When i said “we will survive the second trump term” I’m using the royal we – as in America
I mean, what exactly are we saying here? Yea, the country will still physically be in place, but will we like what we have left after Trump and Musk have trashed the government? We’ve already seen the damage that incompetent and downright malicious governance can cause. For example, my hometown of Louisville saw massive flooding a few weeks ago, and thus far the Trump administration has refused to provide disaster aid. There’s simply no excuse for that.
Please share with us how many people die from a lack of housing and food in America in 2025?
Those numbers arent available yet, because we’re still in 2025. The most recent data I could find was from 2020: 7877 deaths nationally of unhoused people across the US. That number has been increasing. Homelessness also has a significant number of comorbidities associated with it and has significant implications for long term heath of those experiencing homelessness. Here’s an article highlighting the increased risks for the homeless in California.
Austin, as another example, sees 200+ homeless deaths a year.
As for hunger, the USDA estimates that 8.4% of US households are experiencing food insecurity.
The overall point is this: the claim that …
Is objectively not true. Far too many Americans are homeless, unable to find a home, and often experience hunger. Is America a better place than other parts of the world? Sure, I think that’s self evident. I have such a problem with this statement though because its dismissive (i.e. we don’t need to worry about it) of the very real problems that far too many Americans face. While America has a lot to be proud of, we sure could do better on a lot of social issues.
90% of “homeless” folks in America are actually junkies – not “homeless.” The reason we haven’t solved the homeless problem is because it’s an addiction problem.
What your data proves more than anything, is that far more Americans die of obesity and drug addiction than of not having a home or not having enough food.
DOGE approach is very different and it’s shocking to many people… but it’s effective. You make a LOT of cuts and you do zero based budgeting so you can QUICKLY downsize and save money. We need 50% less government employees and we need to cut $2T in budget deficits (debt!) every year. If we don’t make cuts we will go bankrupt… it’s that simple.
for sure Leo and Lisa should get the hosts in here… this is the best part of the show: THE SUPERFANS!
1 Like
Running a business is fundamentally different from governing a nation, and I strongly challenge the assertion that applying business principles to government operations is inherently effective.
Where is the independent, well-supported analysis indicating that the government is at risk of bankruptcy? No credible study, verified by multiple competent sources, has confirmed this claim. Rather, it appears to be a rhetorical tactic used to justify aggressive, indiscriminate budget cuts.
It is crucial to recognize that the government is not a profit-driven entity; its primary function is to provide essential services that uphold the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Even if such severe reductions were deemed necessary, I firmly believe that Elon Musk is not the appropriate individual to lead that effort. His history of publicly making unfounded accusations, evading accountability, and displaying questionable ethics raises significant concerns. His intelligence or neurodivergence is not the issue—rather, it is his lack of integrity, transparency, and moral responsibility. Entrusting someone like him with access to sensitive taxpayer and citizen information is deeply troubling.
Ultimately, I would far prefer a leader of average intelligence but strong moral character over a billionaire driven solely by self-interest. Sound governance should prioritize minimizing harm and ensuring the well-being of the public, rather than dismantling systems recklessly for the sake of disruption.
3 Likes
90% of “homeless” folks in America are actually junkies – not “homeless.”
Ok, so they’re homeless with an addiction problem. I’m struggling to understand the distinction you seek to create between the homeless and “junkies,” as you call them. If your central thesis here (and I’m sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth here) is that America has sufficient resources to house and treat its homeless population, then I think that directly contradicts the entire argument for DOGE or any of the GOP’s cost cutting, which is disproportionately focused on social programs.
The reason we haven’t solved the homeless problem is because it’s an addiction problem.
I dont entirely agree. We have an addiction problem, and we also just didn’t build enough housing since 2008. Your own discussion of SFO’s bad land use policy as compared to Texas’s policies during the podcast makes that very clear.
Also, its important to understand that addiction is one of the comorbidities of homelessness. A person living that life is highly likely to develop or exacerbate a substance abuse problem.
2 Likes
Ok, but that’s not what DOGE is doing. I see no competent or deliberative process in use here at all. Shortly after the mid-air collision in DC, for example, DOGE sent out layoff notices to Air Traffic Controllers. That’s not something a competent team does.
They also cut IRS auditors, who return about $7.10 for every dollar spent in recovered tax revenue.
One estimate shows that while DOGE claims to have saved $160bln in tax dollars, their mistakes have cost about $135 bln.
To my eyes, this is not about cost savings. This is attacking and destroying the federal government while bypassing congress and the courts.
2 Likes