 and he's living up to his promise by rounding up to 2,000, which means the checks everybody gonna get a $1,400 checks. AOC is really upset as on many Democrats. I'm gonna show you some video, I'm gonna show you a video of Democrats being upset. Now this is from David O. Dool, I forget his name and this idea of he promised 2,000 and we're only getting 1,400 and as you'll see David will say and why only 2,000? And I will say if 2,000 stimulates the economy, if 2,000 stimulates the economy, imagine how much 20,000 would stimulate the economy. Why not give every American 20,000 dollars? And if you think 20,000 dollars stimulates the economy, why not give every American 200,000 dollars? And if that stimulates the economy, why just not make everybody a millionaire by giving everybody 2 million dollars? I mean, whoa, we would have the best, greatest, most spectacular economy ever. It would be the Trump economy by miles. It would make the Trump economy look like a loser economy. It's like the minimum wage. They want 15. I mean, why? I mean, why? It doesn't increase unemployment, they tell us. So why not make the minimum wage 100 or maybe 200 or 300 or $1,000 an hour? Why are they so cheap? Why are Democrats so cheap? Only $2,000. Thank you KP, faxing, K faxing, Corp. I appreciate it. And they're not 20, $30, 20, 30 money. It's 20, 21 money. In 20, 30 it'll be worth a lot less. Thank you, Kevin. I really appreciate it. All right, so let's see what the left has to say about Biden's $1,400 checks. Oh, I need to put in my headphones so I can hear what the left has to say. Biden lays out $1.9 trillion COVID relief package with $1,400 stimulus checks. You notice how disappointed he sounds, $1.9 trillion. Why couldn't it be $19 trillion? $19 trillion. Really cool. So no longer $2,000, but $1,400. But again, the argument here from the Joe Biden side of things is that, well, the 600s already passed. So $1,400 makes up the difference, makes it $2,000. Now, before I get to my thoughts on this and some of the back and forth debate, let me show you some of the pushback that Joe Biden is getting. Somebody's asked who this is. I mean, he's the rational national. And just to give you a sense, he has 373,000 subscribers. I have 24,000. So he's got a following. And I need help getting up to 300,000 guys. I need help in getting to be bigger than rational national. So, right? Shay, that's how you do it. All right. Here are the upset progressives. So Cory Bush, Justice Democrat, new to Congress tweeting out here, $1,400 does not equal $2,000. That's right. It doesn't. It's also retweeted by Jamal Bowman. Biden's a lie. And Ilhan Omar tweeting out here not directly about what Joe Biden's saying, but clearly, I think the message here is clear. $600 wasn't enough. The American people are struggling to make ends meet and need relief. We must immediately pass $2,000 survival. I'm curious where the $2,000 come from. Who decided in which think tank and which, what economic genius figured out that given the struggles of the American people right now, given the fact that according to what they're claiming, people are starving, people are struggling, people don't have anything. And how did they figure out that it's $2,000 and not $5,000 or $2,000,000 or whatever? Where did that number come from? Interesting, huh? Central planners, they always come up with numbers. How did they figure they need $170 billion for schools? Really? I mean, did somebody really model it out and is that a scientific central planning number or is that just somebody pulled it out of their survival checks? So, and one last, of course, AOC here. Jeff Stein tweeting out AOC says Dem should pass $2,000 on top of the $600 from December, rather than add the $1,400 to get $600 to 2K. $2,000 means $2,000. $2,000 does not mean $1,400. Right, Biden, stop lying. That's the debate right now. Now, as usual, the issue here really is that Democratic leadership is airing on the side of conservative positions. This is the problem, right? This is the progressives. The problem is that Biden is too conservative. He's just proposed $1.9 trillion other than the Trump Pelosi stimulus of March. This will be the second largest stimulus in American history. Double, double the size of the Obama stimulus in 2008, 2009, sorry, 2009. And yet, and yet, this is a conservative stimulus. Just give you a sense of kind of the, how this is going to play out for Biden. Biden is way too right wing because he's only willing to print $2 trillion. Airing on the side of more corporate policy. This is what corporations want. This is what the money interests want. Biden is already sold out. Instead of airing on the side of what is best for the people. So even if you think, even if you agree with the Joe Biden argument that, well, he always meant $2,000 generally, regardless of how it got there, he meant $2,000. He didn't mean $2,000 on top of $600. Even if you think he meant that, and maybe he did, I have no reason to not believe he meant that, why not fight for more? Yeah, why not? Why not? I mean, at least the progressives are honest about this stuff. Why not air on the side of the people? Why not say, you know what, you're right, $2,000 really isn't enough. From their perspective, might as well add more on top of that to not just make up the difference, but give people more money than they were expecting. So there is no reason here to defend Joe Biden's position. You can say that's what he promised, that's what he's delivering. Even if you believe that, even if you think that, there is no reason to defend him here. Why not fight for more? And that's exactly what these progressive members of Congress are attempting to do here. How much more, and by what criteria do they say these things? It's completely arbitrary. It's completely hand-waving. And of course, there are no consequences. And these are people who can't think, can't think because they have to be consequences. Just very simple, and they could all have the consequences are worth it, okay? But consequences. David Dayan, a reporter here, journalist that I have immense respect for, works for the American prospect, should say rights for the American prospect, tweets out here, AOC wrote the bill that substituted the $600 in the December bill with 2000. She did not substitute it with $2,600. Sorry, it's goal post-moving. You can think this. Again, David Dayan, great reporter, a lot of respect. He's been very critical of Joe Biden and his cabinet picks, but why even bother defending Joe Biden here? What's the point? The conversation now has moved. Obviously, everyone should have known at the time that Joe Biden would not be able to pass anything because he's not president when he made that announcement of supporting the $2,000 if you got both Raphael Warnock and John Ossifen. Everyone knew he couldn't pass that at the time. Then if that's the case, why didn't Joe Biden say at the time, in addition to the $600, I'm going to pass $1,400? They're already quibbling and fighting over 2,400, 2,600. Can you imagine what this is going to be like over the next four years with the progressive left just ripping their hair out? Because Biden won't be as big of a socialist as they want him to be. And of course, people getting all this money, they're the ones who are going to suffer. I mean, I'm still going to have a job if we have state inflation, but will they? And at some point, the government's going to have so much inflation, so much unemployment, they won't be able to print more money. What are those people going to do then? So they're killing the lives. They're killing the future prospects of these people by making them dependent on the government instead of freeing up the economy to produce the jobs they need, produce the jobs and create the economic activity. This is so evil. It really is. To give people the illusion, to give people the lie, the blatant, unequivocal lie, that we can just print money and give it to you. And then why are we surprised that working class Americans are alienated? Why are we surprised that people who are poor think that they're owed? Because this is what the intellectuals are telling them. I told you all the time, I don't blame, I don't even blame the looters as much as I blame this guy, rational national. He's not rational. I don't know about national, but he's certainly not rational because they put these ideas into people's heads. Ooh, if we didn't have some horrible politicians, we'd be writing you all million dollar checks. If it wasn't for those greedy businessmen, you'd all have a Gucci bag. So why not steal it? These intellectuals are what are destroying this country, what are destroying this world. He said that, but instead he said $2,000 checks. And to even, to buttress that point here, Claire Sandberg tweets out, Biden is the one who moved the goalpost in a last-ditch effort to win the Senate. He said that $2,000 checks would go out the door if Warnock and Asif won. Warnock posted this realistic image of a $2,000 treasury check, want a $2,000 check and here's the fighting over $600. Can you imagine what's going to happen when they actually get down to budgets, when Bernie Sanders puts together, he's the head of the budget committee in the Senate? Can you imagine what happens when they start fighting about trillions of dollars? Of a $2,000 check. And all to buy votes, by the way, whose idea was it before we go on, we'll get to this in a minute, but whose idea was it to do $2,000 checks? Who threatened to veto the bill if they didn't include a $2,000 check? Who tried to buy an election with a $2,000 check? Who believes the $2,000 checks were good for the American people? Hate to say it, guys. No, I don't really hate to say it because I've been telling you all the time. It was Trump. Trump was the one. I mean, nobody was talking about $2,000 checks and so Trump made a big deal out of it. Trump made this an issue. This is why Biden might get the $2,000 because a bunch of Republicans are going to answer. They use this as a way to campaign. Here is a $2,000 check. Forget what people already got. Why must you use the $600 as the basis for the discussion here? That's in the past. The $600 is in the past. Now we're looking at the future. And the future should be $2,000. And again, this is the compromise. This is the bare minimum. People should be expecting $2,000 monthly retroactive to the beginning of the pandemic. There we go. Now we've got some progressive ambition. $2,000 retroactive, 10 months, $20,000 checks they should get right now. Now $1.9 trillion. Let's multiply it by five, six. Let's do five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 trillion dollars. Not infrastructure, even though that would be terrible too. But no, just hand people checks because that's the way you solve problems. And of course, again, think about what expectation that creates in the minds of people. Think about what this guy is teaching people about how economics work, about how government works, about what they should expect in the future, about who they deserve what from. I mean, this guy is literally destroying the lives, destroying the lives of the people who need the $2,000 checks. But what they really need is a job. And what they're never going to have is a job because of him and his ilk. It's these progressives and their politicians and their economist friends who continuously grow the world of government, grow the world of government, make people more and more and more dependent on government. And then what's going to happen when the productive sector shrinks, when they can't and the jobs disappear, which might already be happening. And people are going to demand, you think you're so riot in the summer, wait until that happens. And people now expect from the government, they expect from the wealthy, they expect, they demand, they deserve, they're entitled. And they're entitled because of intellectuals like this telling them they're entitled. All they're getting here is a single $2,000 check or I should say a single $1,400 check in addition to the $600. That's all they're getting. So you're already at the compromise. Why are you compromising even further to a position of $1,400 in what I think is a clear attempt here to try and appeal more to say, you know, maybe Joe Manchin to support this and other Republicans in and really just he just called Joe Manchin a Republican. He hasn't switched parties yet. He might, but he hasn't switched parties yet. I'm going to move this forward just a little bit. Let's move it there. He's repetitive. That's why. Served of policy as opposed to airing on the side of the people. Last thing here is the people from common dreams. It is far from clear how much of Biden's initial offer will become law given that Democrats will control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin and thus be unable to afford any Democratic defections. Potentially making matters more difficult is Biden's insistence on attaining enough bipartisan support to push the proposal through the Senate with 60 votes. So again, I, my guess here is his political calculation is he's pushing this $1,400 as a way to try and appeal to Republicans as opposed to saying, I promise 2000, regardless of what was already passed, I'm going to say 2000. I'm pushing for 2000. Going on here, they say the New York Times reported that the top House Senate Democrats are preparing to pivot quickly to a parliamentary process known as budget reconciliation. If Biden fails to win the support of enough Republican lawmakers, only a simple majority in the Senate is needed to pass bills through the reconciliation process, which Republicans use to ramp through their massive tax cuts for the rich in 2017. Now note that Biden is counting on Republican support for this. Why? Because a number of Republicans, a significant number of Republicans, expressed significant support for $2,000 checks to individuals when Trump said that that's what he was demanding. Now those Republicans in a political bind, because if they vote against the $2,000 checks, then they're going back and they would. If they vote for it, then they're just being Democrats. This is the kind of damage. I repeat myself. I know that Donald Trump has done to Republican party, basically destroyed it and turned Republicans into supporters of the Democrats. So even if they don't have the 60 votes for Biden's one point, I think it's one point nine trillion dollar deal here or bill, they're going to try to use this reconciliation process to actually be able to pass anything with just a simple majority as opposed to needing the 60 votes. Even reconciliation, they need a 60, a 50 majority. They need all 50 Democrats to vote for it. And Manchin might not. Manchin is the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, who, you know, is much more conservative than most of these Democrats. Now let me just, I want, I want you to hear who he thinks would vote in the Republican side for anything. So you potentially have some defections here and people like Josh Holly, who said he supports the $2,000 and a few others who pushed to support the $2,000 because Trump supported it. So you potentially have some defections anyways. You may not need that 60 votes if they. So they could overcome Manchin if, if, if Josh Holly, as you know, my favorite Senator from Josh Holly is from Missouri, Kansas, I can't remember. But Josh Holly is going to might support this. Right. She says Trump has been terrible, but can you really blame him for post spending Republicans Bush was hardly frugal. No, my only argument is that he wasn't the savior of capitalism that people claimed he was. That's all. It's not, but he was much worse than Bush. Bush at least gave the pretense of being pro markets. Trump didn't never gave that pretense. Bush was at least portrayed. Trump was not. Yeah, Bush spent, but Trump spent much more. If you look at actually spending out of Trump, it went up much more than under, than under Bush. All right. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a, a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show you support for all, for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And, and of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber, even if you, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up, you'll know what shows are on, when they're on, you'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.