Transcription
The Joe Rogan Experience.
That's the nature of the scam. It's a bank shot. So then the rebuttal from the Dems is like, "Oh well, the vast majority of the people who are marked as alive in the Social Security Administration weren't receiving Social Security Administration payments." That is true. What they forgot to mention is they're getting fraudulent payments from every other government program. And that's why the Dems were so opposed to turning off to declaring someone dead who was dead because it would stop the entire other all the other fraud from happening.
And so but all this is trackable like all this other fraud?
If they wanted to, they could chase it all down.
Yeah. It's not even hard.
And yet they're opposing chasing it all down.
They're opposing chasing it all down because it would it turns off the money magnet for the illegals.
Wow. Because it's very logical to like like I'm saying the most common sense things possible. If someone's got a birthday in Social Security that is an impossible birthday, meaning they are older than the oldest living American or were born in the future, then you should call them and say, "Excuse me, we seem to have your birthday wrong." Uh, because it says that you're 200 years old. That's all you need to do.
And then you would remove them from the Social Security database and make that number no longer available for all those other government payments.
Exactly.
Wow. And how much money are we talking?
It's hundreds of billions of dollars.
And this is all traceable. Like you could hunt all like you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes here is what I'm saying.
Well, this we don't need to call Sherlock Holmes for this one. Is this part of...
You just need to call the person and say, "Excuse me, we either we we seem to have the like we we we must have your birthday wrong because it says you're 200 years old or were born in the future." Um, so could you tell us what your birthday is? That's all we need to do. It's it's that simple. But the all these other government payments that are available that are connected to this Social Security number, it seems like if you just chased that all down...
You would find the widespread fraud. You would find where it's going.
Yes. The but the the root of the problem is the Social Security Administration database because um the Social Security number in the United States is used as a de facto national ID number. You know that's why like the bank always asks for your Social like the you know any financial institution will ask for your Social Security number.
This is it sounds so insane that this isn't chased down. I mean...
I agree. That I mean I mean that in and of itself is...
That's such mishandling.
Yes. No, it's mind-blowing. Um, so yeah, it's crazy.
Well, you were very reluctant last time you were here to talk about the extent of some of the fraud because you're like, they could kill me because this is kind of...
Oh, what? Yeah. What I was saying is that um the like if you create if like uh I like like to be pragmatic and realistic um you actually can't manage to zero fraud. You can manage to low fraud number but not to zero fraud. If you manage to zero fraud, um you you you're going to push so many people over the edge who are receiving fraudulent payments that the number of inbound homicidal maniacs will be uh really hard to overcome. So I I'm I'm actually taking I think quite a reasonable position which is that we should simply reduce the amount of fraud which I think is not an extremist position. Um, and we should aspire to, you know, have less fraud over time. Um, not that we should be ultra draconian and eliminate every last scrap of fraud. Um, which I guess would be nice to have, but but like we don't even need to go that extreme. I'm I'm saying we should just stop the blatant large scale super obvious fraud.
I think that's a reasonable position.
It's a very reasonable position. Yeah. And so what was the most shocking pushback that you got when you started implementing Doge? When you started investigating into where money was going?
Well, um I guess it this was I should have anticipated this, but um while most of the fraudulent government payments to especially to the NGOs go to the Democrats, most of it like I don't know for argument's sake let's say 80% maybe 90%. Um um 10 to 20% of it does go to Republicans. And so when we'd turn off funding to a fraudulent NGO, we'd get complaints from whatever the 10% of Republicans who were receiving uh the money and and they would, you know, they would very loudly complain. Um, because the the honest answer is the Republicans are are partly they're receiving some of the fraud, too. They're getting a big...
Jesus. Yeah, it's I want to be clear. It's it's not like the Republican party is some um ultra pure paragon of virtue here.
No.
Okay.
Um.
Well, you see that with the congressional insider trading. It's across the board.
Yeah.
It's left and right.
I mean, the whole uni-party criticism has some validity to it. You know, there's so um and it's it's like if you turn off fraudulent payments, it's not like like I say, it's not like 100% of those payments were going to Democrats. A a small percentage were go also going to Republicans. Those Republicans complained very loudly. Um, and um, you know, and and that's that's so there was a lot of pushback on the Republican side for when we started cutting some of these these funds. And I tried telling them like well, you know, 90% of the money is going to your opponents, but they still, if they even if they're getting 10% of...
They want their piece.
Yeah. They want their piece.
And they've been getting that piece for a long time.
Yes. Did you see...
This is why like, you know, politics is like...
It's dirty business.
Yeah. I mean, that's like saying if like, you know, if if you like sausages and respect the law, do not watch either of them being being made.
Yeah. Wow. Well, that's not even true because I've made sausage before.
Yeah. Yeah. It's actually like it's not that big a deal. You add fat and spices and casing, run it through the machine. Not that big a deal.
Yeah. Um, but uh, yeah, I mean I I think the stuff I'm saying here is not uh like like if if you stand back and think about it for a second like, oh yeah, that that makes sense, you know.
Um, the it's it's not like um it's not like one political party is going to be um, you know, pure devil or pure angel. There's, you know, I think there's there's there's there's much more corruption on the Democrat side, but it's not there's not there's still some corruption on the Republican side.
How did it happen that the majority of the corruption wound up being on the Democrat side?
Well, because the the the transfer payments, especially to illegals, um uh are very much on the Democrat side.
That so that's the root of it all is the illegal situation.
Yes. I mean, there's...
Or a focal point.
Yes. It's it's also like it's it's um it's um it would also be accurate to say that while obviously not everyone who is a Democrat is a criminal, almost everyone who is a criminal is a Democrat because because the Democrats are the soft crime party. So if you're a criminal, who you going to vote for?
Right. Right.
The soft crime party. Did you think you were going to be able to get more done than you were?
Um, we did get a lot done.
Right?
Um, and Doge is still still still happening, by the way. Um, this the the Doge is still underway. There are still there are still um there's still waste and fraud being being cut by by the Doge team. So, it hasn't stopped.
Um, the...
It's less publicized.
It's less publicized. Um, and they don't have like a clear person to attack anymore.
Well, it seems like once they basically they they applied immense pressure to me to just to stop it. So then I'm like the best thing for me is to just, you know, cut out of this. In any case, as a special government employee, I could only be there for like 120 days anyway, something like that. So whatever the law says. So I I could I I was necessarily could only be there for four months as a special government employee. So, um um but uh, yeah, I mean I mean you turn off the money spigot to to fraudsters, they get very upset to say the least. Um, and um, but my like my death threat level went uh ballistic, you know, was like a rocket going to orbit. Um, yeah. Um, so, but now that now now now that I'm not in DC that that I guess they don't really have a person to attack uh anymore.
Um.
Well, the rhetoric about you has calmed down significantly.
Yeah.
It was disturbing. It's disturbing to watch. It was like this is crazy.
And to watch these politicians engage in it and all these people just like framing you as this monster. I was like this is so weird. Like this is what happens when you uncover fraud.
Yes.
The whole machine turns on you. And if it wasn't for a person like you who owns a platform and has an enormous amount of money, like could have destroyed you.
Yeah.
And that was the goal.
The goal was to destroy me. Absolutely.
Because you were getting in the way...
Of this amazing graft.
The the this gigantic fraud machine.
Yeah.
Um, like I said, I think I think Doge team's done a lot of good work. Um, you know, and in in terms of uh fraud and waste prevented, my guess is it's, you know, probably on the order of two or $300 billion a year. So, it's pretty good.
What do you think could have been done if you just had like full reign and total cooperation? How much do you think you could have saved?
I mean, what level of of power are we assuming here?
Godlike.
Oh, yeah. I probably cut the federal budget in half and get more done. That is so crazy. It is so crazy that get more done and federal widespread. It's that widespread.
Well, I mean a whole bunch of government departments simply shouldn't exist in my opinion. Um, they they um, you know.
Like examples?
Well, the Department of Ed, Department of Education, which was created uh recently like under Jimmy Carter um uh the our educational results have uh gone uh downhill ever since it was created. So if you if you create a department and the result of creating that department is a massive decline in educational results and it's Department of Education, you're better off not having it because we're literally we were did better before there was one than after.
When you let the states run it.
Yes.
Yeah.
Because at least the states can compete with one another. Um, so, but the problem is like here like counting Department of Education. Our kids need education. Yeah, they do. But but this is a new department that didn't even exist um, you know, until late the late '70s. Um, and ever since that department was created, the results educational results have declined. And so why would you have an institution continue that has made education worse? It doesn't make sense.
They killed it though, right?
No, they still unfortunately.
But they were trying to kill it. It has been substantially reduced.
Okay.
Um.
What other organizations? What other departments?
Well, I mean, I'm a small government guy. So um, you know, when when the you know, when the country was created, we just we just had the Department of State, Department of War um, you know, and and uh sort of the sort of the Department of Justice. We had an Attorney General uh and Treasury Department. Um, I don't know why you need more than that.
So, what other departments specifically do you think are just completely ineffective?
Well, I mean, here it's like a question. It's a sort of philosophical question of how much government do you think there should be.
Right.
Um, and in my opinion, there should be uh the least amount of government.
I've heard the most bizarre argument against this is that you're cutting jobs and you're going to leave people jobless. And I'm like, but their jobs are useless.
Yeah. Paying people to do nothing doesn't make sense. Um, like there's a like a great um a story about like Milton Friedman who is awesome. Um, uh what like generally whatever Milton Friedman said is you know people should should do that thing. Uh, I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or not, but um like like someone complained to him like he he he observed I think people that were like um digging ditches with uh, you know, with um shovels and um, and he said well like allegedly Friedman said well I think I think you should use you know um excavating equipment instead of shovels and you could get it done with far fewer people. And then and then someone said, "But then we're gonna lose a lot of jobs." Well, in that then Friedman says, "Well, in that case, why don't you have them use teaspoons?" [Laughter] Just just dig ditches with teaspoons. Think of all the jobs you'll create.
I mean, it's Basically, you just want people to work on on things that are that are productive. You want people to work on on building things um on building, you know, uh providing products and services that people find valuable. Um, like, you know, making food um being, you know, being a farmer or a plumber or electrician or just anyone who's a builder or providing useful services. Um, and um, that's what you want people to be doing. Um, not fake government jobs that that that don't add any value or may subtract value. Um, um, there's also like, you know, uh to illustrate the absurdity of also how is the e how is the economy measured like the the way economists measure the economy is is is nonsensical uh because they'll measure any job no matter even if that job is a dumb job that has no point and is even counterproductive. So like, so the like the joke is like there's two economists going on a hike in the woods and they come across a pile of and one economist says to the other, "I'll pay you $100 to eat eat that shit." The economist eats the gets the $100. They they keep walking. Then the other econ then come across another pile of And and the the other economist says, "Now I'll pay you $100 to eat the pile of shit." say pays the so pays the other economist Andreas pile pile of Then then then the way said they said like wait a second um we both just ate a pile of and we're no and and and we're no we we we we we don't have any more extra money like like we both you just gave the $100 back to me and we both ate a pile of This doesn't make any sense. And they said, "No, no, but think of the economy because that's $200 of that in the economy that that basically measure eating eating would count as a as as a as a job. This is this is this is to illustrate the absurdity of of of economics.
One of the things you said when things should not count as a job. One of the things you said when you stepped away is that you're kind of done and that it's unfixable. That um well or under its current form the way people are approaching it you can you can make it directionally better but ultimately you can't uh fully fix the system. Um, so, uh, I I like like like like it it is it is it would be accurate to say that even like like unless you could go like super draconian like you know Genghis Khan level on on on cutting waste waste and fraud which you can't really do in a democratic country um an aspirationally democratic country then um there's no way to solve the the the debt crisis. So, we got we got national debt that's just insane where the debt payments the interest payments on the debt exceed our entire military budget. I mean, that's one that was one of the wakeup calls for me. I was like, wait a second. The interest on a national debt is bigger than the entire the entire military budget um and growing. Um, this is crazy. Um, so um, so so even if you implement all these savings, you're only delaying the day of reckoning for when America becomes goes bankrupt. So unless you go full Genghis Khan, um which you can't really do. So um so I came to the conclusion that the only way that the only way to get us out of the debt crisis and to prevent America from going bankrupt is AI and robotics. So, like we need to grow the economy um at at a at a at a rate that allows us to u to pay off our debt. Um, and um, I I guess people just generally don't appreciate the degree to which um, you know, this the the government overspending is is a problem. Um, but even like the Social Security website, this is under the Biden administration. On the website, it would say like uh we based on on current demographic trends and um, you and and and how much money Social Security is bringing in versus how many Social Security recipients there are because we have an aging population. Relatively speaking, the average age is is increasing. Social Security will not be able to ma u maintain its full payments u I think in by 2032. Yeah. Okay. So they will Social Security will have to stop start reducing the the amount of money that that's been paid people um in in about seven years.
And so the only way to fix that robotics manufacturing raise GDP?
You've got to basically uh massively increase the um uh economic output which is and the only way to do that is AI AI and robotics. So, so basically we're going bankrupt without AI and robotics with even with a bunch of savings. Um, the savings the savings like reducing uh waste and forward can give us a longer runway but it cannot ultimately pay off our national debt.