the key point. I don't want to regurgitate all
of it, but she was part of an organization in
the nineteen nineties called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.
So in two thousand and four, this group founded by
this woman, whom Joe Biden gave fifty million dollars to,
produced a document called Reclaim Revolution, and it shows how
(12:02):
they intentionally seek to get young young people of color
in the cities agitated and worked up and then direct
them to socialist revolution. And this is the actual quote
from the document Together. Raw's political priorities and practical methods
allowed the group to lead thousands of people into direct
(12:25):
confrontation with the state as the ruling class faced political
crisis and people across the country question the system legitimacy.
Raw created space for young militants of color to express
their outrage and develop radical views. So this is what
we're seeing with these anti ice protests and whatnot. They
(12:47):
are cultivating communist revolution in our cities.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Joe, I'm sure you're familiar with one of my favorite rites,
is a chap called Richard Condon, who most people known
because of the man curing candidate. But the guy has
thirty plus books. I may be the only person who
owns a copy of every single one, bar one. But
you know, I'm hopeful for my next birthday. But he
(13:13):
writes political satire, and a lot of the themes of his
books to whisper of and acts things like that are
about how you know, it's it's agitations amongst the young
people of color within the cities for the Communist Marxist revolutions.
And you know, whenever I see these stories in the
(13:36):
news or read your reporting on the page of limpitin
nation dot com, the first thing I think is Richard Condon.
He wrote the book on this, and people are using
it as a blueprint for their actual revolutionary practices. And
it's a dire stage affairs. We are before we run
out of time, Joe, I got to get your number two.
What is your second favorite story of the year.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Okay, I could be a little shorter on this one.
It was about DC and Baltimore fudging crime statistics. Make
it a pair of The violent crime rate is far
lower than it really is, So I'll just give you
the quick excerpt from the article. This is from the
Fraternal Order of Police in DC's kind of spelling out
how it works. When our members respond to the scene
(14:19):
of a felony offense where there is a victim reporting
that a felony occurred, inevitably there will be a lieutenant
or captain that will show up on the scene and
direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense.
Fraternal Order of Police chairman Greg Pemberton told WRC in
DC television. So instead of taking a report for shooting
(14:40):
or stabbing or carjacking, they will order that officer to
take a report for a theft or an injured person
to the hospital, or a felony assault.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
That's simply right.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
That it's how they do it.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
They are lying about the crime statistics in DC as
our citizens are getting named, wounded and killed.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
It's an almost all well in destruction of language, isn't it.
Where we're recording these things, but the words that we're
recording with aren't the exact thing. Now, just a brief
shock horror for you here. And I don't know if
this is true, but I've seen it around. I've seen
it around, and I do recommend everybody goes and looks
(15:21):
into it. Is there's a new anime animation of Animal
Farm coming out where the bad guy is a billionaire
industrialist farmer rather than the pigs with their nose in
the trough. Anyway, Love, we will check that one out. Joe,
just a few minutes left. What is your third big
(15:43):
story for twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
I'll be one of the earliest ones I wrote. I
think I wrote it the first week of February, but
it's very telling.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Doug M.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Hoff, the former Second Gentleman, husband of Kamala Harris, on
January twenty seven, one week after the body to miss
at Trump inaugurate in Chanuary twenty one week later, he
becomes a partner in Wilkie Farren Gallagher, a law firm
that has represented George Soros in court on multiple occasions.
(16:12):
And here's the key point. It's not the little stuff.
It's not you know where his where somebody he's filing
defamations to protecting one of his DA's. This is George
Soros doing the really dirty stuff. So here's the my
favorite part of that story.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Wilke h.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
This was a let me make sure, okay, yeah, this
is a shout out. Wilki Farr puts the brakes on
ten billion dollars suit against Soros, screams the headline to
a twenty seventeen article at law dot com. Soros was
the target of a lawsuit accusing him of using strong
arm tactics to thward a lucrative iron More operation in Africa.
(16:50):
So you know this is this is Soros at his
really like nation undermining, plundering best and this.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Is his law.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
This is his go to law firm to defend him.
This is where m Hoff immediately landed in this golden
parachute as soon as the Biden administration ended, So you know,
Joe Biden's auto pen. Well, who's really in charge of
the White House? Alexander Soros visited what like thirty times.
There was going on for a while there. You know
who really was running the White House?
Speaker 3 (17:18):
That was that before or after his marriage to Humor Abadin.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Well, I just that the ties between Kamala Harris and
George Soros go way back, way back to when she
was starting out as a politician in the Bay Area.
He was heavily involved in advancing her career in California
and to me, one of the things and I wrote
this like three years ago, but it's amazing what she
did as vice president. She at one point was attending
(17:44):
the Paris Peace Forum, which is a total It's not
just something Soro's backs, it's a Soros project. The Paris
Peace Form drings one of these international gatherings. So she's
flying in her capacity as vice president to the Paris
Peace Forum, and she has to take time out to
tape record and address to the Democracy and Alliance, which
is another Soros project, not something is funny, his thing.
(18:09):
So we have the sitting vice president of the United
States tape recording her speech to one Sores project because
she has to fly to Paris to attend another George
Soros project. So this this stuff all comes together. You
see in my three articles sorows corrupt Policing. We know
Soros is behind that and these communists, you know, educators
(18:31):
imported into our country, and we know who's doing that.
It's not just George Soros, it's the network, the blob,
the whatever you want to call it. That George Soros
is a major player in that really has produced all
three of these phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Joe Schaeffer, Thank you very much. Merry Christmas tear.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
Yeah, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and ate.
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 Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
And your back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast Coast
on the Right American Network. I remain your host, Mark Angelides.
We're having a conversation with Liberty Nations guru of everything
fiscal mister Andrew Moran. Thanks for joining, Sandra, thank you
for having me. So you had a fantastic article out
this week that will have a lot of people celebrating,
(19:44):
I think, and that's news. At Scott bess End, the
Treasury Sectory announced that there'd be some big tax refunds
coming through for twenty twenty six. Before we delve into
how that's going to look, what by what mechanism are
tax rebates jew.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
During the early next year.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
That during the early tax filing season, that's when a
lot of Americans I think, up to you know, eighty
million households will see tax refunds at that time. According
to him, quote very large tax refunds.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Okay, So what he's saying is that there are and
I'd like you to give me a bit of background,
because of the legislative changes that have taken place in
twenty twenty five, there's a retrospective rebate jew because people
are filing taxes after the legislation came in right.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
Data already from the Internal Revenue Service, A lot of
people have file their taxes retroactively and they have received refunds.
I think the last number of south in the RS
was about so far, I think one hundred billion dollars
worth of tax refunds have have been handed out because
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or obbb A, and
then heading to the new year, a lot of people
(21:00):
can take can be happy that. You know. One way
they can combat as afford to build a challenge is
I'll have more money than wallets out, you know, from
working instead of being punished for their work.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
You know, it's before we delve a bit deeper into
this to the couple of things that just popped into
my head when you're saying that one is there's this.
If you want less of something, tax it. If you
want more of something, don't tax it, right, you know,
promote it. And I've always wondered why if you want
more money in the economy, why do people insist in
(21:34):
economies around the world, Well, let let's raise the tax, right,
it's all it's it's a punishment, not just for your work,
but it's a it's a tampling down on ambition, on growth,
on speculation as well. Speculation is a major part of
any economy, you know, and I don't just mean on
the stock market, but I mean and you know you're
(21:55):
you're putting money into developing further revenues for your businesses.
And you know, then is that one I can either
expand my business a little more, be a little bit,
you know, take up the chances that might employ more people,
or I can hold out for the next budget crusher
that's going to demand more taxes of me. Why doesn't
(22:16):
the very basic logic that if you want less of something,
you tax it apply to work? Andrew?
Speaker 5 (22:22):
Yeah, Well, I think the eCOM tax is probably the
most gracious and odious tax on the books today, and
after that, of course, will be the sales tax. Because
you know, for the income tax, you're punishing the fruits
of your labor.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
You're working and you're getting punished for it.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
The sales tax, it's a tax on living.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
You know. I wrote a recent article for.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
Libernation dot com about the property tax initiative in Florida
how Ron DeSantis wants to abolish it, and the argument
was that, well, if you want to talk about taxes,
if you need a tax, whatsoever, the least worse tax.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
According to Milton Freemas when you called it, would be
the property tax.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
And that's the Henry George argument, whereby if you have
a property tax, and that covers you know, the essential
services of government, which is you know, firefighters, police, education,
and that's it. But everything else aside from that, it's
just it's just it's I think to me, Cavil Coolidge
call and called it the confiscatory levies.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I think, m I think that's right.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Yeah, yeah, So the income tax, it's just that's that's
the worst tax. But as I you know, President Trump,
he keeps seeing how you know, he's gonna the terrorists
are gonna help him cancel the income tax. But then
you look at the government budget and you see how
the income tax alone covers about it brings about two
to two and a half trillion dollars a year. When
you're running a two trillion dollar deficit, How the heck
(23:40):
are you going to cancel any income tax whatsoever. So
on one hand, you absolutely would love to abolish the
income tax. On the other hand, it's not realistic at
all because just just look at this this factory alone,
the income quarter of all income tax collections go just
to cover the interest on the debt. So how are
you going to abolish anything. Plus tear revenues, you get
what two hundred billion dollars a year. So he wants
(24:02):
to have have tear freebates, he wants to pay down
the debt, and he wants to cancelingtacs. All just two
hundred billion dollars a year. Or even be liberal body,
you can just listen to Scott Besson's production says, yeah,
three hundred billion dollars a year is gonna come from tariffs.
That's that's that's still not enough to pay.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
For the interest.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Sure, sure, I think what he's getting at here, and
I'm not an economist, so I don't know. And also you.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Always preface that and then you bring up a good
point after.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
You see, well that's that you see, that's actually that's
actually a trait there, right. What you do is you
you say, I'm not a thing, so I'm going to
give it layman's point of view, and then you come
up with something good and it seems more impressive because
you've said that you're not in this August body. So
I think in England what we do is when a
(24:47):
party puts together a political party puts together a political
manifesto before an election, it seems that they're not beholden
to the manifesto. And what where they get cover for
that is they say it's aspirational. So it's aspirational. This
is what we want to do given the right circumstances,
(25:09):
in the fullness of time. As Sir Humphrey Appleby might
suggest from the wonderful show, Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister,
part of my Christmas watching. But with Donald Trump, I
think what he wants to do here is there's like
a three pronged approach to his thought process.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Here.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
At number one is there'll be tariff revenue. Number two,
he'll stimulate the economy to a point where that the
tax seats are higher because of that, or which is
more money in the economy because of that. And number three,
he wants to cut some elements from the from the
federal budget. Now, of course, mandatory spending is two thirds.
(25:47):
You can hardly touch that. Yeah, there really isn't the
political will to touch that, unfortunately, But in that one third,
that's a lot of wiggle room. There's a lot of
wiggle room in there. And I think what he's trying
to do is all three of these over the next
three years. Now, again, like you, I don't think that's
going to be enough to cover anything. But if you
push his full bore a head with these, we might
(26:10):
get somewhere beyond the aspirational and towards at least a
minor stepping down of the debt that is strangling the
American economy.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
Your thoughts, Yeah, well, I'm gonna have to disagree, because, yes, sure,
you talk about the Laugher curve, and you know that
that has proven correct over and over again. You saw
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that alone led to
revenues reaching all time highs in recent years, reaching about
you know, five trillion dollars, which that's a large that's
(26:40):
a large sum of money. But you know, you know,
when it comes to the budget itself, all the numbers
are not pointing to any substantial savings. Elon Musk has
pretty much conceded that the Department of Government Efficiency did
not succeed.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
It was a failure.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Yeah, it may have led to you know, trimming around
the edges, but overall, I mean, maybe it will be
different twenty twenty six when the full you know, Trump
budge it comes out, but overall that's not gonna lead
to any substantial savings. You already see the first two
months of fiscal year twenty twenty six, and the October
November numbers are you know, up like eighty percent from
the previous year. So those deficit numbers are not coming
(27:14):
down anytime soon. Interest rates still remain elevated, so that's
adding to the to the to the interest payments. Also
it does a debt is about eight chillion dollars of
debt will need to be refinanced next year, and that
will be done at higher rates as well. So I
guess we're conversations with about the income tax, but you know,
(27:34):
you still need this, you still need these taxes to beintained.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
There you mentioned about the refinancing of the debt that's
coming next year. What date is that? Do we know
what month?
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Well?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
No, well it's about twenty twenty six, because you got
baries every year.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Yeah, because both government.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
And when does your own pal finish up with the Fed?
May six, May twenty twenty six. So there's a proportion
of the debt that needs refinancing beyond twenty twenty six. Now,
when the new bud comes in at the Federal Reserve,
is that are we likely to see a massive interest
(28:11):
rate cut or will to be?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Would just be more quarter point here? Quarter point there?
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Can I ask you something?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
How do you define a massive radcut one point at one?
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Do you mean at one meeting?
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (28:28):
That chaos that would cause absolute in the in the
credit markets. Is the federal cut raised by one hundred
basis points in a single meeting? Even Stephen Myron, hey, Steve,
even Stephen Myron, he's the Federal Reserve governor, and he
was appointed by President Trump, and even he has says
we don't need to cut interest rates that much to
(28:49):
to support the economy. He s worts half point radcuts.
He's for the last halfway recuts at last three meetings.
But even if someone that's hawkish, I seever Byras has
not advocated a one hundred basis boycut and what meeting.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I mean over yeah, you know, no, over the year
I would take I would take it at a single
meeting myself, a single FMO FOMC meeting. Is there, it's
a it's a point.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
And then but I know the point you're making though,
is that once JAROMEE.
Speaker 5 (29:14):
Pole steps down in May twenty six, whoever you know,
Trumpet points he's going to be more aggressive.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Of rate cutting.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
Fine, that could that, but remember Jome Powell or his
successor only has one vote. And you know, I guess
when it comes to Trump's point of view, he maybe
he maybe have you know, two allies and Christopher Waller
and Steven Myron.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
If he is reappointed in January.
Speaker 5 (29:34):
And I guess you could also say Michelle Bowen, but
they've been pretty conservative in supporting raid cuts. But you know,
all the other if you look at the Summary of
Economic Projections, that's a quarterly survey of federers or officials
on their expectations for the broadery economy and policy. And
if you look at their dot plot seven of them
don't support any rate cuts at all in twenty twenty six.
(29:55):
So you know, you may have let's say, let's say
Trumpet points Kevin Hassett, and Kevin has to that, and
he wants a cut rates dramatically, you know, one hundred
basis rates. He has to get the support of the
eleven other people on.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
That Board of Governors or sorry, the Federal Open Market Committee.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Yeah, say so, we're not like to see that kind
of cut, but we will almost certainly see some cuts
if the economy and the jobs markets go as they are,
which would mean we've got a lessening of the liabilities
on the refinanced debt. Right but okay, okay.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
So I'm gonna see on paper, yes, that would seem likely,
although the Fed is only forecasting one rate cut and
the market is forecasting two rate cuts. However, the way
the Fed cut interest rates, yes, there is an influence
on the broader financial markets and borrowing costs, mortgage rates,
credit cards, all that stuff, but the main influence is
(30:54):
a treasury market the tenure yield. I mean, you saw
that the last rate cutting cycle under Biden, when Drome
Powell cut was fifty basis points. In September a sepnumber
twenty twenty four, and then a couple more after that,
and you saw the divergence with the treasure yields surging
while the federal fundraiate was gradually was gradually softening. And
so far it's been it's been flat when it comes
(31:15):
to jersy yields since the Fed started cutting interest rates.
So that is a major factor of the ten year yield.
That's that's about four point two percent last time I
checked around there anyway, So yeah, the Fed may cut
rates by let's say fifty basis points, let's say apathetically
fifty basis points in January, But will that lead to
the ten yure ye old falling below four percent? You know,
the ten year yelds flows by many factors, because, yes,
(31:37):
by the Fed, but also by fiscal trajectories, the broadery economy,
the labor market. Inflation ten years is a very powerful
instrument and it takes the flour of factors.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
It's going to be quite the coming new year. Andrew
Moram will be right back with you after this show, right,
don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
For your freedom and your liberty, liberty nation with mark
edge of.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Ladies and you're back on libitin Nation Radio Head Coast
Coast on the Radio American Network, and we continue our
conversation with Liberty Nations economics editor mister Andrew Moran. Thanks
for sticking around, Andrew. Now you have a fantastic video
out in your your swamp panomics. It's called playlists out
there on YouTube and on the page of Liberty Nation
dot com, and it's fantastic or wherever you get your videos,
(32:26):
ladies and gentlemen. And you're talking about the the US
trade deficit. Now, I know you find it hard to
get excited about the reduced trade deficit, but this is
this is a good thing, and it'll give us the
details first and then we'll examine the pluses and minuses.
Speaker 5 (32:45):
It's just it's it's exciting based on on an economics thing,
but on a realistic level, it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
I don't get excited over it.
Speaker 5 (32:51):
But yeah, So the US the trade deficit in September.
Reminder it's October November numbers are delayed because of the couple.
So number was September, and I show that it was
the lowest trade deficit on since June twenty twenty if
you exclude the pandemic. I think twenty seventeen was the
other lowest number I came in. I had fifty two
point eight billion dollars and it came in below estimates
(33:11):
of about sixty billion. And I'm sorry, it was down
from fifty nine billion in August and then it was
below the forecast of sixty three billion dollars.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
But anyway, so the.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Trade gap was driven by a three percent increase in exports.
Now that was huge because even about three hundred billion,
and that was the second highest level on record, so
that that's astounding in itself. Imports were up just about
was up less than a percent. So you can tell
that President Trump's tariffs are leading to these lower trade deficits.
(33:41):
So for MAGA nation, for Trump andnomics two point zero,
these numbers are terrific. Yes, terrific, I should say terrific.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Yes, we'll put that in the subtitle parific numbers. So
there's a there's a few elements to unwrap, there isn't
that So trade deficits that they usually come for a
nation specific trade deficit will come from a number of areas.
Number one, either people are not buying from abroad, they're
(34:11):
buying more domestic. Number two, the exports from said country
are increasing or I guess number three would be the
economies in a lull and people just aren't buying in general.
So this one, you say, is led by an increase
largely led by an increase in exports.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
Right, yes, absolutely, well that it was like pharmaceutical preparations,
financial services.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Right, that was going to be my next question. So
this is from pharmaceutical preparations and financial services their.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
Medals to non monetary medal soon.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
That's I mean that those are those three big industries
for the American public. Now tell me why you find
it hard to get excited about this, Andrew, I'm really so.
Speaker 5 (34:57):
A lot of people because when you're a deficit, you
think that's a terrible thing, like the budget deficit, that
that that's a horrible thing to have as a budget deficits.
So people who don't, you know, pay attend to this
stuff like you and I do on a daily basis.
You know, they'll say, oh, trade deficits is horrible. But
when you think about just on a micro level, can
we all have trade deficits. I'll go to nearby grocery
(35:17):
store and I'll have one hundred percent trade deficit with
that grocery store because they don't buy anything for me.
I buy it one hundred percent for them. It has
no impact on you know, federal deficits or the national debt.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
You know.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Well, I guess you could make the case and think, okay, well,
if I'm able to export more stuff, there are more
businesses that are gonna get more revenue.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
But on a whole there's not much that's a.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Pretty compelling reason to add.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
It's not no, it's it's not much of a compelling
reason at all. Tax cuts that wall be more stimulative
for revenues that would.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
There for it's this season to wish for Christmas miracles Andrew,
you know, and you know, tax cuts, income tax cuts,
property tax cuts. Even though Milton Friedman was what did
you call it in the last segment, Yeah, it's the
least the least bad of all bad tax Yeah. Yeah, yeah, but.
Speaker 5 (36:03):
You know, I would say I would say it, But
I will give President Trump credit, of course, because his
economic agenda, which voters are obviously supported, and Besson talks
about this with his whole three arrow growth that they
want to rebalance trade, they want to reach or manufacturing,
they want the rest of the world to be the
customers and America to be the leading manufacturer again. So
these tariffs are driving that. Now, whether it's persistent, whether
(36:27):
it continues, that remains to be seen. Because a big
thing with this whole reshoring of trade and the whole
shrinking ice cube, as Besson called it, is that will
this I think Trump says it's eighteen trillion dollars investments
from a broad and domestically, will that be realized? And
if that is realized, if the whole eighteen trillion dollars,
You're gonna transform the economy. But of course I have
(36:49):
my doubts. I highly doubt the restaurant is spending like
I think Saudi Arabia they're gonna They committed a trillion dollars,
which is the size of their whole economy to investing
in the United States. So I just but even half
of it, even if it's say nine trillion dollars or
five trillion dollars, even is realized, that's that's a pretty
boost for the GA.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah. I've seen a lot of criticism of these these numbers,
and some of it is certainly justified. But the specifically
to the point you just made there. For example, Saudi
investing one trillion dollars and that's their entire economy. It's
not as though they're cutting a check for a trillion dollars, right,
It's because well, no, no, it's a staged investment over
a period of years, and part of that will be
(37:29):
from outside investors investing in something in Saudi Arabia, which
will then invest in the United States. Right, is that
it would be like investment vehicles that they.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
Yeah, I would seah, but there's no there's no actual
agreement saying well, all these companies are going to be
investing there, saying yeah, we're committing to is if they're
just you'll biden their time and which waiting for Trump
to leave. However, a country like South Korea in their
trade agreement, they're seeing, yoky, fine, we're go it commits.
I think it's like four four or five hundred billion dollars,
and they actually passed legislation recently codifying that's five hundred
(37:59):
billion dollar ledge to.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
Invest in the US economy.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
Yeah, I think again, we did talk about this in
the last segment, but there are a number of pillars
to support this what some people would call like a
Trump economic fever dream which you know, the the the
odds of it all being perfectly set and perfectly stable,
and you know, everything happening by the time Trump finishes
(38:25):
his time as president. It is unlikely, but I guess
what everybody's hoping for, everybody who who decides to eschew
the politics of things and just hopes that the American
economy does well no matter which party or president is
at the helm. I think what there's hoping for is
there's a good based platform on which to build, and
(38:48):
for many people, I guess the that the hope is
that these pillars will be so stable that, for example,
with the immigration I don't think we're ever going to
go back to open border because Trump has shown that
it can be done. I think what many people are
hoping for is that the pillars will be so stable
that whoever comes into office after Donald Trump, either on
(39:10):
that year or four years down the line or eight
years after that, is they'll embrace these particular pillars. Andrew,
it's been fascinating talking with you. Thanks ever so much
for joining us today, Thank you for having me, and
that's all we have time. From this week's edition of
Liberty Nation, radio head coast to coast on the Radio
American Network. I'd like to thank our guests today, Joe
Schaeffer and Andrew Moran, and of course i'd like to
(39:30):
thank you the listeners for taking the time to tune
in each and every week, and of course wishing you
a very, very merry Christmas from everybody here at the
Liberty Nation team. You are appreciated. Please remember, Liberty 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):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
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 markangelaitis.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Liutination radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio American Network.
I'm your host, Mark Antonidies. We've got quite the addition
for you today, but please remember Liberty Nation radiosponsor by
liberty Nation dot com, you can access podcast breaking news
analysis and range of biting and balance shows to what
your HAVEPP touch freedom and je fondness for the Great
American Constitution. Hello and welcome to Liberty Nation radio Head
Ghast Coast on the Radio American Network. I'm your host,
(00:54):
Mark Antheledies. We're very fortun to have with us Liberty
Nations enterprise mister Joe Shaffer, and we're going to be
discussing this last year just gone and most significantly. The
three stories that Joe Shaefer thought really shaped the narrative,
the news narrative of the air. How are you, sir,
(01:14):
I'm very good.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I hope you're ready for a conversation because I've got
things to say.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Oh dear, dear lord. Okay, well we're starting this one up,
all right, Joe. It's coming up to the end of
the aar It's a great time to reflect on what
were the big moves and shake of stories of the year.
And for everybody, they're going to be different. You know,
some people will say, are the quarter point basis cuts?
I'm looking at you, mister Andrew Moran, who's also on
(01:41):
the show. Later, was the big deal, Joe? What were
they for you?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
You know where I come from, and I think it
is clear to the reader. I don't spell it out,
but we've got very good readers and they know what
I do. I write about various topics, but to me,
they're all related. Is a higher core. You know, it's
like branches on a tree, so you're reading about the
individual branches, but it's really about the tree. And so
(02:08):
this is this is an interesting point. I'd like to
kind of start the conversation with this interesting point this.
You know, I notice things, and this is related to
what we're going to be talking about here. So you know,
I'm on X a lot. I do Google searches for
my articles and whatnot. I've been noticing these aphorisms and
(02:29):
they're meant to buttress the status quo, the establishment, painting
the left and the right extremes as similar problems, and
it's saying, basically, the center is normal, the center is good.
So let me give you a quote because I want
your reaction to it. You can tell me if I
get here right. But I think this is really subversive.
(02:51):
Subversive establishment propaganda is what I would call it. So
I saw this on X and I saw it like
on a Google search. I'm like, I keep seeing this?
Do I keep seeing this? So this is the quote.
This is direct quote. Everything is a conspiracy when you
don't know how anything works. You see what they're doing.
I'm asking you, Mark, Mark, do you see what they're
(03:13):
doing there?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
I see exactly precisely what they're doing. They're trying to
make you a perpetual victim of the Dunning Krueger effect.
Is how that really looks to me? Everything is conspiracy
when you don't understand how it works. So what they're
saying is that it's your fault because you're not one
of the elites. You're not one of the educated masses.
(03:34):
That's why you think it's conspiracy, because you're just stupid.
Is that pretty much your take on it. It might
take one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
It's just so great how it's the idea. It's so condescending. Yeah,
you're too dumb to figure this stuff out yourself, so
let us do the thinking for you. You know, that's exactly
what it's about. And I would say strongly that the
truth is the exact opposite of that statement. More people
(04:04):
out there don't want to know how things really work
because then they'll have to confront uncomfortable truths, and that
takes them out of their comfort zones. You know, not
knowing what is going on behind that curtain. It gives
you a sense of relief. It blocks your view, which
you could easily pull aside the curtain. But I think
(04:24):
a lot of people want that curtain there. It's kind
of a security blanket.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
That's the purpose of the curtain, right, They say, you
don't see the reality behind things. Yeah, I like the
way you brought up the way that it's aphoristic speaking,
because you know, aphorisms, they're supposed to be like undeniable knowledge. Now,
Fredrik Nietzsche was great for writing in aphorisms. But you know,
(04:50):
like you never cross the same bridge twice, right, you
never cross the same stream twice. It resonates with us
because it holds an undeniable truth. But what they're trying
to do, or what the purveyors of these new aphorisms
are trying to say, here's a truth, here's a truth
that you just haven't understood before, and we're here to
(05:12):
help you, when in reality, yes, they're essentially saying, you're
just too stupid to leave it with us. And it's
it is, And I think our listeners really should do
their best to go and read some of Joe Shaffer's
work over on the Payers oflutination dot com. You will
see that it is very much a body of work,
(05:33):
and it does have, as Joe points out, individual branches,
but the trunk of the matter is really what's important there.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
I think, yeah, and I'd like to tell you know,
I'll talk with that because it is a problem for
me and I'm not complaining, but I.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Get called Joe Joe Shafer is not complaining, not.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Complaining, but I get called the bombs for where I
get all the conspiracy theorists. You know, I don't like it.
I don't like being called that. I do a lot
of a lot of research. As you know, I dring receipts,
and my take is not, Wow, Joe Shaffer is great,
Joe Shaffer wrote, is It's like, I want people to
have this information and they can make their own conclusions
(06:12):
based on that information. Now it's coming from a perspective,
my perspective. But you take that information and you decide
the value to it. But here is my key thing.
This is crucial to me presenting as mirror. I got
to read it, I wrote, actually wrote this down because
it's so important to base. So let me look at
a litt cheat sheet here presenting as mere policy failure, incompetence,
(06:37):
or incorrect political viewpoint, that which is deliberate arson with
an attempt to destroy destroy the national sovereignty and structural
integrity of this country. For me to present that as
just you know, oh, that's a mistake. They got the
wrong political ideas. That's a disservice to the reader. I
think our readers are more intelligent than that, and they
(06:59):
realize that, Look, the establishment is pulling something out us.
So this is an orchestrat to think. If you don't
see the orchestration of the last three decades or so,
I don't even know what to tell you. So for
us to present and we don't do I don't think.
I think we're very good helimination. We don't present it. Ah,
this is a policy failure. Or these people, you know,
they mean well, but they're doing it wrong. Now, these
(07:20):
people don't mean well. They are trying to change the
fundamental nature of this country. And so I get called
a bombed or But to me, it's a disservice to
present it to the reader in any other way.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, So back to the original effort, it was, if
you think it's a conspiracy, then you just don't know
about you're not well enough form. If we just consider
just this last year, or even the last few years,
how many so cold, so cold conspiracies there were. There's
(07:55):
no inflation, there is inflation, but it's good for you
or job as sharp as attack that is repeated ad
nauseum on every major left leaning network. Don't believe your
lying eyes. Readers and listeners, don't believe what you can
see with your own eyes. Follow the narrative that's being
constructed for you. Now, with that in mind, we're going
(08:18):
to take a very short break, and then we're going
to come back, and I'm going to demand from mister
Joe Shaefer his top three stories for the last year.
Don't go anywhere else.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
edge Alitis.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I continue to be Mirk
Angelini's and Joe Shaeffer continues to be Liberty Nation's enterprise reporter,
and we are continuing this fascinating conversation. But now I'm
going to have to nail you down, Joe, What were
for you your top stories of the year this the
year just got twenty twenty five? What are the ones
(08:58):
that had the most impact, What are the ones that
made you think the most? And which ones do you
think our readers and listeners should go and hunt out.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
But yeah, I think these are the ones that are
not necessarily my favorite in terms of what I wrote,
But just the most important storylines of the year, in
things that we are going to see in the year
to come. And like i'd like to stress again, these
are three totally different topics. But for the intelligent reader,
and we have intelligent readers, you will be able to
(09:27):
connect the thread again, branches on the same tree. You know. Now,
you know I'm kind of a dumb guy. I don't
know how things work. And you know you're a dumb guy.
You don't know how things works. That's why your British
government doesn't let you think for yourself. There, so do
your benevolent British government won't let you do that. But
let's let's try to see if we can maybe figure
out how things work a little bit here. So my
(09:49):
first article was there were two articles I wrote about
the Marxist roots of MS thirteen and Trenda Arragua. I
hope I pronounced that right, I believe I the venez
A Whalian gang two criminal gangs brought into America. These
are military aged men and in very oftentimes ex Communist
(10:11):
military paramilitaries that was the founding stock of MS thirteen.
Came out of El Salvador, a country racked by revolution.
These were communist militants who came to Los Angeles in
the nineteen eighties, and that's that's the founding roots of
MS thirteen in America. Trende Aragua came from Venezuela, Hugo
(10:33):
Chavez and now Nicholas Maduro. Those were avidly Marxist governments.
They intentionally sent these military aged men to America to
undermine America. It's like it's like Castro did dumping his
criminals from Cuba into Miami in the nineteen eighties. That's
exactly what we have here. So we have communists, you know,
(10:57):
this is like not not not exactly the real communists
on the streets fomenting this revolution. And I'd like to
point out I hope I'm not going too long, but
this is a key point. I wrote an article about
how the Biden administration helps fund this and let me
read my chie sheet, and so I reported September thirty
(11:17):
the Bided Administration, under the elastic guides of Climate Justice,
because this is how they do things, announced in December
twenty twenty three that I was giving a fifty million
dollar federal grant to a group called the Climate Justice Alliance.
The Climate Justice alliance was co founded by Cindy Wisner.
She is literally a veteran maoist revolutionary. And so this
(11:40):
is the key point. I don't want to regurgitate all
of it, but she was part of an organization in
the nineteen nineties called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.
So in two thousand and four, this group founded by
this woman, whom Joe Biden gave fifty million dollars to,
produced a document called Reclaim Revolution, and it shows how
(12:02):
they intentionally seek to get young young people of color
in the cities agitated and worked up and then direct
them to socialist revolution. And this is the actual quote
from the document Together. Raw's political priorities and practical methods
allowed the group to lead thousands of people into direct
(12:25):
confrontation with the state as the ruling class faced political
crisis and people across the country question the system legitimacy.
Raw created space for young militants of color to express
their outrage and develop radical views. So this is what
we're seeing with these anti ice protests and whatnot. They
(12:47):
are cultivating communist revolution in our cities.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Joe, I'm sure you're familiar with one of my favorite rites,
is a chap called Richard Condon, who most people known
because of the man curing candidate. But the guy has
thirty plus books. I may be the only person who
owns a copy of every single one, bar one. But
you know, I'm hopeful for my next birthday. But he
(13:13):
writes political satire, and a lot of the themes of his
books to whisper of and acts things like that are
about how you know, it's it's agitations amongst the young
people of color within the cities for the Communist Marxist revolutions.
And you know, whenever I see these stories in the
(13:36):
news or read your reporting on the page of limpitin
nation dot com, the first thing I think is Richard Condon.
He wrote the book on this, and people are using
it as a blueprint for their actual revolutionary practices. And
it's a dire stage affairs. We are before we run
out of time, Joe, I got to get your number two.
What is your second favorite story of the year.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Okay, I could be a little shorter on this one.
It was about DC and Baltimore fudging crime statistics. Make
it a pair of The violent crime rate is far
lower than it really is, So I'll just give you
the quick excerpt from the article. This is from the
Fraternal Order of Police in DC's kind of spelling out
how it works. When our members respond to the scene
(14:19):
of a felony offense where there is a victim reporting
that a felony occurred, inevitably there will be a lieutenant
or captain that will show up on the scene and
direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense.
Fraternal Order of Police chairman Greg Pemberton told WRC in
DC television. So instead of taking a report for shooting
(14:40):
or stabbing or carjacking, they will order that officer to
take a report for a theft or an injured person
to the hospital, or a felony assault.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
That's it.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
That's simply right.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
That it's how they do it.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
They are lying about the crime statistics in DC as
our citizens are getting named, wounded and killed.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
It's an almost all well in destruction of language, isn't it.
Where we're recording these things, but the words that we're
recording with aren't the exact thing. Now, just a brief
shock horror for you here. And I don't know if
this is true, but I've seen it around. I've seen
it around, and I do recommend everybody goes and looks
(15:21):
into it. Is there's a new anime animation of Animal
Farm coming out where the bad guy is a billionaire
industrialist farmer rather than the pigs with their nose in
the trough. Anyway, Love, we will check that one out. Joe,
just a few minutes left. What is your third big
(15:43):
story for twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
I'll be one of the earliest ones I wrote. I
think I wrote it the first week of February, but
it's very telling.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Doug M.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Hoff, the former Second Gentleman, husband of Kamala Harris, on
January twenty seven, one week after the body to miss
at Trump inaugurate in Chanuary twenty one week later, he
becomes a partner in Wilkie Farren Gallagher, a law firm
that has represented George Soros in court on multiple occasions.
(16:12):
And here's the key point. It's not the little stuff.
It's not you know where his where somebody he's filing
defamations to protecting one of his DA's. This is George
Soros doing the really dirty stuff. So here's the my
favorite part of that story.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Wilke h.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
This was a let me make sure, okay, yeah, this
is a shout out. Wilki Farr puts the brakes on
ten billion dollars suit against Soros, screams the headline to
a twenty seventeen article at law dot com. Soros was
the target of a lawsuit accusing him of using strong
arm tactics to thward a lucrative iron More operation in Africa.
(16:50):
So you know this is this is Soros at his
really like nation undermining, plundering best and this.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Is his law.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
This is his go to law firm to defend him.
This is where m Hoff immediately landed in this golden
parachute as soon as the Biden administration ended, So you know,
Joe Biden's auto pen. Well, who's really in charge of
the White House? Alexander Soros visited what like thirty times.
There was going on for a while there. You know
who really was running the White House?
Speaker 3 (17:18):
That was that before or after his marriage to Humor Abadin.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Well, I just that the ties between Kamala Harris and
George Soros go way back, way back to when she
was starting out as a politician in the Bay Area.
He was heavily involved in advancing her career in California
and to me, one of the things and I wrote
this like three years ago, but it's amazing what she
did as vice president. She at one point was attending
(17:44):
the Paris Peace Forum, which is a total It's not
just something Soro's backs, it's a Soros project. The Paris
Peace Form drings one of these international gatherings. So she's
flying in her capacity as vice president to the Paris
Peace Forum, and she has to take time out to
tape record and address to the Democracy and Alliance, which
is another Soros project, not something is funny, his thing.
(18:09):
So we have the sitting vice president of the United
States tape recording her speech to one Sores project because
she has to fly to Paris to attend another George
Soros project. So this this stuff all comes together. You
see in my three articles sorows corrupt Policing. We know
Soros is behind that and these communists, you know, educators
(18:31):
imported into our country, and we know who's doing that.
It's not just George Soros, it's the network, the blob,
the whatever you want to call it. That George Soros
is a major player in that really has produced all
three of these phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Joe Schaeffer, Thank you very much. Merry Christmas tear.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
Yeah, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and ate.
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 Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
And your back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast Coast
on the Right American Network. I remain your host, Mark Angelides.
We're having a conversation with Liberty Nations guru of everything
fiscal mister Andrew Moran. Thanks for joining, Sandra, thank you
for having me. So you had a fantastic article out
this week that will have a lot of people celebrating,
(19:44):
I think, and that's news. At Scott bess End, the
Treasury Sectory announced that there'd be some big tax refunds
coming through for twenty twenty six. Before we delve into
how that's going to look, what by what mechanism are
tax rebates jew.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
During the early next year.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
That during the early tax filing season, that's when a
lot of Americans I think, up to you know, eighty
million households will see tax refunds at that time. According
to him, quote very large tax refunds.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Okay, So what he's saying is that there are and
I'd like you to give me a bit of background,
because of the legislative changes that have taken place in
twenty twenty five, there's a retrospective rebate jew because people
are filing taxes after the legislation came in right.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
Data already from the Internal Revenue Service, A lot of
people have file their taxes retroactively and they have received refunds.
I think the last number of south in the RS
was about so far, I think one hundred billion dollars
worth of tax refunds have have been handed out because
the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or obbb A, and
then heading to the new year, a lot of people
(21:00):
can take can be happy that. You know. One way
they can combat as afford to build a challenge is
I'll have more money than wallets out, you know, from
working instead of being punished for their work.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
You know, it's before we delve a bit deeper into
this to the couple of things that just popped into
my head when you're saying that one is there's this.
If you want less of something, tax it. If you
want more of something, don't tax it, right, you know,
promote it. And I've always wondered why if you want
more money in the economy, why do people insist in
(21:34):
economies around the world, Well, let let's raise the tax, right,
it's all it's it's a punishment, not just for your work,
but it's a it's a tampling down on ambition, on growth,
on speculation as well. Speculation is a major part of
any economy, you know, and I don't just mean on
the stock market, but I mean and you know you're
(21:55):
you're putting money into developing further revenues for your businesses.
And you know, then is that one I can either
expand my business a little more, be a little bit,
you know, take up the chances that might employ more people,
or I can hold out for the next budget crusher
that's going to demand more taxes of me. Why doesn't
(22:16):
the very basic logic that if you want less of something,
you tax it apply to work? Andrew?
Speaker 5 (22:22):
Yeah, Well, I think the eCOM tax is probably the
most gracious and odious tax on the books today, and
after that, of course, will be the sales tax. Because
you know, for the income tax, you're punishing the fruits
of your labor.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
You're working and you're getting punished for it.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
The sales tax, it's a tax on living.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
You know. I wrote a recent article for.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
Libernation dot com about the property tax initiative in Florida
how Ron DeSantis wants to abolish it, and the argument
was that, well, if you want to talk about taxes,
if you need a tax, whatsoever, the least worse tax.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
According to Milton Freemas when you called it, would be
the property tax.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
And that's the Henry George argument, whereby if you have
a property tax, and that covers you know, the essential
services of government, which is you know, firefighters, police, education,
and that's it. But everything else aside from that, it's
just it's just it's I think to me, Cavil Coolidge
call and called it the confiscatory levies.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I think, m I think that's right.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Yeah, yeah, So the income tax, it's just that's that's
the worst tax. But as I you know, President Trump,
he keeps seeing how you know, he's gonna the terrorists
are gonna help him cancel the income tax. But then
you look at the government budget and you see how
the income tax alone covers about it brings about two
to two and a half trillion dollars a year. When
you're running a two trillion dollar deficit, How the heck
(23:40):
are you going to cancel any income tax whatsoever. So
on one hand, you absolutely would love to abolish the
income tax. On the other hand, it's not realistic at
all because just just look at this this factory alone,
the income quarter of all income tax collections go just
to cover the interest on the debt. So how are
you going to abolish anything. Plus tear revenues, you get
what two hundred billion dollars a year. So he wants
(24:02):
to have have tear freebates, he wants to pay down
the debt, and he wants to cancelingtacs. All just two
hundred billion dollars a year. Or even be liberal body,
you can just listen to Scott Besson's production says, yeah,
three hundred billion dollars a year is gonna come from tariffs.
That's that's that's still not enough to pay.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
For the interest.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Sure, sure, I think what he's getting at here, and
I'm not an economist, so I don't know. And also you.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Always preface that and then you bring up a good
point after.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
You see, well that's that you see, that's actually that's
actually a trait there, right. What you do is you
you say, I'm not a thing, so I'm going to
give it layman's point of view, and then you come
up with something good and it seems more impressive because
you've said that you're not in this August body. So
I think in England what we do is when a
(24:47):
party puts together a political party puts together a political
manifesto before an election, it seems that they're not beholden
to the manifesto. And what where they get cover for
that is they say it's aspirational. So it's aspirational. This
is what we want to do given the right circumstances,
(25:09):
in the fullness of time. As Sir Humphrey Appleby might
suggest from the wonderful show, Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister,
part of my Christmas watching. But with Donald Trump, I
think what he wants to do here is there's like
a three pronged approach to his thought process.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
Here.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
At number one is there'll be tariff revenue. Number two,
he'll stimulate the economy to a point where that the
tax seats are higher because of that, or which is
more money in the economy because of that. And number three,
he wants to cut some elements from the from the
federal budget. Now, of course, mandatory spending is two thirds.
(25:47):
You can hardly touch that. Yeah, there really isn't the
political will to touch that, unfortunately, But in that one third,
that's a lot of wiggle room. There's a lot of
wiggle room in there. And I think what he's trying
to do is all three of these over the next
three years. Now, again, like you, I don't think that's
going to be enough to cover anything. But if you
push his full bore a head with these, we might
(26:10):
get somewhere beyond the aspirational and towards at least a
minor stepping down of the debt that is strangling the
American economy.
Speaker 5 (26:19):
Your thoughts, Yeah, well, I'm gonna have to disagree, because, yes, sure,
you talk about the Laugher curve, and you know that
that has proven correct over and over again. You saw
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that alone led to
revenues reaching all time highs in recent years, reaching about
you know, five trillion dollars, which that's a large that's
(26:40):
a large sum of money. But you know, you know,
when it comes to the budget itself, all the numbers
are not pointing to any substantial savings. Elon Musk has
pretty much conceded that the Department of Government Efficiency did
not succeed.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
It was a failure.
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Yeah, it may have led to you know, trimming around
the edges, but overall, I mean, maybe it will be
different twenty twenty six when the full you know, Trump
budge it comes out, but overall that's not gonna lead
to any substantial savings. You already see the first two
months of fiscal year twenty twenty six, and the October
November numbers are you know, up like eighty percent from
the previous year. So those deficit numbers are not coming
(27:14):
down anytime soon. Interest rates still remain elevated, so that's
adding to the to the to the interest payments. Also
it does a debt is about eight chillion dollars of
debt will need to be refinanced next year, and that
will be done at higher rates as well. So I
guess we're conversations with about the income tax, but you know,
(27:34):
you still need this, you still need these taxes to beintained.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
There you mentioned about the refinancing of the debt that's
coming next year. What date is that? Do we know
what month?
Speaker 4 (27:45):
Well?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
No, well it's about twenty twenty six, because you got
baries every year.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Yeah, because both government.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
And when does your own pal finish up with the Fed?
May six, May twenty twenty six. So there's a proportion
of the debt that needs refinancing beyond twenty twenty six. Now,
when the new bud comes in at the Federal Reserve,
is that are we likely to see a massive interest
(28:11):
rate cut or will to be?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Would just be more quarter point here? Quarter point there?
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Can I ask you something?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
How do you define a massive radcut one point at one?
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Do you mean at one meeting?
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (28:28):
That chaos that would cause absolute in the in the
credit markets. Is the federal cut raised by one hundred
basis points in a single meeting? Even Stephen Myron, hey, Steve,
even Stephen Myron, he's the Federal Reserve governor, and he
was appointed by President Trump, and even he has says
we don't need to cut interest rates that much to
(28:49):
to support the economy. He s worts half point radcuts.
He's for the last halfway recuts at last three meetings.
But even if someone that's hawkish, I seever Byras has
not advocated a one hundred basis boycut and what meeting.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
I mean over yeah, you know, no, over the year
I would take I would take it at a single
meeting myself, a single FMO FOMC meeting. Is there, it's
a it's a point.
Speaker 4 (29:10):
And then but I know the point you're making though,
is that once JAROMEE.
Speaker 5 (29:14):
Pole steps down in May twenty six, whoever you know,
Trumpet points he's going to be more aggressive.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Of rate cutting.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
Fine, that could that, but remember Jome Powell or his
successor only has one vote. And you know, I guess
when it comes to Trump's point of view, he maybe
he maybe have you know, two allies and Christopher Waller
and Steven Myron.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
If he is reappointed in January.
Speaker 5 (29:34):
And I guess you could also say Michelle Bowen, but
they've been pretty conservative in supporting raid cuts. But you know,
all the other if you look at the Summary of
Economic Projections, that's a quarterly survey of federers or officials
on their expectations for the broadery economy and policy. And
if you look at their dot plot seven of them
don't support any rate cuts at all in twenty twenty six.
(29:55):
So you know, you may have let's say, let's say
Trumpet points Kevin Hassett, and Kevin has to that, and
he wants a cut rates dramatically, you know, one hundred
basis rates. He has to get the support of the
eleven other people on.
Speaker 4 (30:10):
That Board of Governors or sorry, the Federal Open Market Committee.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Yeah, say so, we're not like to see that kind
of cut, but we will almost certainly see some cuts
if the economy and the jobs markets go as they are,
which would mean we've got a lessening of the liabilities
on the refinanced debt. Right but okay, okay.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
So I'm gonna see on paper, yes, that would seem likely,
although the Fed is only forecasting one rate cut and
the market is forecasting two rate cuts. However, the way
the Fed cut interest rates, yes, there is an influence
on the broader financial markets and borrowing costs, mortgage rates,
credit cards, all that stuff, but the main influence is
(30:54):
a treasury market the tenure yield. I mean, you saw
that the last rate cutting cycle under Biden, when Drome
Powell cut was fifty basis points. In September a sepnumber
twenty twenty four, and then a couple more after that,
and you saw the divergence with the treasure yields surging
while the federal fundraiate was gradually was gradually softening. And
so far it's been it's been flat when it comes
(31:15):
to jersy yields since the Fed started cutting interest rates.
So that is a major factor of the ten year yield.
That's that's about four point two percent last time I
checked around there anyway, So yeah, the Fed may cut
rates by let's say fifty basis points, let's say apathetically
fifty basis points in January, But will that lead to
the ten yure ye old falling below four percent? You know,
the ten year yelds flows by many factors, because, yes,
(31:37):
by the Fed, but also by fiscal trajectories, the broadery economy,
the labor market. Inflation ten years is a very powerful
instrument and it takes the flour of factors.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
It's going to be quite the coming new year. Andrew
Moram will be right back with you after this show, right,
don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
For your freedom and your liberty, liberty nation with mark
edge of.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
Ladies and you're back on libitin Nation Radio Head Coast
Coast on the Radio American Network, and we continue our
conversation with Liberty Nations economics editor mister Andrew Moran. Thanks
for sticking around, Andrew. Now you have a fantastic video
out in your your swamp panomics. It's called playlists out
there on YouTube and on the page of Liberty Nation
dot com, and it's fantastic or wherever you get your videos,
(32:26):
ladies and gentlemen. And you're talking about the the US
trade deficit. Now, I know you find it hard to
get excited about the reduced trade deficit, but this is
this is a good thing, and it'll give us the
details first and then we'll examine the pluses and minuses.
Speaker 5 (32:45):
It's just it's it's exciting based on on an economics thing,
but on a realistic level, it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
I don't get excited over it.
Speaker 5 (32:51):
But yeah, So the US the trade deficit in September.
Reminder it's October November numbers are delayed because of the couple.
So number was September, and I show that it was
the lowest trade deficit on since June twenty twenty if
you exclude the pandemic. I think twenty seventeen was the
other lowest number I came in. I had fifty two
point eight billion dollars and it came in below estimates
(33:11):
of about sixty billion. And I'm sorry, it was down
from fifty nine billion in August and then it was
below the forecast of sixty three billion dollars.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
But anyway, so the.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
Trade gap was driven by a three percent increase in exports.
Now that was huge because even about three hundred billion,
and that was the second highest level on record, so
that that's astounding in itself. Imports were up just about
was up less than a percent. So you can tell
that President Trump's tariffs are leading to these lower trade deficits.
(33:41):
So for MAGA nation, for Trump andnomics two point zero,
these numbers are terrific. Yes, terrific, I should say terrific.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Yes, we'll put that in the subtitle parific numbers. So
there's a there's a few elements to unwrap, there isn't
that So trade deficits that they usually come for a
nation specific trade deficit will come from a number of areas.
Number one, either people are not buying from abroad, they're
(34:11):
buying more domestic. Number two, the exports from said country
are increasing or I guess number three would be the
economies in a lull and people just aren't buying in general.
So this one, you say, is led by an increase
largely led by an increase in exports.
Speaker 5 (34:32):
Right, yes, absolutely, well that it was like pharmaceutical preparations,
financial services.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Right, that was going to be my next question. So
this is from pharmaceutical preparations and financial services their.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
Medals to non monetary medal soon.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
That's I mean that those are those three big industries
for the American public. Now tell me why you find
it hard to get excited about this, Andrew, I'm really so.
Speaker 5 (34:57):
A lot of people because when you're a deficit, you
think that's a terrible thing, like the budget deficit, that
that that's a horrible thing to have as a budget deficits.
So people who don't, you know, pay attend to this
stuff like you and I do on a daily basis.
You know, they'll say, oh, trade deficits is horrible. But
when you think about just on a micro level, can
we all have trade deficits. I'll go to nearby grocery
(35:17):
store and I'll have one hundred percent trade deficit with
that grocery store because they don't buy anything for me.
I buy it one hundred percent for them. It has
no impact on you know, federal deficits or the national debt.
Speaker 4 (35:29):
You know.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Well, I guess you could make the case and think, okay, well,
if I'm able to export more stuff, there are more
businesses that are gonna get more revenue.
Speaker 4 (35:35):
But on a whole there's not much that's a.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
Pretty compelling reason to add.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
It's not no, it's it's not much of a compelling
reason at all. Tax cuts that wall be more stimulative
for revenues that would.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
There for it's this season to wish for Christmas miracles Andrew,
you know, and you know, tax cuts, income tax cuts,
property tax cuts. Even though Milton Friedman was what did
you call it in the last segment, Yeah, it's the
least the least bad of all bad tax Yeah. Yeah, yeah, but.
Speaker 5 (36:03):
You know, I would say I would say it, But
I will give President Trump credit, of course, because his
economic agenda, which voters are obviously supported, and Besson talks
about this with his whole three arrow growth that they
want to rebalance trade, they want to reach or manufacturing,
they want the rest of the world to be the
customers and America to be the leading manufacturer again. So
these tariffs are driving that. Now, whether it's persistent, whether
(36:27):
it continues, that remains to be seen. Because a big
thing with this whole reshoring of trade and the whole
shrinking ice cube, as Besson called it, is that will
this I think Trump says it's eighteen trillion dollars investments
from a broad and domestically, will that be realized? And
if that is realized, if the whole eighteen trillion dollars,
You're gonna transform the economy. But of course I have
(36:49):
my doubts. I highly doubt the restaurant is spending like
I think Saudi Arabia they're gonna They committed a trillion dollars,
which is the size of their whole economy to investing
in the United States. So I just but even half
of it, even if it's say nine trillion dollars or
five trillion dollars, even is realized, that's that's a pretty
boost for the GA.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah. I've seen a lot of criticism of these these numbers,
and some of it is certainly justified. But the specifically
to the point you just made there. For example, Saudi
investing one trillion dollars and that's their entire economy. It's
not as though they're cutting a check for a trillion dollars, right,
It's because well, no, no, it's a staged investment over
a period of years, and part of that will be
(37:29):
from outside investors investing in something in Saudi Arabia, which
will then invest in the United States. Right, is that
it would be like investment vehicles that they.
Speaker 5 (37:37):
Yeah, I would seah, but there's no there's no actual
agreement saying well, all these companies are going to be
investing there, saying yeah, we're committing to is if they're
just you'll biden their time and which waiting for Trump
to leave. However, a country like South Korea in their
trade agreement, they're seeing, yoky, fine, we're go it commits.
I think it's like four four or five hundred billion dollars,
and they actually passed legislation recently codifying that's five hundred
(37:59):
billion dollar ledge to.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
Invest in the US economy.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
Yeah, I think again, we did talk about this in
the last segment, but there are a number of pillars
to support this what some people would call like a
Trump economic fever dream which you know, the the the
odds of it all being perfectly set and perfectly stable,
and you know, everything happening by the time Trump finishes
(38:25):
his time as president. It is unlikely, but I guess
what everybody's hoping for, everybody who who decides to eschew
the politics of things and just hopes that the American
economy does well no matter which party or president is
at the helm. I think what there's hoping for is
there's a good based platform on which to build, and
(38:48):
for many people, I guess the that the hope is
that these pillars will be so stable that, for example,
with the immigration I don't think we're ever going to
go back to open border because Trump has shown that
it can be done. I think what many people are
hoping for is that the pillars will be so stable
that whoever comes into office after Donald Trump, either on
(39:10):
that year or four years down the line or eight
years after that, is they'll embrace these particular pillars. Andrew,
it's been fascinating talking with you. Thanks ever so much
for joining us today, Thank you for having me, and
that's all we have time. From this week's edition of
Liberty Nation, radio head coast to coast on the Radio
American Network. I'd like to thank our guests today, Joe
Schaeffer and Andrew Moran, and of course i'd like to
(39:30):
thank you the listeners for taking the time to tune
in each and every week, and of course wishing you
a very, very merry Christmas from everybody here at the
Liberty Nation team. You are appreciated. Please remember, Liberty Nation
does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation
is no endorsement
Popular Podcasts
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.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.