Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Elon Musk: “KILL THE BILL!”
Recorded: June 4, 2025 Duration: 1:25:40Space Recording
Short Summary
In a heated discussion, crypto enthusiasts explored Elon Musk's opposition to the GOP's fiscal policies, highlighting a trend towards leveraging cryptocurrencies for economic reform. The conversation also touched on the potential for universal basic income as a response to automation, reflecting a growing interest in alternative economic models within the crypto community.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Apparently I wasn't talking. Sorry about that.
So Musk has come out in a big way against the, quote, big, beautiful bill that Trump and the House GOP has come out with.
It seems like it's all but dead now.
I mean, I think we're going to
have to see it completely redone. I think the Senate or the House, either one or the other is
going to need to completely change things around. I think it's going to be extremely difficult,
though, to do so, because if you completely eliminate any additional
contributions to the deficit, I think there's going to be other
issues that arise.
Brian, are you there?
Yeah.
So clearly, at least I saw this coming.
Elon Musk, of course, his whole point of Doge was to, you know, balance the budget, stop the national debt from rising.
Reducing the national debt is a whole other story, but at least stop, you know, stop the debt from
increasing over the next few years. And what every action that Trump and Republicans are performing
over the course of the last few months does the exact
opposite of that. And in fact, it completely counteracts everything he did with Doge. And
I disagree with a lot of the things he's done with Doge. But if you're a Republican, you
had to be so hypocritical to not want to push back against this bill, especially if you support a doge.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen. I think that the Senate will very, very likely
not vote for this bill in the current form. They're going to have to change it substantially.
But Musk is not going to stop pushing back because unlike the GOP, he actually has, you know, you know, a vision. He actually
has a drive to do something, and that is to reduce the national debt, reduce the deficits.
And that's going to that's going to come at odds with the Republican Party. So I think Democrats
need to really, really take advantage of this situation. And of course, a lot of Democrats are not in Elon's camp.
They're not happy with him.
It goes even worse beyond that, right?
But this is an opportunity for Democrats to at least paint a picture that, hey, yes, you've cut expenditures.
Hey, yes, you've cut expenditures, but that does nothing when you look at these tax cuts for corporations, for the wealthy and for the upper middle class.
So I hope they take advantage.
come out about a stipulation of the bill having to do with AI, which I agree with her with.
But she apparently hadn't read it in the bill, but yet she still voted for it in the bill. And now
she wants to basically change her vote. So it shows you just how so many of these members of
Congress are voting on a bill just because Trump says so. And like you said, Brian, I think Elon's not glued to anyone, right?
So we know he spent an enormous amount of money getting Trump and Republicans elected this past election cycle.
But he did that because he believed that, I guess he trusted that Trump would balance the budget,
I guess he trusted that Trump would balance the budget, which he is not doing and doesn't appear as though he's going to be doing that anytime soon.
Yeah, and I think we've already seen cracks, right?
We've seen cracks in the Senate from Rand Paul, from numerous other senators, Josh Hawley, the guy from Wisconsin.
What's his name?
But I think we're going to see a lot more cracks, and this time the House, which like Marjorie
Telegreen came out about the AI thing, which was basically a ban states from making any sort of
regulatory attempt against AI for a decade. And in a decade,
AI is going to be immensely different than it is now, immensely more advanced. So she came out
against that. Now, she didn't come out against the deficit or the tax cuts that are going to
increase the deficit, but she came out against that as a kind of a way to push back on the bill.
But others have also, like Rick Scott came out against it today,
even though he voted for it in the House.
So you're seeing Republicans peel away.
It's almost as if some of these people look at Elon as their leader over Trump, which is interesting.
Will this divide widen? I can't imagine it won't.
It's going to be interesting to see if Trump begins to change his tune, which I don't see him doing.
I don't know if I agree. So I feel as though Elon kind of, I don't know if the GOP, if some of these members of Congress are looking to Elon as their leader so much as they're looking for him for cover.
I think many of them, a lot of them oppose this bill. I don't think they like this bill in many different ways, but they felt they had to support it because they didn't want to get attacked by Trump.
So now I think Elon kind of gives them cover because it's doubtful that we're going to see Trump attack Elon because of what Elon did to get help get Trump elected.
So it's giving them cover to basically agree with Musk.
basically agree with Musk. As far as what happens from here, though, I think it's hard to say,
because there's still going to be so much conflict within the Republican Party when it comes to this
bill. Certain individuals don't really care about balancing the budget. They don't really care about
the deficit. I think probably the majority of the Republican Party would like to have the budget balanced, just like the majority of the Democratic Party would.
But they realize that to balance the budget is going to do short term damage.
And that short term damage isn't going to fare well for them when it comes to 2026 and they're up for reelection again. I mean, that's less than two years from now.
So the effects of anything that will balance a budget would probably be quite negative on the, you know, eliminating a deficit, which would be beneficial in the long run, is going to hurt you in the short run.
So you're either going to raise taxes, that's going to hurt you, or you're going to cut spending and that's going to hurt you.
or you're going to cut spending and that's going to hurt you.
So nobody really wants to do it.
But I think I actually like Elon's idea that every member of Congress,
if I think he said, if debt is over 3% of GDP, they can't run for a reelection.
Then it kind of.
Hey, Ed, did you DM Elon a link?
I didn't.
Maybe you should do that.
Just see if he comes in here.
Okay.
So I do think Democrats need to be a little bit hesitant on just how much they start supporting
must call here.
I think that obviously we support this call, but it could push Republicans who were against
these massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to now start backing those as a means to reduce the debt.
So Democrats have to make sure that when they agree with must take here, that they do so while also saying, hey, we can't have these
massive tax cuts, which go unevenly to the upper class and to corporations. I think it's something
like 50% of the tax cuts go to the top like 2%, while the other 50% go to the bottom 98%. So it's a huge burden on the middle class
and the lower classes because many of these cuts are coming from the middle and lower classes
while only a small portion of tax cuts will go to them. So that's something if Democrats are listening, they need to make sure that they are pretty blunt about that, that the only way you're going to have meaningful deficit cuts is by doing both cutting expenditures not raising taxes, I don't want to say raising taxes, letting these 2017 Trump tax cuts expire, which he's trying to in this bill prolong or even make permanent.
That's so important.
There's no way you're going to cut a deficit of $2 trillion by trying to save money on our expenses, right? We're already spending
a trillion dollars a year on the interest on our debt. So unless you increase taxes or,
once again, unless you make sure that you're not allowing these Trump tax cuts from 2017 to continue,
there's not really a way to solve the deficit problem.
Shane, any thoughts?
Any thoughts on Elon's kind of coming out here?
I mean, he seems frustrated.
I mean, I think we're all frustrated to see money wasted.
I mean, I think we're all frustrated to see money wasted.
Yeah, you know, like both parties are against the debt, right?
Like both parties have spoken out against increased deficits and the national debt rising towards $40 trillion. Of course, we have Democrats. They look towards the revenue angle, you know, more taxes, while Republicans look towards cutting expenses.
The solution is somewhere in between.
Doge, I mean, they cut $150, $160 billion according to their claims, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the $2 trillion deficit
we have each year or the $36 trillion in debt we have. Now, if you do things like you let these
Trump tax cuts expire, allow the corporate tax rate to go back up to 28% from, what is it,
20% right now, also capital gains tax to go back up to the tax bracket.
You're going to save trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. Now, I'm not saying that that's all that's the only solution or even the whole solution.
It's not. You do have to cut expenditures where I think that's very difficult, but it has to be from both sides.
You've got to take a little bit from both sides, not a one-sided approach like we've seen with
Doge, in my opinion. I saw Impure Hunter give me a thumbs down. Any thoughts?
Well, yeah. So I'm going to approach this more from the right now i'm not a republican i'm a
libertarian member of the party um i think the big beautiful bill is a disaster um
uh i think what thomas massey and rand paul have laid out are perfectly acceptable and reasonable
um cut spending uh because otherwise something that i did notice um i've been seeing some of the more
conservative people mention like oh but with this bill it'll cut 1.6 trillion over 10 years whereas
what they don't mention is assuming you believe that the doge number is 180 billion that's an
annual thing so over 10 years annually doge cuts would be more than the 1.6 trillion that
they're proposing yeah that would be cut that's fair and no it's and also you got to remember that
in general our deficit is it's over 2 trillion so even if we were to cut 1.6 trillion we're still
outspending it it doesn't matter it's it's a virtue signal it does
nothing and then when you have trump coming out endorsing people like lindsey graham who's a
blood-soaked monster in my opinion and then demanding the scalp of thomas massey it's like
you've completely lost the plot well yeah and and i And I think that's important. Like most Americans,
and this is kind of sad, but most Americans don't even understand what the difference between the
national debt and the deficit is, right? So the deficit is basically how much money you are
spending in excess of your revenue each year, right? So if we have a $2 trillion deficit,
that means every year our national debt is going up by $2 trillion if everything remains equal.
Whereas the national debt is just the cumulative effect of all of those deficits over time adding up.
Now, if you had a surplus, which is the opposite of a deficit, then the national debt begins to creep down.
But we're nowhere near having a surplus, nor we be for for a long time even if we do
figure things out right yeah no you're dead on no oh sorry no no go ahead finish what you're saying
oh yeah no i mean it's like that is correct uh i mean it's like the idea people have like wealth
meaning money in the bank account it's not just that it's also like physical assets for example
it's like there's a difference between money wealth and actual wealth,
just like how there's a difference between the deficit and the debt. So, yeah.
So the last president who balanced the budget was Bill Clinton, the Democrat, but he, it's not,
I think you had to be fair in saying that he was also a benefactor of a good economy at that point in time, which I think helped quite a bit in helping him balance the budget, although nobody's done it since, right?
And we've had several great economies since then.
So I think the issue that we have is, like I said before, is that nobody wants to put in the harm to themselves to benefit the country.
And I'd say that's Democrats and Republicans.
Nobody really wants to do it because they're afraid it's going to hurt their re-election hopes.
Yeah, so you're absolutely right.
Like, no president wants to, you know, shrink the economy. Like, look what happened in Greece when they did austerity, right? They were? Why would they, especially, I mean, now
Trump isn't running for re-election, so he would be the one to do it. A lame duck president would
be the one to do it. But why would they want to have their name attached to a sinking economy?
Like you said, as a lame duck, you'd think he'd want to do it, but maybe he doesn't view himself
as a lame duck. Maybe he views himself as running for re-election again.
Well, yes.
So, like, you can't completely attack him because he is for cutting spending and he's gotten attacked by that, by us.
I mean, I've attacked him for some of these cuts, right?
I mean, I've attacked him for some of these cuts, right?
But like I said before, if you truly want to fix the deficit and the national debt, you have to take both angles.
And the tax cuts that he's doing, as much as some of them, like the tax, no tax on tips, help the lower middle class, the majority of them are going to the wealthy, to corporations.
the majority of them are going to the wealthy, to corporations,
and we can't have that if we're going to tackle this problem.
McCain, do you have anything to say?
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, no, I'm sorry.
Real quick, though, I did notice the Greece mention I found interesting,
and obviously I'm no Greek expert.
I know about some of the gods that's about it,
but hasn't their economy kind of more balanced out now?
Now it has. Right. But and I'm yeah, I'm not sure if there was like more intervention or whatever in the economy afterwards.
But I mean, I know that they're one of the only NATO members to actually meet the two percent requirement, for example.
Yes, exactly. So so that proves that if you do have that pain, it will eventually work out.
And as much as I poked fun at that Republican saying short-term pain for long-term gain
with a tariffs, I mean, it kind of is true with the national debt. I just don't think tariffs
are the way to fix that problem. No, I'm with you on that one. You're right for the wrong reason, I think,
but yes, I'm with you.
Go ahead, Helton.
What's up, guys?
Just some pretty common sense questions here
because I think it's important.
I really tend to believe in Stephen Miller,
how can I say, analysis about economy and politics when it comes to the United States.
And let me ask you a few questions.
Most of the spending of this bill that I'm seeing people talking about is tax cuts. a lot of what it's going to be
used is also for national security
and completely fix
the border and the wall and also invest
in even the golden dome
and those things like that. and the debt and also the national security
and everything that they want to try to invest in spending
and investing in the country actually tend to help also as an investment doesn't that count for um gdp and tax cuts will also that money goes to just let
me finish uh very good that that money goes to we're gonna be used again in a country where it's
safe um full of infrastructure to national security threats,
the future is not going to be easy.
It's going to attract a lot of investment as well.
Just one thing that people are not talking, actually,
that is bad on this bill that I tend to agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene,
Marjorie Taylor Greene
it's the AI
to block
the states to regulate
AI in their own terms
and that actually I believe is a problem
when it comes to the other things
I really don't fully get it
so I hope you guys
get at me
so you're right that
tax cuts are expansionary, right?
So there's monetary policy by the Fed and then fiscal policy from the executive branch, basically, or from Congress.
And that expansionary fiscal policy are tax cuts and spending.
So both of those are expansionary, but we're cutting back on spending and giving tax
breaks. So that would probably, like, from viewing it in that light, it would be kind of neutral. It
wouldn't exactly be expansionary because you are cutting back that spending. I mean, you could
argue what spending is as valuable as those tax cuts.
I mean, anybody could argue anything there, right?
But I think the problem is it's also not doing anything for the deficit, right?
So you're cutting spending, but you're also cutting taxes.
So it doesn't put a dent in the deficit.
So if you really want to balance the budget,
you really want to cut the deficit, you've got to come up with ways to either generate more revenue through more taxes or cut less spent or cut more spending and not give the tax breaks, right?
So a lot of ideas I think that might get more agreement on between Republicans and Democrats would be defense spending.
We spend over three times more on defense than China, which is the second biggest spender in the world.
And we spend something like 34 percent overall as for the whole globe, maybe taking away some of the incentives or some of the tax breaks for
oil and gas. I mean, I guess Republicans would probably have more issue with that than Democrats,
but I think that's another place for you to make up some of that tax revenue.
I think you could increase the corporate tax rate a little bit.
I think that could bring in more money.
You could also tax financial transactions at a very minimal amount, like 0.1% for all financial transactions. Congress is going to have to start considering because simply making cuts isn't going to bring us to that zero mark to eliminate the deficit.
Yeah, and that's you're a libertarian, right?
Yes.
I was about to say, do you think taxation really increases productivity?
Because I don't think it does.
Productivity, I think, would generate more revenue.
No, maybe not productivity, but I think it does when teamed with other things.
But I think taxation is needed just for society in general.
I mean, I feel like...
You're wounding me, Ed. You are wounding me.
I know. I know you're... I mean, I think we're all partially libertarian,
but I take it that you are full on libertarian.
I mean, if you look at my profile picture, I'm standing right next to, in my opinion, the greatest living American of all time, Ron Paul.
So, yes, I am very libertarian.
I'm with this guy who is speaking on something.
He touched on something very important.
very important. I see, of course, here from Brazil, it's a completely different reality, but
I see, of course, here from Brazil, it's a completely different reality.
watching from far, I see you guys talking a lot about cutting, and of course, it's super important,
but I don't see a lot of the country and the culture talking about raising the productivity
of the country, because I always saw the United States of America
as the more productive and the more efficient
and innovative country on earth.
And I don't see the culture talking about this anymore,
even during this time that we are having conversations
about increasing the income of the country.
And I think it's more important than ever.
I see a lot of people in the United States very defeated and very,
maybe it's the socialist mind influence, but it's kind of sad, you know.
Of course, it has to cut and to do all of those things about the bills.
But people of the United States, like the masses, have to start to want to be productive and innovative again,
because that is going to make the country way, way richer, you know,'re only cutting things. To be fair, I think that, you know, America is incredibly productive.
I think that AI is going to take things in an exponential direction over the next five to ten years.
So I don't know if that's quite the issue.
Productivity and efficiencies are something that America has prided themselves on.
But as we head into the future, productivity isn't going to necessarily mean more jobs or wage increases.
It could actually go in the other direction as we get automation.
So I think you have to concentrate on both productivity efficiencies, but also something that's going to work in society.
And right now, I feel that corporations and the wealthy are getting the bulk of these tax cuts, while the middle class who are going to be damaged the most from this automation wave we're about to see
are just getting left further behind. So it's going to get worse before it gets better,
no matter what. So I don't understand why cutting taxes for those who least need the money
is something we should be focusing on. Of course, the big, beautiful bill,
if you want to call it that, did cut taxes on the middle class a little bit and did provide,
I think, $4,000 for those on Social Security, which is great. But at what expense down the
road? Because it's ballooning the deficit. Go ahead, McCain.
Oh, hi. Can you hear me?
Yeah, you're good.
Okay. So I do have like a couple of thoughts about this.
In regards to Doge, I've always been like simping for Doge because back in 2009,
John McCain, when he ran for president president wanted something similar to doge so when doge
finally became a reality i was like you know he would have been so proud of elon and everybody
because this is exactly what he wanted he wanted to audit the government and we finally got somebody
to audit the government you know it took us 16 years um to finally see all the waste and you
know all the stuff that we got like usaid you know I've been saying you know USAID
was evil and finally they did something about it um I think my my the problem that I'm seeing right
now is that you know you have two different types of people ones that are pro-Elon and the other
ones that are pro-Trump right and when Elon comes and said we have to kill this bill but this is a
bill that Trump wants you know you're putting people in a tough spot.
Like, OK, am I do I support Trump or do I support Elon?
Because if I go against Trump, there's going to be a MAGA challenger.
This is that's going to say, well, I'm loyal to Trump.
So it's going to put a lot of senators and congresspeople in a very tough spot.
Like, do I obey Trump or obey Elon?
Like, where do I go change or do you think
trump changes because of what elon said i think elon with all the respect i really admire and
love the guy but he should focus a little bit on his companies x it's terrible right now you know
even a small company like like x he's not doing a pretty good job.
So, you know, that's why I prefer on this topic, listen to Stephen Miller than to listen to what Elon Musk is saying.
Because the service that I'm using from the guy, he's not on the position to speak about it.
You know what I mean?
But I do wish him the best,
and I truly believe him,
but he needs to do some self-criticism as well.
Go ahead.
I envision Trump coming out,
and he's going to be asked about this,
and I find it kind of interesting
that we haven't actually had him speak anywhere
where he could be asked any questions
in the last few days.
A part of me thinks that he's not making himself available because he knows the question that's going to be asked and it's going to be about Elon's comments.
Real quick, I made this post yesterday and Thomas Massey thought it was pretty funny.
I don't know if you guys have noticed, but a lot of the stereotypical conservative grifter weirdos have been remarkably silent on him coming out against this bill.
Typically, whenever Elon Musk posts anything...
Except Steve Bannon.
Yeah, but he has his own beliefs.
I think he actually believes the things he says.
I'm talking more like cat turd or those other morons.
Typically, anytime Elon posts anything they're like all over him
but he comes out against this
and they're in between a rock and a hard place
because they don't know
do they come out in support of the orange emperor
or do they come out in support of
amazing rocket man
I think they're all waiting for a cue from Trump
agreed entirely
I think they're just cannibalizing themselves,
to be honest.
And let's be real here.
Elon never audited the government.
He just attacked low-hanging fruit,
firing 40,000 vets,
destroying Department of Education,
which is not bad.
USAID is not evil.
It kept people alive all around the world.
America was a beacon for the world.
And now we are actually seen as
someone that's stepping and getting in the way of world progression. And that's a tragedy. That
really is disgusting. And literally four months, they have eroded what was America. And it'll
take 20, 30 years to get that back. And it's a shame. Rather than cutting the stuff that people rely on and lives rely on, why not just tax the billionaires a little bit more?
I mean that's from – like I don't mean tax people who are capitalists in America who are millionaires, people who are making $1 million, $10 million a year.
We don't have to tax or raise taxes. We just have to collect what they already owe.
We just have to collect. That's all. We don't have to raise anything and we can be productive.
And of course, AI will help in that and it will cut a lot of jobs out. So you have to find out
what you can do to transition that. So you don't have a whole generation that's not working. It's
not doing anything because automation is coming. There's not working, that's not doing anything
because automation is coming. There's no way around that. It is going to happen. We are
in a capitalistic market. So the lower we can make things cost to get the max amount
of profit, that's what they're going to do. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to find
a way to transition and further cutting jobs just because it's low hanging fruit. And it
didn't add up to this $2 trillion.
I mean, actually, it looks now that Doge has cost the country money, not saved the money.
It cost us money. I mean, if you look at the tax revenue that's not paid every year, like people not paying
their taxes, it's around $600 billion.
So Trump's firing all these IRS agents.
We should be hiring more IRS agents. I know nobody likes to get audited. I mean, everybody's fearful of the IRS. But if we actually want to generate money for the government, make these people pay their taxes. $600 billion.
know what these people owe. They just don't collect. They allow these loopholes to be
absolutely ravaged. And it is a detriment to our economy and our society. It really is. And it's
true. When you have one of the richest men in the world saying, there's no way a teacher should be
paying more than me in taxes, but because it's here. I mean, you had Trump himself say, hey,
you don't like the rules, change them. I'm going to take it. That is a telltale sign that it is systemic corruption.
It was laws written by the people that are going to benefit from this.
And that's exactly what we have to.
That's what Doge should have really went after is that right there.
Just collect what these people already owe.
And not only will you solve a tremendous part of our deficit, you will increase production and you will improve our lot in global standing.
I mean, 100 percent. Like or not, we are the world leaders. Like or not, we are the de facto world police.
That's just simply the way it is. We cannot forfeit that to people like countries like China and Russia.
We cannot forfeit that to people like countries like China and Russia.
I mean, honestly, that is not good for the world.
That's not good for humanity.
It really isn't.
Say what you want about America, but at least we try to do what's right.
At least we try.
Yeah, well, real quick.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, no, on the whole tax thing, obviously, I'm against taxation by nature, but if the tax code is
thicker than my Ludwig von Mises book, why are we continuing to have such a colossal tax code?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Ted Cruz guy. I'm not a huge fan of him or his dad shooting JFK. That wasn't exactly cool.
That's a joke.
But like his whole thing where it was just like a 10% flat tax rate on everyone, like
just on a flashcard, like that's how big the tax code is.
Like I would prefer that over this horrific abomination of a tax code.
I mean, just simple, uh, just do it on, I wouldn't say income tax,
because I think that's unconstitutional. What's the word I'm looking for when you spend money?
Consumption tax. There you go.
Sales tax.
Something like that, sure. If you want to at least progress in a more efficient way.
See, I view sales tax as very, very cold for the economy. I feel like people won't spend as much.
Yeah. Sales taxes, you have to have both. You have to have it on income and sales or people
will just work around that. I mean, they're going to find a way you have to have it on both ends.
It's 2025. And if you want us to keep our standing, you have to have the income on both sides.
I'm okay with having
that flat rate. That's fine. That's what it needs to be. There shouldn't be a almost 2000 page tax
code. That should not be what it is. But again, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And the
people that tend to fight against it get burned out and they just end up falling in line and doing,
I mean, look at what MTG overnight went you know having what like a couple hundred grand in the bank to 22
million you know I mean come on you know all these little Bitcoin things all this
stuff you got the leader of the free world hawking a meme coin these things
should not be allowed this this is predatory this is corruption at its
finest at the highest level and that corruption absolutely trickles down.
Also, putting everything, putting all of that aside, how much is something like a Golden Dome going to cost?
Like, this is the type of—
And it's 100% ineffective.
And who is trying to launch missiles at us right now?
Exactly that, yeah.
Who's shooting—
Yeah.
The belief that when have missiles hit the United States and more than likely what comes after this?
Probably an arms race, whether anyone likes it or not.
More than likely that happens.
$200 billion.
Who's asking for that?
It would cost 10 times that.
It would even be effective.
It would only cover 20% of the country.
Maybe that.
It is not only missiles, but also drones.
And actually your country was full of drones last year.
Don't pretend that you guys don't have any threats because you guys have.
Our threats are more homegrown than external.
Our threats are more internal than external.
I 100% agree.
And even if you want to take the next country that's spending close to us, it's already such a large – like this makes no sense to build a golden dome.
Why in the world – if we're Israel, sure, give us a golden dome. We do not need a golden dome here in the United States.
Yeah, Israel is the size of New Jersey, right? Like it's totally different.
And that wouldn't protect against the drone threat, right?
against the drone threat, right?
It's not going to protect against what Ukraine just did in Russia.
It's not going to protect against what Ukraine
just did in Russia.
No Golden Dome's going to be shooting down
drones. They're not going to even know the difference
between a hobbyist drone and a
war drone, right?
It won't even show up on a radar. They didn't even leave
radar signatures. How are you going to track that?
I saw
Miles had his hand up for a while, and I know
you spoke. Did you have anything else you say?
Oh, yeah, no worries.
I appreciate it.
I think the only other thing I was briefly going over, I heard you mention it, Brian, I thought was interesting, was AI and the productivity that we should expect going forward and in the future.
Because as workers, our output isn't going, I highly doubt we're going to be more productive rather than AI will become productive over time.
And that will, in a way, replace us.
Don't take that.
Take that with a grain of salt.
But this could lead into, you know, when people discuss UBI, for example, universal basic income I know it sounds crazy but as time goes on I'm assuming we just continuously use AI to do more jobs in this capitalist society
the way especially the way CEOs and companies work you know they want to
cut the cost and AI will obviously let them do that at a rate never seen before
so it's very possible we could see the future look like that. Oh absolutely and
and there's no doubt in my mind that we're going to eventually need something like UBI, universal basic income.
More than likely.
You're going to have – all the wealth and accumulation will congregate around the companies that own the LLMs or the other AI models, whether it's Amazon, Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft, they're going to just keep making more and more money and having more and more power.
Now, when that happens, they're going to start letting people off and hiring robots instead of human beings.
I get the whole argument, oh, it's socialism if you give a UBI, and nobody's going to go for that on the right. But I actually disagree there. I think that the thing that people hate so much about communism and socialism is more the being dictated by the government, right? being told what to do, how to work, how much money you can get, etc. It's not being given money.
And you have evidence of this simply by the stimulus checks.
No Republican was saying, oh, how dare you give me a stimulus check?
So if the government gave—
It's only socialism if people like Andrew Yang or the Democrats say it.
But just recently, I mean, look at—now the Republicans are saying it. Even Trump, and I hate to say this, but just recently, I mean, look at now the Republicans
are saying, even Trump, and I hate to say this, but a very smart thing, every child born should
have $1,000 put aside into a bank account and put into the stock and let that accrue and accumulate
wealth. That's actually a very smart and wise thing to do to help people prevent them from
getting poverty stricken later on. And it will in turn actually boost the economy
because of that, because it will give another revenue stream into the stock market, which like
or not, the stock market pushes a tremendous amount of our economic power and wealth. That's
not a bad thing. Again, it's only socialism if it's the one side that says it. But if it's the
other side, right, then it's grand. It's great. It's genius.
Andrew Yang is over here screaming, I told you so. It's ridiculous.
Well, that could be an extended form of UBI, right? Instead of $1,000 to every child that's
born, give maybe $10,000 or $20,000 and put it in an interest account, earn them $1,000 to $2,000 a year, at least that's a start.
Now, like I was saying, I don't think people are against it if everybody got the same, right?
I think where a lot of people on the right go against this whole concept of government giving people money
is when they're not the
ones getting the money.
So like the poor people are getting the money and they're not getting anything.
They're wealthy and they're not getting any benefit out of it.
I think the sad thing is a lot of the Republican base does get government assistance.
I mean, like it or not, we have many socialist aspects in this country and that's not a bad
thing.
It's not a bad thing for the government to want to help its people. I don't understand where people think that that's
wrong. That is a necessity. Republicans always talk about the trickle down effect. It's really
the trickle up effect. So the lower class gets money, that money actually trickles up through
the economy because those people are going to be spending every dime that they're getting. Whereas those at the top of the food chain, when they get money,
they tend to save it. So it doesn't actually trickle down.
Exactly. The Reaganomics did not work. It does not work. It's been proven. But again,
it's only socialism if it's the Democrats that say it, if it's the Republicans,
then it's brilliant. It's ridiculous. Anyways, thank you guys for letting me talk. I got to get back to work.
One thing, Tyler, is if you allow me to reply to you a little bit.
One thing is to help the people who are in necessity for a period of time until they are able to stand for themselves.
Another thing is how do you define that?
Another thing is how do you define that?
For an example, I live in Brazil.
And if like my family, when I was like 10 years old, I receive money from the government for help buying things for class and things like that.
But you have to give people a limit of time.
You have to give people a limit of time.
Like, I'm going to help you for one, two years, and then you're going to have to find your way through society to grow.
And, of course, the government will have to invest in more jobs.
We have that right now in the United States.
Welfare programs are only allowed for a certain amount of time. The problem is if you let governments more from
far left or left, they want those programs to stay forever. Here in Brazil, there are people
who are receiving money from the government for more than 30 years and they don't want to work.
They have five kids, six kids, and they want to live forever like that.
five kids, six kids, and they want to live forever like that. That's a little-
That's understandable, but that's not in America though. There is limits and there are stipulations.
Well, that's hypothetical. You can't use a hypothetical possibility to dictate
what needs to be done right now. That's just not realistic. While I agree,
I think everyone agrees. If you've ever been poor, if you've ever lived in the mud, in the gravel,
you don't want to be there. You don't. You really don't. You do whatever you can
to get yourself out of there. And the government helping you out will help you do that.
there. And the government
helping you out will help you do that.
It depends because
the socialist culture
tends to make people
believe that wanting more
it's not beneficial.
It's selfish and makes people
kind of believe that it's not
cool to
prosper. Just
to comment on a little
thing that has to do with this bill and has to do with
the U.S. as well. Quickly, Doge is doing great not only because of the cuts they are doing,
but because of the corruption they are founding. That only should be... Where's the corruption?
Who's been arrested? There's nothing. USA destroyed every country that they put their hands on.
Thank God they are not.
That's just not true.
That is just simply not true.
That's just not true.
That's not true.
Actually, it is true because I put a link, I put a thing in the nest where I explain how they have been used to do secret psyops around the country.
Listen to that. That's just conspiracy. Listen, there are real data and facts out there. USAID
has helped millions, millions of kids not starve to death. People, I mean, those are real, that's
real data. Is there going to be a little bit of corruption and mismanagement? That's in everything.
That is in everything. To say that they're a psyop or this or that, I mean, was somebody talked to
by the CIA, hey, what's going on over here? I'm sure, yeah, of course. But you can't vilify and
demonize something that has been proven to be effective around the world. And again, if we pull out of these areas, who steps in?
Who's already doing it?
China.
And these guys are not the ones that we need to have in their hands in there.
If you want real PSYOP issues, that's where that's going to come from.
I don't mean to mute you guys, but I do want to move on a little bit to get some other speakers up.
I do appreciate the conversation.
Let's go to Sphinx.
I know you keep raising your hand.
Thank you for recognizing my royalty.
I just want to say, Liam Nisan, I never thought you were the actor.
I just want to say that.
that. And the other thing is, sorry, I joined a bit late. And I was wondering, why did you guys
discuss this? What are people's thoughts about why Elon elected to wait until after the House voted to
come out with this? We didn't discuss it. But that's, that's a good question. Yeah,
I'm just curious about that. I have my own thoughts. I'm happy to.
I'll tell you mine, then you tell me yours.
Okay, you go ahead first.
So I feel like Elon was holding out hope that he wouldn't have to come out against Trump and against the House GOP.
I think he was hoping that the bill that they released would cut the deficit.
And when it came out, it did the opposite and it increased the deficit.
So I think he felt like he couldn't hold it in.
He said, I can't hold it in any longer.
I can't do this anymore.
I need to say this.
And then he basically, over the past two days, has been unleashing on this bill.
So I think he was hoping that it would come out, or he was hoping
that even if it did come out and it increased the deficit, that there would be enough people
to be outraged, and maybe even Trump would be upset about it, but Trump wasn't apparently
wasn't apparently upset about it. So, I mean, that's my thoughts. Go ahead. What are yours?
upset about it. So, I mean, that's my thoughts. Go ahead. What are yours?
Yeah. So I think Elon is, is used to saying what he really thinks. And I, I think that,
and, and I really relate to that. I don't know if some of you guys have been in spaces with me,
if you can, if you can tell, but you know, I don't think he has a lot of experience holding back.
And I think in this situation, that's what he was doing.
And he was really, really trying.
And he was, you know, out of respect for the president, not really saying what he thought.
And I think that yesterday it just it just boiled over.
And he just I don't know what it was.
Not enough ketamine.
I don't know.
I'm not saying anything.
But whatever it was, he just couldn't take it anymore.
And you got the raw Elon.
And that's what I think.
I feel like there's been quite a theory.
Brian, one second.
Let me just say this real quick.
I feel like there's been quite a bit of things that have been building up that Elon has not been that happy about.
But I feel like this was the number one thing and it kind of reached a boiling point and he let it let go.
Go ahead, Brian.
Yes. So this is a conspiracy theory because it is X and there's a lot of conspiracy theories on X.
I don't actually think this is the truth.
But he wasn't selling enough Teslas, and he needed
to get the left-wing base back on board, so he decided to make them happy. Well, I don't know
if I could really agree with that, because he's not coming at this from a more left-wing perspective.
His attack on the Big Beautiful Bill is not from like your attack for example i agree mike
johnson actually said i don't know if you guys heard this but mike johnson said um yesterday
he said you know elon was upset that we took out the um eb uh subsidy but the government's not going to subsidize that. And I know he was upset.
So Mike Johnson more than implied that this post was because Elon is upset that Americans will no
longer be getting tax credit for buying. Yeah, I don't buy it. I think that's just a comment from Mike Johnson
to make it sound like that's the only reason Elon's against the bill.
Yeah, no, I'm with you. I think because if I remember
correctly, Mike Johnson is a lawyer, and lawyers are snakes, and
they know how to word their way to make things seem the way that
they aren't. There are legitimate reasons to attack this bill from the right.
I don't know if I think that Elon is doing that necessarily.
I think there may be a little bit of that, which is kind of true, but it's a very dismissive sort of like, oh, he's just doing it because he's not getting his way.
So Brian said it was a conspiracy theory.
That was probably not true.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I honestly think that Elon is pretty transparent on this.
He just doesn't like it.
He probably wasn't expecting it to be this, you know, he saw the CBO report and he wasn't expecting it to be as harmful to the deficit.
And I think you brought up a good point in that, like, it isn't elon's not coming from the point of somebody on
the left he's coming from somebody from the point of somebody that just wants the deficit to drop
uh the left is probably not gonna like what he wants to be done to the bill he probably wants
further cuts whereas the left wants you know the trump tax cuts to expire and not be extended. Guys.
I kind of think that that's,
I think we're all missing something even more important.
As he's exiting as a special employee for the government,
he took data from every single one of the departments.
And now as he's leaving out the door,
the headlines are reading,
he opposes the big, beautiful bill
instead of he just robbed all of the data of
the U.S. government to train his XAI bullshit and that he's not being scrutinized for that.
I think that's the most valuable storyline for himself. And Stephen, I'm at the airport,
so really quick, I want to jump in. Don't forget his pick for NASA was just rejected a week ago,
that Isaacson guy. He has to be pissed about that.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Wasn't that Loomer's fault?
Jared Isaacson?
You can always blame something on Loomer
and I would agree with you.
Elon always complains about the deficit
but I don't remember to see him
offering a solution
only talking about cutting expenses but only that doesn't fix
the problem, so I don't get it, actually.
Yeah, I mean...
Well, yeah, it's kind of hard to do that.
It's kind of hard to do that when you have a deficit this massive, a national debt this
massive.
I mean, even the doge cuts, when you look at them,
if you just zone out a little bit, it's like nothing.
It's burning, you know what I mean?
So it's like this is just – it's all political theater at this point.
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
Let's hear from TJ.
Hey, I'm moving some people around the stage to give some other people an opportunity to speak.
Just don't get offended if I remove you.
Go ahead, TJ. Are you there?
Okay.
Miley, anything else?
Sphinx, anything you say? Sphinx anything you say Sphinx?
Yeah I did want to say that I wouldn't really throw away this idea of you know
him being pissed off about the tax credit because, you know, he does get upset about these kinds of
things, this sort of I did for you, why couldn't you do for me? And the shareholders at Tesla have
already been very upset with him. And I could see that it's very plausible to imagine that,
to imagine that, you know, him seeing this bill and seeing that tax credit not being included
and thinking, oh, great, now I have to explain how I couldn't even get the tax credit included
in this big, beautiful bill after my involvement with this administration. I could see that being
a big factor in this, actually. I would not
minimize that. I actually agree with Miley on this. Yeah, I think that's pretty... I definitely
see that as being, as definitely having at least some influence. But I think ultimately, he was
hired by the administration to create Doge, right? And to make the government more efficient and basically reduce the deficit.
And the bill kind of just says, okay, we'll do what you're telling us, doge, but we're also
going to do this, which is 100% counter to what you're doing. Yeah, no, I think I'm kind of like
on board with what Sphinx is saying here. I think there is like, you could make the argument that
there are ulterior motives to what
Elon is complaining about. That's why I don't say I'm team Trump or team Elon. I say I'm team Massey,
because I think he has a much more, like, a much longer proven track record of being consistent,
of actually opposing this just on principle, and not, he's new to the party, so now, or not party,
but, like, Republican Party or anything. I mean, like, new to the party so now or not party but like republican party or anything i mean like
new to the whatever this whole thing is so it's like okay but like why are you here you know i
think massey is coming at this out of principle not because he might get some benefit down the
road or whatever so i i think there is something to that and again i don't know what's in his head
i don't know if i'd know what's in his head.
I don't know if I'd want to be in his head personally. I'm already, I've got a lot going on up here anyway, so I don't think I need to be occupying anyone else's.
I'm not sure anyone wants to be in his head. I think people would just like his bank account.
I mean, you're not wrong. I have been looking at a new guitar.
I mean, you're not wrong. I have been looking at a new guitar.
I was just going to call on somebody else. Let's get to Gloria. Gloria, are you there?
Yeah, I just want to say that I think Donald Trump bill might be large, but it also helps secure America's future by providing protection like with the globe.
help secure America's future by providing protection, like with the globe. But also he's
providing, I think, $1,500 per every newborn. And you can add $5,000 of your own every year,
I believe, until, you know, the kids like 21 or 18, you know, so it might be adding,
you know, a lot to the debt, but it's securing our future. That way we will have more financially
secure children. But we will also be safe in case we get a threat from our enemies like China or Russia.
So I think it's big. But I think like Donald Trump is moving more towards like the progressive side of things.
And Elon Musk is going more towards like the far right side of things. Does that make sense?
I mean, I agree with that. I think I think Trump has a lot of progressive ideas, whereas Elon, financially Elon is moving definitely to the more conservative side of things.
You know, it's easy to say that this is great for America's future.
You're giving money to kids because I agree it is, but so too is giving more tax breaks to
the lower and middle class and tax and moving some of that tax burden to the billionaires.
So, you know, I think all these politicians kind of do one thing and say another.
And I mean, on both sides of the aisle, I think you see it happening.
But I think what this comes down to is that Elon, you know, he has this strong belief that the deficit needs to be conquered or that future is not even going to be here.
how much money you give to this person or that person, if the deficit reaches a point where
the U.S. government is paying, you know, just as much in interest payments as they are to pay off
the debt, we're in trouble, right? I think everybody realizes that, but we all just don't
agree on how the best ways are to fix it. Yeah, I think like, I honestly believe, I'm not sure if this
is a conspiracy or not, but I think like America is too far behind when it comes to race, because
I don't know if it's true, but I've, you know, I heard in the past that America people have done
a lot of things to keep minorities down and different neighborhoods down because they're
focused on race. But I think if they do the exact opposite, which is lift these people up who need
government assistance, like hire in society and give them the tools necessary to become successful, it will be a lethal weapon for America.
to be able to build the economy in a way where they can be,
you know,
contributing to,
to a greater society and not just focus on laughing at them because,
you know,
they need assistance,
but actually putting the work to help people.
Trump cared about daddy.
I just also want to correct the record here too.
There,
you do have to,
for the child tax deduction,
you also have to be, you have to file jointly with your spouse.
So this doesn't extend to single parents.
Which is horrible, though.
It's horrible.
Yeah, it's called a marriage requirement.
So that means that if you're divorced or you're a single parent, you're not going to get that for your kid?
That's kind of crazy.
Is that what it is?
That's interesting. Good find
there. At least it should be
each parent gets that.
Gets a hat for something.
Yeah.
It's called a marriage
eligibility requirement.
To keep women married to husbands that
abuse them. Correct.
Well, let me ask you guys this, then.
It also punishes widows.
Wait, what?
What?
Wait, wait.
So, what's going on here?
I have no idea what I just heard.
I don't know what I just heard.
So, we were talking about the
child tax credit.
It's not a credit, it's a deduction.
You research this, so you explain it again.
So tax credit, you would get money up front.
A deduction, you get to file it on your taxes.
So there is a standard deduction that was passed in the IRA that allowed you to have a permanent $2,000.
Trump's raising it to $2,500.
But in order to qualify for it, you have to be married.
And you have to file jointly with your spouse.
That is typically what we have called a marriage eligibility requirement.
Yeah, and most people aren't seeing that.
Most people are just seeing an overview of it or hearing it on Fox News.
Oh, you get this, this, and this.
They don't dig deep into that.
Marjorie Taylor Greene didn't even read the bill because she didn't know about the AI.
I can't even imagine admitting to willful illiteracy in public.
What was she thinking?
Did he even
think about... And being on the education committee?
Yeah. I mean,
it's nuts. And then Rick Scott
came out today and
said that he doesn't really support it
either, support the bill, but he
voted for it. So, like,
how did these... Well, they all support it.
They're all just lying until the
last minute so that they don't get pushback from their constituents.
I don't think they actually support it.
They are all going to vote for it.
They're eventually going to say they support it because they don't want to piss Trump off and have Trump's wrath come down on them.
No, they all support it because these are all of the policies That they've been pushing for the last 35 years
Okay, but like the Eye of Sauron
Has already been cast on
People like Thomas Massey and Rand Paul
Who have been, again, consistent
In their opposition
To this because it's too big
I don't know, by the way
But they voted for it
They didn't though, Thomas Massey voted no
Let me check that He literally did they voted for it. They didn't, though. Thomas Massey voted no.
Let me check that.
He literally did.
But, no,
but why,
so I want to hear your guys' thoughts on this.
Why the hell are we doing these, like,
1,100-page bills? Why are we not doing single-issue things?
Like, we can't keep,
like, have everyone vote on everything and have it just be single issue.
I'm sick of these colossal things.
Again, bigger than my Mises books.
Because they're using reconciliation.
They can only do it with 51 votes.
Yeah, and like, it's kind of funny because Republicans said the same thing for Democrats when they were doing it.
And now it's this... And I probably I probably supported Democrats doing it.
So, like, it's it's just one of those things that happen every time.
They just bunch everything together. And, yeah, I guess on some of these things without reconciliation, they could do it.
But how long would that take to, you know, every line item? I mean,
most of these Congress people don't even know what's in the bill, much less they're going to
vote for every single item for every single line in a 1,200-page bill. It would take—
I would—yeah, I would rather you have a single issue bill where you can read it in, like, 10
minutes or something than have these huge things. Like, in my opinion, the greatest president we ever had was Calvin Coolidge.
He said it is much better to kill bad bills than it is to pass good bills.
How about you make it digital?
What?
If you make it digital and use AI, you can easily scan it.
I don't know.
It may be high.
No, I don't want to give the job of a representative
or a senator to a computer.
I want them to do their job.
So if you're going to go up there
and get
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year
to represent us
or be a senator, then I
want you to do your damn job.
Yeah, and it's almost like these bills
being that thick, being this in a
way this hard to read who's really like even as a congressman or a congresswoman like you guys said
are they really reading all this obviously not they just one of them publicly admitted it but
this is like what you want you just want them to fold over don't even read all the way through
it while you're at it i mean this is crazy yeah they want to understand they Don't even read all the way through it while you're at it. I mean, this is crazy. Yeah, they want to understand. They don't even write their bills.
They get this from their think tanks that do that work.
You know that probably 90% of them did just that.
They took it and they put it in chat, GBT, and said, summarize this and pull out the key points.
And it probably missed the thing about the AI, and that's why
Marjorie Taylor Greene didn't read it. I guarantee you they're not reading 1,200 pages.
They're probably reading about 10 pages, if even.
So I want to touch really quickly on the AI thing, for those who don't know.
So the bill basically said that for the next 10 years, from 2026 to 2036, that states cannot
regulate AI.
Only the federal government can do so. And Republicans
voted for this. And, you know, Republicans are always all about states' rights. And now they're
saying, we don't want the states to have the right to regulate AI. So I mean, I think it's kind of
comical that so many Republicans supported that. I mean, they're going to have a Ninth Amendment problem because the federal government
doesn't have primary
control over the internet.
That is both shared by the federal
and state governments because it's not laid
out in the federal powers.
Real quick, Stephen,
did you fact-check
the Thomas Massey vote?
Oh, sorry.
I want to be proven right here.
Come on now, give it to me.
But no.
No, go ahead.
No, in general, though,
something people need to realize
is that the Republican Party
is fundamentally
the Democrats of the 2000s,
especially with Trump in office
because he is
a 2000s Democrat.
You very rarely
see actual fiscal
conservatives. You'll see Rand Paul, you'll see
Thomas Massey. Otherwise,
they're... I mean, it's
the Uniparty, fundamentally.
Thomas Massey did vote against it.
And if you are not a
2000s Democrat, he is stripping
people of Medicaid by the tune of 16 million.
Well, I...
That's the ultimate Republican goal.
No, I despise a lot of the things that Massey says and does,
but I have to give him consistency.
And same for Rand Paul.
It's all right. You're allowed to be wrong.
They were honest from the beginning and and I think that for Elon to finally
turn and take that take their stance like like why didn't he take the stance before it's probably
he didn't know what was going to be. I think he thought that their positions, Rand Paul and Thomas Massey, I think he thought that they would
be able to maybe hold more
weight or get things changed
and they weren't able to. So I think he's like,
okay, I can't take this anymore.
I'm going to come out and say what I
really feel.
I really don't believe
that at all. The most valuable thing to
Elon right now is for him not to be criticized
for stealing as much data as he has
from our federal agencies to train his sex AI.
That is the most
important thing to him because they're considering
a merger between companies.
I misheard. XAI is something entirely
different. I was like, what kind of AI is he building over
there? Okay, X, not...
Okay, Jesus.
Well, he's building sex robots too.
Yeah, I thought...
That's exactly what I was thinking.
No, but, like, I think there was also, like, a bit of political calculus here,
because, like, you gotta think...
Not really.
Well, no, no, hear me out.
He's bleeding money, and he needs to change the headline.
Hear me out here.
I'm saying, I think the reason why he waited until now to come out
and agree with Massey and Rand Paul is
he might have been thinking
like, okay, are they actually serious about this?
Or are they just kind of, like as Trump would say,
grandstanding, which
I would assume that he's a principled person,
but he's a person who is responsible
for cutting off nutrition
to millions of children in
developing nations. I doubt he's taking
a principled stance based on his own opinion.
I'm not saying it was principled necessarily. I'm saying it's a calculuspled stance based on his own opinion. Well, no, I'm not saying it was principled, necessarily. I'm saying it's a calculus sort
of thing where it's like, okay, if I hitch my horse to this wagon, are they actually
going to go? Like, is the wagon actually going to go, or is it just dead in the dirt?
Do you think that story is more valuable than changing the narrative that he stole all the
data from all of our federal agencies?
Look, I don't give a shit about the federal agencies, personally.
I would like to see them all gone.
I care about my HIPAA records.
Well, maybe not HIPAA.
I'm talking, like, FBI.
Well, he's got them.
Well, sorry.
I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, he's got mine, too, and he can see the clinical levels of autism shocker a libertarian party
member is autistic watch out rfk jr here i come yeah so so like i i mean i i do think that elon
does things rationally in that he he's not just doing things to be evil it's just that he takes
things that other people think are evil and rationalizes them for good and thinks that okay
by cutting this stuff i'm saving the government money and we're gonna get out of this national
debt crisis and save america that that's that's how he's seeing it. And I do think it's important that
Democrats understand that because ultimately you might have to, you know, work with him on some
things in the future. I get where you're coming from, Stephen, and I totally disagree with many
of these cuts. I don't know if he actually made some of these cuts. You know, did he say,
cut this, this, and this?
Or did the people working for him say that
and the Trump administration agreed?
But like I said, I think that he's coming from a point
where he thinks he's doing good,
whether you agree or disagree.
Well, I think everybody does that, though, to some degree.
But some people self-enrich themselves, like we see Trump doing.
And other people say, oh, I want my legacy to be great, so I'm going to do this.
I think it all comes down to, you know, nobody's actually saying I'm doing this because I'm evil.
They're justifying everything in their mind.
Yeah, I disagree.
You think he's just like, okay,
I want to hurt these starving kids.
I'm going to put it to them.
No, I think he's apathetic
to children starving.
And I think that is evil.
Well, I don't
doubt that his
sense of apathy is
not very...
I also think he's a bipolar drug addict. And
I think that's been borne out in the reporting lately. And I don't think drug addicts are
capable of being rational. Well, I read a lot of his books and his mother always say that his
mother, his brother, they all say that he lacked empathy. But also I want to add that he's building an AI factory in like Memphis, Tennessee,
that's killing, like that's causing cancer in the area, which is predominantly black area.
And I'm wondering if his problem with South African black people, you know, saying Bora Bora,
did he intentionally do that with the factory I don't know that's just my thoughts
that's I mean
very conspiratorial
yeah his father made money
off of blood jewelry so like
that's how they started with their money and to begin
with so what you haven't stopped that
it wouldn't be that big of a job
he put the factory in a place
where the people couldn't fight back
exactly like but it's like do you do it of a job? He put the factory in a place where the people couldn't fight back.
Exactly.
But it's like,
do you do it on purpose because you think black people are all connected?
We don't know anything about people in Africa.
And you're saying Bora Bora, that have nothing
to do with us. So are you doing it
to trying to harm us back? I don't know.
Let's move on.
I don't want to get too off
base of the main thing, which is Elon Musk saying, the bill, and he also posted a picture of kill bill.
I'm very surprised to see how quick – I knew – I had a feeling this was going to happen between Elon and there would be a falling out with the Republican Party.
But I'm just – it feels like they really chewed him up and spit him out.
It's just like a little bit of truck still has that you know
but like so so Trump hasn't when did Elon first say something was it yesterday
morning and I want to say yesterday yeah I believe Trump has not said a single
word on it yet and when when the press secretary was asked about this when
Caroline Levitt was asked about this she she said, I'll let Trump speak for himself.
But he hasn't.
Have we seen anything from the Oracle of our time?
Cat Turd, has he said anything on this?
You know, I don't know.
I can't see, you know, Cat Turd.
I mean, he blocked me because I called him an idiot for saying that Kyle Rittenhouse should be excommunicated for thinking about writing in Ron Paul because Trump is awful on gun laws.
So it is interesting. We talked about this earlier.
Like the people, the MAGA people who are very pro-Musk are kind of quiet, right?
Like a lot of them aren't weighing in and it's because they're waiting to see how Trump reacts, I think.
Which is like half of Twitter, right, or half of X.
Yeah, the influencer, the big influencers, probably 75% of them, 80% of them are people that are in MAGA camp, at least in politics.
I'll post that one post I was referencing earlier, how I had observed that there had been radio silence from a lot of those stereotypical conservative grifters.
The best thing for Elon right now would be for Donald Trump to start a media fight with Elon Musk.
That would be the most beneficial for him.
That would be the most beneficial for him.
You know, like, I don't disagree.
And I said this starting, you know, two and a half years ago, or whenever it was that Musk
took over Twitter, I said, he's going to move further to the right.
And then he's going to move further back to the left and keep doing that.
And at the end of it, there's people he's going to be seen as he's going to be hated on
both sides. And it's either going to work out for him or it's not. I don't know where we're at right
now. He's slightly moving to the left, but I don't think he's actually moving to the left. I think
the left might take it as him moving to the left. I don't even think the left takes it that way. I
think people just see it. He's
disagreeing with Trump on this. He thinks that the deficit's the main problem. I mean, it's pretty
obvious why he's doing it. I think he just wants, he believes that the deficit is a huge problem
and he sees that the bill does the opposite of what Republicans promised they were going to do.
And the budget's not going to be balanced anytime soon if this is a bill that gets passed.
So I want to get some hands, but before I do that, I did check Cat Turd's wall, if you want to call that, his stream.
Litterbox?
His litterbox, yeah.
His litterbox, where his stream resides in solid form.
He said, I always trust Trump knows what he's doing.
He said, I'm already ready for Republicans in Congress to go back on vacation.
The CBO's fudge numbers gave us disastrous Obamacare. So it seems like he's pushing more
towards Trump. He's not saying much about Elon's comments, but he's definitely keeping Trump props.
So whatever Trump does—
Of course, cat turd is not going after Elon.
He doesn't want to be demonetized.
Exactly.
And he can't disagree with his orange emperor, so yeah.
That's it.
So I think this is what a lot of them are doing.
They're continuing to praise Trump and not saying anything about Elon.
And they're there because they're waiting to see what Trump says, because I think most of them believe Trump's going to kind of agree with Elon here and kind of try and backtrack because taco.
Yeah, let's get to the hands. Rogue.
Let's get to the hands. Rogue?
It's kind of funny that yesterday I shilled Rogue Bill to Elon in a post.
And then he uses the Kill Bill, which we use as a narrative for our Shill Bill project, to kill this bill.
It's really funny. I just thanked him for gaining an abstraction on it.
But I agree with everything that you guys are talking about.
We got better things that the
government needs to be looking at like i got cut off my ssi because i hold too much crypto
state welfare program says that it's considered a common resource well the handbook doesn't
consider crypto a common resource we got better things for our government to be dealing with
like taking care of the disabled people in the states because the federally backed welfare fund does not help us.
It keeps us suppressed and it does not get us
where we can live comfortably.
And now I have no money because they cut me off.
Now I have to do crypto full time,
which I was already starting to,
but it's ridiculous that they use things
in our bureaucratic government.
They change and skew things for their own benefit, and it doesn't help the people.
And here's the thing.
You did everything right.
You reported that you had crypto.
If you didn't do that, you might still have welfare, and that's a sad thing.
Let's get to Michael.
I didn't report it.
MetaMask reported my taxes to the federal government, which I have no problem with.
And the federal government got, because of my taxes, cut me off.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
That shouldn't be happening.
You voted for Trump?
Yes, sir.
I voted for Trump.
I am 100 republican
right um i just wanted to say um i came up here i know the topic has kind of changed
but uh you guys were discussing uh about the thousand dollar um child trump account that
basically they're trying to push into this bill. I just want to clarify
a few things that I heard. Basically, you don't have to be married. You can be single. You can
file single. And that $1,000 will go into an account, right, that you can't touch until you're
18. You could put up to $5,000 annually into it, and it's tax-free.
But that's not the important part.
I think the important part when it comes to this is looking at the current law.
So right now, women or couples that have a child, they get up to $2,000 per qualifying child, right, up until 17 years old.
So this bill also proposes increasing that from $2,000 to $2,500 because at the end of 2025,
if it doesn't get addressed or no legislation gets passed, then that child tax credit will go back down to $1,000, which is what it was before 2017.
So there's a couple things that go into that, which I think are very important.
Yeah, so I actually just chat GBT'd, and I know we talked about AI and it's not always true,
so I chat GBT'd it to see if that required a marriage requirement, like somebody said earlier.
I'm actually reading it as we do this. So it does look like you're right, and it doesn't require a marital status.
Single parents can qualify for the $1,000 deposit.
But both biological parents have to have valid Social Security numbers.
If only one parent has a valid Social Security number, the child would not be eligible.
So this is kind of going for the whole
citizenship thing, I guess. If you're married to somebody that isn't a citizen, then you're not
qualifiable, I guess. But I don't know. I mean, it seems to be some sort of loophole there.
Ancient Rome tried to do the same thing
Ancient Rome tried to do the same thing and it didn't work.
and it didn't work.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
What's that?
He said ancient Rome.
Yeah.
How often do you think about the Roman Empire?
Not going to lie.
What was that, Sphinx?
I said he sounds like Jeff Goldblum,
not going to lie.
Maybe it is.
I actually think of the Roman Empire. I might be Jeff Goldblum. not gonna lie. Maybe it is. I actually think of the Roman Empire.
I might be Jeff Goldblum.
I was just thinking about the Roman Empire when he said that.
I'm reading a book.
Does life find a way?
I gotta ask.
Life finds a way.
No, I'm not Jeff Goldblum.
I'm just some dude.
So, Ed, do you want to shut things down now or what?
Yeah, I think it would be a good time.
I need to go down.
Hey, sorry about that because my Chesh APT, I'm looking at it right now,
it says it does require joint filing.
I don't know why it's giving us two different answers.
Well, one of theirs is wrong.
I'll look more.
Yeah.
I'll use my O3 model that I pay for.
Maybe it'll be more accurate
or more inaccurate.
Who knows?
You can also refer to the IRS website.
Well, it's not an IRS statute.
It's not an IRS statute yet,
so it wouldn't be there.
Why didn't Elon fire everyone at the IRS?
Good question.
I wish.
All right, Brian and Ed, I've got to get out of here, but I'll see you guys on the next one.
Thanks for hosting.
Yeah, thanks for coming, buddy.
Yeah, I think I'm going to shut it down.
Thanks for everybody who participated.
It was a great discussion.
It should be interesting to see where things go.
And when Trump actually makes a comment on what Musk said, it has to happen sometime, right?
Maybe, maybe not.
All right, see you all, everybody.
