Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Markmas Show, where,
Speaker 1: of course each end, every week we come and we
Speaker 1: talk about the decentralized revolution, the way the world is
Speaker 1: changing right now, right before our very eyes. We're living
Speaker 1: through a period that will be discussed in history books
Speaker 1: for millennia to come. UM. It is that groundbreaking um,
Speaker 1: much like we talk about the Protestant Reformation in the
Speaker 1: fift hundreds, or the American Revolution in the seventeen hundreds, UM,
Speaker 1: or the collapse of the Roman empirement. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: that big what we're witnessing as the world, as the
Speaker 1: pendulum swings from centralization to decentralization, and we look at
Speaker 1: through the lens of politics, finance, and technology, those three pieces.
Speaker 1: Of course, technology is the big disruptor that changes history
Speaker 1: as we go back and look through it. And at
Speaker 1: the time when we're going from a centralized world to
Speaker 1: a decentralized world, revolution and force. We have the technology
Speaker 1: that decentralized technology, that is bitcoin, that is changing the world.
Speaker 1: But of course we look at it through the lens
Speaker 1: of those three things, politics, finance, and technology. Those are
Speaker 1: the revolutions that are happening and changing right before our
Speaker 1: very eyes, right under our very feet. Um, it's happening
Speaker 1: faster than we can even keep tracking. I make content
Speaker 1: almost every single day, and I can't keep up with
Speaker 1: how fast things are going. And of course I try
Speaker 1: to bring to you some of the latest breaking news,
Speaker 1: some of some education to help you see the world
Speaker 1: a little bit different, and of course some very interesting guests.
Speaker 1: You don't have to listen to me, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: all the time. But today I want to talk about
Speaker 1: something that happened this week. Monumental, that's what it was called.
Speaker 1: It was called monumental. It may be the biggest thing
Speaker 1: that's ever happened. Apparently that's what well, that's what we're
Speaker 1: led to believe. It's politics, and it's finance, and of
Speaker 1: course it changed the world. And what I'm talking about
Speaker 1: today is this uh, brand new bill that was put
Speaker 1: forward um this week. It was signed. Everybody got together
Speaker 1: and clapped while the President looked like he didn't know
Speaker 1: where he was at. Um and Uh, this monumental bill
Speaker 1: that's called the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, it's monumentous, monumental,
Speaker 1: it's so big, it's it's a resurrected plan that's come
Speaker 1: back from the dead, and it was originally put forth
Speaker 1: in a plan called build back better. Uh, you've probably
Speaker 1: heard that term hundred or a thousand or even a
Speaker 1: million times. It's not just in America and President Biden
Speaker 1: using that term build back better. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've probably seen. If you haven't, you can
Speaker 1: go find it the month. Is it a montage, I guess,
Speaker 1: like a collection of all the video clips of every
Speaker 1: single leader, every single like mainstream media newsperson using that
Speaker 1: same verbiage. So I don't I don't care if you're
Speaker 1: Angela Merkel in Germany or Justins Row in Canada, or
Speaker 1: klop Schwad from the Worldlet Forum or Joe Biden, everyone's
Speaker 1: using the same terminology called build back better, build back better,
Speaker 1: build back better, build back better. Well, think about that,
Speaker 1: what does that even mean? Build back? So building back
Speaker 1: would mean that we have to build back something that
Speaker 1: was previously there, something that maybe was destroyed or broken
Speaker 1: down or torn down, and so because it was there
Speaker 1: and it's no longer there because it was destroyed or whatever,
Speaker 1: and then we have to build it back, but this
Speaker 1: time we're gonna do it better. Apparently that's what they
Speaker 1: have is believe. So it's pretty interesting to think about
Speaker 1: it if you actually just break down, break that down. Now,
Speaker 1: why is the whole world, every single leader, every single
Speaker 1: mainstream leader calling using the same terminology build back better?
Speaker 1: And what is it that they're tearing down in order
Speaker 1: to build back? Well, of course that's the society is,
Speaker 1: that's the world as you know it. Of course, that's
Speaker 1: what it is, you know, the great reset. So apparently, um,
Speaker 1: you know this world that we live in, the life
Speaker 1: that we have, Um, the American dream that we've had,
Speaker 1: the American experiment has been called capitalism. That's brought more
Speaker 1: people out of poverty than the other thing in the
Speaker 1: history of the whole world. Apparently that's no good. Apparently
Speaker 1: it was never good because it was always built on
Speaker 1: a systemic racism, I guess or something like that. Apparently, So, um,
Speaker 1: never mind all the progress that we've had. Three years ago,
Speaker 1: we're all living in the dirt, and today we have
Speaker 1: medicine and we have science, and we have spaceships and
Speaker 1: we have satellites and we have all this amazing technology. Life.
Speaker 1: Life has never been better. Um, but it's no good.
Speaker 1: Let's just tear it all down. Let's reset it, great
Speaker 1: reset and then we'll build it back. Well, I'm not
Speaker 1: for that. As a matter of fact, I think things
Speaker 1: are pretty good. Obviously, I'm not happy with the direction
Speaker 1: things are going. There's plenty of bad things going on
Speaker 1: in the world, and I point to many of those things.
Speaker 1: Not because I'm a doing gloomer, but I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: we can wake up, wake up the sleeping lines, i'd
Speaker 1: like to say, and we can turn the tide before
Speaker 1: it's too late. Anyway, the build back Better plan that
Speaker 1: Biden put forward, I think it was like a one
Speaker 1: point seven If I'm not mistaken, I have it written
Speaker 1: down here in my notes. Somebody at one point seven
Speaker 1: five trillion dollar plan to build back better is what
Speaker 1: they called it. One point seven five trillion dollars that
Speaker 1: they wanted to spend. Now, the House passed it, but
Speaker 1: then it was shot down in the Senate. So half
Speaker 1: of the one part of that of the government put
Speaker 1: it through. UM. The House passed it and then it
Speaker 1: was declared dead. Now this was last November. UM November
Speaker 1: where the House passed it UM and it was one
Speaker 1: point seven trying one seven five trillion, which is an
Speaker 1: insane amount of money. To put that into perspective, in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, during the Great the Global financial Crash,
Speaker 1: when the entire world melted down, the entire financial system
Speaker 1: came crumbling down. It took seven hundred million tarp funds
Speaker 1: to bail it out, which at that time was insane.
Speaker 1: It was mind blow and I remember living through that
Speaker 1: and going, no, they can't spend that much money seven today,
Speaker 1: that's a walk in the park. They were trying to
Speaker 1: push through one point seven five on top of the
Speaker 1: other multiple trillion dollar package they had put forward. That
Speaker 1: led us to the point that right today, So anyway,
Speaker 1: build back Better got killed. UM, didn't pass, and so
Speaker 1: they resurrected it from the dead, and this time they've
Speaker 1: called it something better. UM. They call it the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act. Because everybody is affected by inflation. It's hurting
Speaker 1: all these families across hard working American families. It's hurting
Speaker 1: them and they can't afford the gas and they can't
Speaker 1: afford the food. This inflation, it's so bad. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, it's our number one concern, It's Biden's
Speaker 1: number one concerns, the Federal reserved number one concern. We
Speaker 1: have to crush inflation no matter what. So let's just
Speaker 1: name a bill the Inflation Reduction Act, and everybody's going
Speaker 1: to vote for it, right, I mean, what kind of
Speaker 1: what kind of monster would the politician be to vote
Speaker 1: against a bill called Inflation Reduction Act when inflation is
Speaker 1: the number one problem that everyone's concerned about. What kind
Speaker 1: of monster would against that? Billy? See how they do that?
Speaker 1: See how they play that? Now, nobody wanted to build
Speaker 1: back better because of what I said it, Well, that
Speaker 1: means that you're tearing down the system that we have.
Speaker 1: We don't want that. Nobody wants that. I mean maybe
Speaker 1: some people do, but most people don't. But when you
Speaker 1: name it something like Save the Puppies Act, I mean,
Speaker 1: who can vote for that? Vote against that? Nobody could?
Speaker 1: Who could vote against reducing inflation? Everybody wants to reduce inflation.
Speaker 1: The games they play and how easily we are tricked. Well,
Speaker 1: not you and not me, we see through it. But
Speaker 1: unfortunately most people are tricked and they don't see this coming.
Speaker 1: So big news this week, like I said, Biden signs
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act into law, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of other things that went into law as part of that.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna break some of that down, and then I'm
Speaker 1: gonna break down what what this really means to you
Speaker 1: and I and what are the actual tactical things that
Speaker 1: are going to change in your life, Because I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you right now, they are coming for you, whoever
Speaker 1: you are, and I'm gonna break that down. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: break it down for you. I'm gonna break down what
Speaker 1: income category is gonna be affected most by this. So
Speaker 1: we got lots to cover, all right. So, like I
Speaker 1: said this week, there's a video of Biden sitting at
Speaker 1: a desk and you got Mansion and Schumer and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, all these people standing around him watching him
Speaker 1: sign and uh he picks up the pen and if
Speaker 1: this wasn't audio only, I'd love to show you the video.
Speaker 1: But he signs this thing and then everyone's like applauding,
Speaker 1: and he's like looking around like he's like, where am I.
Speaker 1: It's pretty it's pretty sad. It's kind of like elder abuse.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, I could almost I can almost understand.
Speaker 1: I can understand maybe at the time people still thought
Speaker 1: he was okay and they voted for him. I get that.
Speaker 1: I could understand that, but at the point we're at today,
Speaker 1: I mean, how do they think that anybody could stand
Speaker 1: behind that? Is just mind and anyway, you listen to
Speaker 1: the Markma Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution. We're
Speaker 1: talking about the way the world is changing right before
Speaker 1: our very eyes through the lens of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: Today we're talking about both of those, politics and finance,
Speaker 1: the intersection of those, and we're talking about something that
Speaker 1: is monumental and it's going to change the world. This
Speaker 1: is one of the big catalysts that will move us
Speaker 1: forward into this decentralized revolution UM catapulting us. I want
Speaker 1: to break this down what it means for you, um specifically,
Speaker 1: what it means for you, what you need to be
Speaker 1: aware of. So I'll be back with that and more
Speaker 1: in a minute. Don't go away. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Mark Moa Show. I'll be back. Don't go away, all right,
Speaker 1: welcome back. You are listening to the Mark Ma Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about each and every week, of course, the
Speaker 1: decentralized revolution, the way the world is changing right before
Speaker 1: our very eyes as we look at it through the
Speaker 1: lens of politics, finance and technology. Of course, that technology
Speaker 1: we're talking about is bitcoin, which is a decentralized technology
Speaker 1: giving us exactly what we need at the time as
Speaker 1: the world is going from centralization to decentralization. We have
Speaker 1: a decentralized technology that's the catalyst for a lot of
Speaker 1: this aimes that we're seeing today. So it all funnels
Speaker 1: back or points back to that. But today we're talking
Speaker 1: about specifically, um, this new bill that got signed into
Speaker 1: law this week. Um. I believe that was on August seventeenth,
Speaker 1: the August six And this bill was originally titled the
Speaker 1: Build Back Better Bill, and of course nobody wanted that.
Speaker 1: They killed it, but they brought it back with a
Speaker 1: better name, Inflation Production Act, And who in their right
Speaker 1: mind could vote against that, And of course it got passed,
Speaker 1: now barely, it barely got passed. We'll talk about that
Speaker 1: in a second. Now, this bill, like I said, was
Speaker 1: originally at one point seven five trillion dollar bill, but
Speaker 1: now it's got marked down and it's much less. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it's only a mere fraction of
Speaker 1: that today. But with this law, the American people won
Speaker 1: and the special special interests lost. Biden said, Really, the
Speaker 1: American people one and special interests loss. Who are those
Speaker 1: special interests that lost? I'd like to know that, and
Speaker 1: who are the American people that want I would like
Speaker 1: to also know that as well. I'm gonna break it
Speaker 1: down and you tell me which side you're on. I'd
Speaker 1: love to have you tell me that. If you follow
Speaker 1: me on social media, you can find me at one
Speaker 1: Mark moss that's just the number one, at number one,
Speaker 1: Mark moss Um. Let me know that you're listening to me,
Speaker 1: and which side do you follow on this? Did you
Speaker 1: win or did you lose? Did the American people win
Speaker 1: or did the special interests lose? All? Right? So the
Speaker 1: new law includes a three hundred and sixty nine billion
Speaker 1: dollar investment in climate and energy policies. Now I've talked
Speaker 1: about before. I don't have it in front of me,
Speaker 1: but when you know, all these surveys and polls are
Speaker 1: being done all the time, and on one of the
Speaker 1: biggest surveys and polls that was done recently, they asked Americans,
Speaker 1: what are the number one concerns that you have right now?
Speaker 1: Climate came in at less than one percent of people's concerns. Now,
Speaker 1: what they were concerned with is they can't afford gas
Speaker 1: for their car, stake for their plates. They were concerned
Speaker 1: about their future, they were concerned about you know, nuclear war,
Speaker 1: all these things. But climate was like less than one percent,
Speaker 1: which is of course why they didn't name this like
Speaker 1: the Climate Change Act. Nobody would have voted for that.
Speaker 1: They named the Inflation Production Act, which is the number
Speaker 1: one concern that people have. But none of this goes
Speaker 1: for that. It goes to investment in climate and energy policies. Wait,
Speaker 1: so you took the number one concern that we have
Speaker 1: in the surveys, but then you take all the money
Speaker 1: and you put it in do the less than one
Speaker 1: percent concerned that people have. That seems like a bait
Speaker 1: and switch to me, it actually sounds like a scam. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't like to use the word scam. It gets
Speaker 1: thrown around a lot today. Words start to lose their
Speaker 1: meanings when you don't use them in the right way.
Speaker 1: A scam is when I I've bought something, or I've
Speaker 1: agreed to something, and you give me something different than
Speaker 1: what I've agreed to. If I bought an apple from you,
Speaker 1: but instead you gave me a grape, you scammed me. Okay,
Speaker 1: when I bought into reducing inflation, which was my main concern.
Speaker 1: But what you gave me was climate and energy, which
Speaker 1: I could care nothing about. You scammed me. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna call it straight up. That's what it is.
Speaker 1: You scammed me sixty four billion to extend a policy
Speaker 1: under the Affordable Care Act to reduce health insurance costs.
Speaker 1: That's another great one. Affordable Care Act, Isn't that great?
Speaker 1: Used to be called Obamacare Affordable Care Act. Since since
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act went into place, my health insurance
Speaker 1: costs went up, they became less affordable. To see how
Speaker 1: that works, It's always the opposite. I'd love to hear
Speaker 1: about your experience, but in my experience, for my very young,
Speaker 1: healthy family of four, we spend a lot of money
Speaker 1: and time and effort on our health. We eat real food,
Speaker 1: not processed garbage and sludge. We spend time exercising, We
Speaker 1: spend our time and effort listening to podcasts and experts
Speaker 1: to be even more healthy, and all these things that
Speaker 1: we can do. We're young, we're healthy. We spend money
Speaker 1: doing that, and my insurance for my family of four
Speaker 1: went from a few hundred dollars a month to over
Speaker 1: seventeen hundred dollars per month for my family at four
Speaker 1: that's after tax dollars. I'll have you. So the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act and SURE didn't make it more affordable for me,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. But anyway, UM, so apart sixty four
Speaker 1: billion to extend a policy under that to reduce health
Speaker 1: insurance costs, not reduce my health insurance costs. I'll pay more,
Speaker 1: so a few of you could pay less. That's how
Speaker 1: that works. UM. And a fifteen percent corporate minimum tax
Speaker 1: aimed at companies that earn more than one billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year. That's great, Hey, they should pay their fair share, right,
Speaker 1: nobody's going to vote against that. That sounds great. The
Speaker 1: four hundred and thirty seven billion dollars spending packages expected
Speaker 1: to raise seven hundred thirty seven billion in avenue over
Speaker 1: the next decade. So it went from a one point
Speaker 1: seven trillion dollar bill to a four hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: seven billion dollar package. So that's uh, you know for
Speaker 1: a UM Now, I love how I say the foot
Speaker 1: seven dollar, four and thirty seven billion dollar bill will
Speaker 1: raise seven hundred and thirty seven billion back. So it's
Speaker 1: an investment, right, It's an investment. We should put it
Speaker 1: as an investment memorandum. We're gonna talk about that in
Speaker 1: a minute. Um, the biggest share coming from reductions in
Speaker 1: drug prices for Medicare recipients and tax hikes on corporations,
Speaker 1: So that sounds good. Roughly a hundred and four billion
Speaker 1: is expected to come from increased I R S enforcement.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about that. So, Um, they're going to
Speaker 1: increase I R S enforcement on you. You spend six
Speaker 1: hundred bucks on Venmo up, we better shine a flashlight
Speaker 1: up your butt. We better see what happened with that money,
Speaker 1: because somehow you probably didn't pay tax, and so we
Speaker 1: need to get that money. So we're gonna spend a
Speaker 1: hund billion. Now of that h billion, of course, they
Speaker 1: want to hire eighty seven thousand agents, and to spend
Speaker 1: that um to hire those agents, they want to spend
Speaker 1: eighty billion. So they believe that if they take eighty
Speaker 1: billion of this package and give to the I R S,
Speaker 1: they'll bring back a billion. Probably not. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about that in a minute. Let's dig into this a
Speaker 1: little bit here. First of all, I'll have you know
Speaker 1: that the bill narrowly passed the U. S. Senate. Remember
Speaker 1: the old one died, Build back better died. So they
Speaker 1: brought it back and it narrowly passed. It was a
Speaker 1: fifte vote, it won by one vote, and of course
Speaker 1: the tie breaker was Vice President Kamala of course um,
Speaker 1: and gave him the win. One thing that I would
Speaker 1: think about now, of course, the United States is a republic.
Speaker 1: I'm not a democracy. But in a democracy, it should
Speaker 1: be what the people want. Now, if if you have
Speaker 1: to ram rod this through and you can just barely
Speaker 1: get somebody on your own side to cast the tie breaker,
Speaker 1: is that really what the American people want? Is it really?
Speaker 1: I would think they have to win by a bigger
Speaker 1: margin that doesn't seem right, does it? But let's be clear.
Speaker 1: It says quote in this historic moment, Democrats sided with
Speaker 1: the American people. That's what they said. That's what Biden said. Um,
Speaker 1: did they side with the American people? Is this what
Speaker 1: American people want? Let's kind of dig into this a
Speaker 1: little bit for a second. Now, First of all, they
Speaker 1: call this an investment. Is that true? Um? I want
Speaker 1: to look at the investment, and then I want to
Speaker 1: look at the mansion and what it Finally, what he
Speaker 1: said behind a closed doors after this is over, and
Speaker 1: you're not going to believe what he said. He said
Speaker 1: basically that what we said it's named isn't actually what's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. He said that I'm gonna talk about that.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about Bill Gates, where does Bill Gates
Speaker 1: fit into all this? And then we're gonna fact check
Speaker 1: some of this. All right, and I'm gonna tell you
Speaker 1: what's coming for you. I gotta lot to cover when
Speaker 1: I come back. You're listening to the Mark mo Show.
Speaker 1: Of course, we're talking about the decentralized revolution, the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing, um through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, and of course the technology being bitcoined. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna come back. I'm with a whole lot more on
Speaker 1: this in a minute. Do not go away. I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. All right, Welcome back. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Ma Show, and we're talking about, of course,
Speaker 1: each and every week, the decentralized revolution, meaning the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing as the pendulum shifts from centralization
Speaker 1: to decentralization, and we look at it through the lens
Speaker 1: of politics, finance, and technology, and of course today we're
Speaker 1: talking about the intersection of two of those, politics and finance.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about this new bill, this monumental bill
Speaker 1: that got signed, the Inflation Reduction Act, that will do
Speaker 1: none of that. It won't reduce inflation at all. And
Speaker 1: don't just take my word for it. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, the holdout that killed the original bill to
Speaker 1: build back better bill we're talking about Mansion. He finally
Speaker 1: admits inflation bill will not help Americans with low prices?
Speaker 1: Why would it? Why would it? Senator Joe Mansion, Democrat
Speaker 1: from West Virginia, admitted Tuesday the so called Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Act will not have an immediate impact on inflation. He
Speaker 1: admits it. News correspondent Hillary Vaughan asked Mansion on Tuesday
Speaker 1: whether Democrats misled Americans by claiming the bill woard reduce
Speaker 1: inflation and thus lower the price of everyday goods. Mansion said, quote,
Speaker 1: why would it? Oh, you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 1: His response was, quote, why would it? Well, because it's
Speaker 1: in the name, because it's literally named the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you can't make this stuff up. Um,
Speaker 1: he said, well, immediately, it's not. We've never said that
Speaker 1: We've never said anything would happen immediately. It's not going
Speaker 1: to turn a switch on and off. He went to
Speaker 1: say that that the proper way to respond to an
Speaker 1: inflation crisis is not by raising interest rates. Okay, so
Speaker 1: we have this inflation crisis. Everybody's attacking it, and the
Speaker 1: president's attacking it, the putin and price Supposedly, we have
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve attacking it. The federalserves attacking it by
Speaker 1: doing what raising interest rates. They're raising interest rates to
Speaker 1: crush demand. If they can crash your retirement account, if
Speaker 1: they can crash your home's value, if they can make
Speaker 1: you feel broke, then you don't go on vacation, you
Speaker 1: don't go after dinner, you don't buy new cars. They
Speaker 1: crush the demand, that's what they're doing. So he says,
Speaker 1: the proper way to respond to inflation crosses is not
Speaker 1: by raising interest rates. It's not by crushing demand. We like. So,
Speaker 1: so the problem is people can't afford these things. So
Speaker 1: the way we're gonna fix it is by taking away
Speaker 1: all their money so they don't go buy them. That
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. Well, it doesn't make sense to
Speaker 1: you and I, because we're rational and we think like
Speaker 1: normal people. But when you know you're when the whole
Speaker 1: when all you have the hammer, the whole word looks gonnail.
Speaker 1: And when you're essential banker and all you have is uh,
Speaker 1: interest rates, I guess the whole world looks like you
Speaker 1: need to raise interest rates. He says that you He says,
Speaker 1: it's not by raising rates. You've got to produce yourself
Speaker 1: out of this. Ah wow, mansion. He gets it, he
Speaker 1: gets it. You don't. You don't get your way out
Speaker 1: of inflation by taking away everybody's wealth. You do it
Speaker 1: by producing yourself out of this. So they're supply and demand.
Speaker 1: If the price of gas or steak is too high,
Speaker 1: there's two ways to get that price adjusted supply and demand.
Speaker 1: You can either one crushed demand, which is what the
Speaker 1: Feds doing, make everybody poor. Or two you could increase
Speaker 1: the supply. Just create more gas, just create more steak,
Speaker 1: and the price comes down. That's what he's saying. You've
Speaker 1: got to produce your way out of this. Mansion said quote.
Speaker 1: If you think that you're going to wait on the
Speaker 1: federal reserve to raise rates to discourage you from buying anything,
Speaker 1: and that's going to take care of our inflation. That's
Speaker 1: not how you take care of inflation. End quote mhm.
Speaker 1: Of course economists disagreed. Um uh. Famed economist Noriel Robini,
Speaker 1: no big fan of mine or I'm no fan of his,
Speaker 1: called for the Reserve to take even more aggressive action,
Speaker 1: raise rates even more. We've got to raise them of
Speaker 1: five percent. Inflations getting out of control. We need to
Speaker 1: make people broke. You don't understand. If they're not broke,
Speaker 1: they're going to keep buying things. Oh yeah, Or we
Speaker 1: could just produce more Um, all right, okay. Nonpartisan analysis
Speaker 1: study the Inflation Production Act, which is a paired down
Speaker 1: version of the bill back better. We've discussed that and
Speaker 1: they said that impact inflation will be negligible, if at all.
Speaker 1: Quote in calendar year in acting, the bill would have
Speaker 1: have no effect on inflation in the CBO's assessment. Who
Speaker 1: the heck is this CBO. Oh that's the congress Sational
Speaker 1: Budget Office. Oh yeah, that's the government. So in the
Speaker 1: government's own assessment, it's kinda gonna have any effect. The
Speaker 1: pen Wharton budget model reached the same conclusion. The Act
Speaker 1: would have no meaningful effect on inflation in the near term,
Speaker 1: but would reduce inflation by around zero point one percent.
Speaker 1: It could adjust it by zero point one percent maybe
Speaker 1: by the middle of the first decade, so in the
Speaker 1: in five years, maybe we'll get a zero percent reduction.
Speaker 1: I mean, are they splitting hairs that that's a statistically
Speaker 1: no different than zero? Okay, zero point one like whatever?
Speaker 1: I mean these guys, But let's take into this a
Speaker 1: little bit more for a second. Okay, Um, this happened,
Speaker 1: it's happening, Okay, So what what's interesting is that there's
Speaker 1: so few reporters that want to mention that this Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act is an actual fraud, right, A fraud, a scam.
Speaker 1: When I've signed up for something, I've agreed to buy
Speaker 1: something but delivered me something else than I But I
Speaker 1: signed on to reduce inflation, but you're not reduced in inflation,
Speaker 1: that's a fraud. Why are no reporters asking that question?
Speaker 1: Instead they stand around clapping, clapping, another milestone, another milestone,
Speaker 1: like a bunch of seals barking. Something happened, right, It
Speaker 1: was transformational, it was monumental, there was game changing. That's
Speaker 1: what they told us. Let's hear. Let's hear from there
Speaker 1: were from their own mouths. Here's CNN. CNN says, as
Speaker 1: the bill came closer to being signed in the law,
Speaker 1: more media outlets begin referring to it as a quote
Speaker 1: Climate and Health Bill instead, citing that nearly three billion
Speaker 1: of the four hunder billion UM going towards investments. Wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: going towards investments in energy security and climate change. That's
Speaker 1: person in that's their words. So outlets stopped referring to
Speaker 1: it as Inflation Production Act and started referring to it
Speaker 1: as Climate and Health Bill because it's an invest sment
Speaker 1: in energy security and climate change. Okay, And then that's
Speaker 1: the scene. And here's New York Times again talking about
Speaker 1: the investment angles. New York Times says, the bill, signed
Speaker 1: into law by President Biden on Tuesday, makes three nine
Speaker 1: billion in a climate and energy investments, by far, the
Speaker 1: larger such investment in American history. So they are telling
Speaker 1: you right now, you got scammed. You signed up the
Speaker 1: American people. Apparently that's what Biden said. American people wanted
Speaker 1: to stand up to reduce inflation Inflation Production Act, but
Speaker 1: instead they got sold a different bill of goods than
Speaker 1: they hoped for. And that's an investment into climate energy investments,
Speaker 1: which again, per the survey, less than one percent of
Speaker 1: people care about that. Now, calling it an an investment
Speaker 1: is also a lie. So okay, so it's an investment. Okay,
Speaker 1: So they the media told us that, So we didn't
Speaker 1: really get scammed. They told us of an investment. That's
Speaker 1: what we got. Well, that's a lie too. If you
Speaker 1: were a stock promoter, you would go to jail ale
Speaker 1: for making the claims that they've made if the sec
Speaker 1: you know, obviously had any teeth and there on the case.
Speaker 1: An investment is something that person makes willingly in the
Speaker 1: hope of a gain. The Investment Reduction Inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 1: we're called ira A from here on out because it's
Speaker 1: too many words for me to say. Inflationment and Reduction
Speaker 1: Act IRA is nothing like an investment. It takes money
Speaker 1: from at least a hundred and fifty million unwilling citizens.
Speaker 1: Remember it was so we can assume at least half
Speaker 1: the people didn't want it. Um, So it takes money
Speaker 1: from half of people that are unwilling. They don't want this,
Speaker 1: They would never put up the money for this, even
Speaker 1: if they had the choice. And then it dumps it
Speaker 1: into an assortment of giveaways and uh flim flams and
Speaker 1: scams and uh pork we call it. If it were
Speaker 1: such a good investment, why do the Feds have to
Speaker 1: force people to make it? That's a good question, isn't it?
Speaker 1: And in America per SEC guidelines, we have laws about
Speaker 1: raising investment funds. Seeking capital. Investment is a very heavy
Speaker 1: regulated activity. The SEC requires promoters be very careful about
Speaker 1: what they say and to close anything and everything that
Speaker 1: might be relevant, particularly risk factors. Uh, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: fun with us. I'm gonna dig into this a little
Speaker 1: bit more, and then we're gonna talk about what, like
Speaker 1: I said, Bill Gates involvement in this. You won't be
Speaker 1: You're gonna be surprised. We'll talk about the fact checks
Speaker 1: and what the IRUs is really coming after and hint,
Speaker 1: it's you. I got a whole lot more to cover
Speaker 1: when I come back. You're listening to the Markma Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized Revolution. Today we're talking about
Speaker 1: this false inflation production Act. I got more to go over,
Speaker 1: So don't go away. I'll be right back. All right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. You're listening to the Markma Show. We're talking
Speaker 1: about each and every week. The decentralized revolution, the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing right before our very eyes, from
Speaker 1: a centralized world to a decentralized world. We look at
Speaker 1: it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology. Of course,
Speaker 1: technology is the change the catahs that that brings change
Speaker 1: in throughout history in and that that technology we have
Speaker 1: today is this decentralized technology right when the world needs it.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about bitcoin, of course, but today we're
Speaker 1: looking at politics and finance together. We're talking about this
Speaker 1: inflation reduction actor called the ire A for short, and um,
Speaker 1: we got scammed. Mansion himself says it will not reduce inflation.
Speaker 1: The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, that it won't reduce inflation.
Speaker 1: So they sold us something that this is this is
Speaker 1: a scam. It's not going to reduce inflation as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact. Um, as I told you, CNN and
Speaker 1: uh New York Times called it an investment. It's actually
Speaker 1: not uh, it's not doing that. It's actually most of
Speaker 1: the money, um I haven't added up percent of the
Speaker 1: money isn't going to reduce inflation as a matter of fact.
Speaker 1: That it's an investment into energy and climate change. But
Speaker 1: but we did. But we we thought it was for
Speaker 1: reducing inflation. It's a scam all right. Now we're talking
Speaker 1: about the making the case for the inflation at all. Now. Um,
Speaker 1: Like I said, if if, if, if, if they were
Speaker 1: literally trying to raise money in this way, people would
Speaker 1: be going to jail over this, because you can't write
Speaker 1: investments require lots of disclaimers. They require, um, not only
Speaker 1: not only truth in the offering, but disclaimers in the
Speaker 1: risks as well as proposed time frames of returns on
Speaker 1: investments and things like that. Of course, this does none
Speaker 1: of that. Now, as I said, there's some some interesting
Speaker 1: pieces too, because the holdout that really killed the original bill,
Speaker 1: which is the Bill Black Better Bill. Um. Then I
Speaker 1: got revisited or revived here under the Inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 1: the i RA UM, and we talked about how Senator
Speaker 1: Mansion has been the holdout here. And what was interesting
Speaker 1: I saw this week is that surprise, surprise, surprise, Bill
Speaker 1: Gates pops his head up again. Bill Gates, the do
Speaker 1: gooder that nobody wants his help. Look, we don't want
Speaker 1: your help. Bill, stay home, help yourself, help your friends,
Speaker 1: help your family, help people that want it. We don't
Speaker 1: need you in every area of the life. Nobody made
Speaker 1: you the king of the world. You don't need to
Speaker 1: tell us what kind of fake meat we should eat
Speaker 1: and what kind of substance we should inject into our body.
Speaker 1: We don't need you to tell us what politicians we
Speaker 1: have in office, or that we need to darken the sky,
Speaker 1: and we don't need you to Ramrod to build through.
Speaker 1: That's a false bill of goods and a scam that
Speaker 1: was got pushed on the public. But don't let that
Speaker 1: go by, because Bill Gates is gonna do it anyway.
Speaker 1: It was Bill Gates who personally lobbied Mansion in a
Speaker 1: stealth campaign for climate change. Say it again. Bill Gates
Speaker 1: personally lobbied Mansion in a stealth campaign. Microsoft founder Bill
Speaker 1: Gates personally lobbied Senator Joe Mansion for months in support
Speaker 1: of the progressive climate and energy legislation that eventually passed.
Speaker 1: Gates campaign, as well as maneuvering from environmental renewable energy lobbyists,
Speaker 1: eventually helped the two senators reach a deal and passed
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act. Wait a minute again, I'll go
Speaker 1: back to it again. So Gates um let he lobbied
Speaker 1: him on progressive climate inergy legislation. Um, and then he
Speaker 1: had to get help from environmental and renewable energy lobbyists
Speaker 1: to pass the inflation Reduction Act. You just can't make
Speaker 1: this stuff up. Um. Gates wasn't the only one trying
Speaker 1: to soften Mansion, and the campaign included a cohort of
Speaker 1: lobbyists and activists who eventually convinced him that the climate
Speaker 1: tax and healthcare bill that eventually passed would benefit the economy.
Speaker 1: So the Climate and Tax and Healthcare bill that passed, Wait,
Speaker 1: I thought it was an inflation reduction act. Dang it,
Speaker 1: he lied to me again. To see how dirty this is.
Speaker 1: So let's let's dig into the facts about this. So
Speaker 1: per Heritage dot org, they fact checked Team Biden on
Speaker 1: on this and specifically, how is it going to reduce inflation? Well,
Speaker 1: they plan to take eighty billion dollars of that money
Speaker 1: and hire eighty seven thousand new IRS agents who are
Speaker 1: going to come after you. Now, Biden said, He said,
Speaker 1: of his own words, that if you make over four
Speaker 1: hundred make under four hundred thousand dollars, your taxes aren't
Speaker 1: going up. If you make under four hundred thous dollars.
Speaker 1: You're not our target. We want to go target those
Speaker 1: rich people. You know, those those greedy rich people who
Speaker 1: got rich by stealing from you. They're they're evil and
Speaker 1: we need to go get their money. They got to
Speaker 1: pay their fair share, right. Um, But that's not the case.
Speaker 1: It says here the Biden administration has promised not to
Speaker 1: raise taxes on anyone making under four hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year. As a matter of fact, Treasury Secretary Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen sent a letter Wednesday to IRIS Commissioner Charles Retig
Speaker 1: that includes this statement, quote, I direct any additional resources,
Speaker 1: including any new personnel or auditors that are hired, shall
Speaker 1: not be used to increase the share of small businesses
Speaker 1: or households below the four thousand dollar threshold that are audited. Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's what she says, uh. And then um rating
Speaker 1: from the I R S. He sent a letter to
Speaker 1: U S senators declaring the same objective. He says, quote,
Speaker 1: these resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on
Speaker 1: small businesses or middle income Americans. Okay. And they wanted
Speaker 1: to put a provision in the bill that said we
Speaker 1: will not audit or increase audits on people making less
Speaker 1: than four thousand. But all the Democrats that sided on
Speaker 1: this bill, they shot that down. Nope, we're not gonna
Speaker 1: shoot that down. But wait a minute. You said you're
Speaker 1: not gonna try to and go after the people making
Speaker 1: less than four thousand. That came out of Biden's own mouth. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and and even Janet Yelling in the head of
Speaker 1: the IRS both said that they want that. Oh never mind,
Speaker 1: it says, considering the share magnitude of eighty seven thousand
Speaker 1: new IRIS agents and an estimated two hundred billion in
Speaker 1: new revenues from enforcement, is it possible for all those
Speaker 1: new audits and revenues to involve only taxpayers making over
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand dollars. Well, let's do the math. We
Speaker 1: have a fairytale land that Biden and his team running,
Speaker 1: and then we have the real world, like you know,
Speaker 1: math facts, right, constraints. So if we if we return
Speaker 1: the two thousand ten audit rates for all individuals making
Speaker 1: over four grand um, that would generate only twenty percent,
Speaker 1: or nine billion, of the estimated thirty five billion in
Speaker 1: new I I R S enforcement revenues. Okay, so that's
Speaker 1: not enough. Even increasing recent audit rates thirty fold for
Speaker 1: taxpayers making over four hundred thousand, including a one hundred
Speaker 1: percent audit rate on taxpayers within comes over ten million,
Speaker 1: still would come short of the goal. Okay, so if
Speaker 1: we so, it looks like we can't get it. Um
Speaker 1: Note this assumes a increase in the number of tax
Speaker 1: filers making over four hundred thousand dollars betty based on
Speaker 1: annual growth rates between So they're saying there's just no
Speaker 1: way for it to happen auditing. What about this? Auditing
Speaker 1: every single taxpayer with annual income over one million would
Speaker 1: require only twenty five thousand new agents. So why are
Speaker 1: they hiring eighty seven thousand new agents? You see, there's
Speaker 1: like math here, something like math. It doesn't add up
Speaker 1: the true intent of the i R s. According to
Speaker 1: a two thoe report from the government's Accountability Office, quote
Speaker 1: from fiscal years two thousand ten to two thousand twenty one,
Speaker 1: the majority of the additional taxes i RS recommended from
Speaker 1: audits came from taxpayers with incomes below two thousand. So
Speaker 1: wait a minute, the majority of the money that we
Speaker 1: picked up comes from the taxpayers below two That's who
Speaker 1: we have to go oh after that recommendation is based
Speaker 1: on audits of lower income tax returns producing more bang
Speaker 1: for the buck end quote hm hmm. So wait, if
Speaker 1: the money we get is from the low income people,
Speaker 1: audits of the lowest income taxpayers UM give us the
Speaker 1: highest additional tax per audit hour compared to all income groups.
Speaker 1: Hired higher rates of return from auditing low income households
Speaker 1: alongside the average large corporate tax files of nearly six
Speaker 1: thousand pages. Says that our current tax code is far
Speaker 1: too complex. That's the reality here, so hopefully that makes sense. One,
Speaker 1: the inflation reduction actually is not going to reduce inflation.
Speaker 1: Mansion said it himself. He said, why would it? Two
Speaker 1: mainstream media stopped even saying that it was gonna do that,
Speaker 1: and they said instead it was it was an investment
Speaker 1: into climate and health, which nobody asked for. UM. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it's less than one percent of
Speaker 1: people's concerns, So we were scammed on top of it. UM,
Speaker 1: calling an investment is also a scam, and legally that
Speaker 1: would wind up in jail if you're really had of
Speaker 1: real investment, because you can't throw that type of words around.
Speaker 1: We also see Bill Gates is behind this, lobbying it
Speaker 1: and the fact checked shows that they are coming after
Speaker 1: you if you make less than two thousand and unless
Speaker 1: you make the more of a target you are because
Speaker 1: you have more to get. Anyway, you're listening to the
Speaker 1: Markmas Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution, the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing right before of our eyes, and
Speaker 1: that's what I got here today. Thanks for listening.