Musk’s Fury Over the “Big Ugly Bill”: Why America’s Spending Addiction Risks a Greek-Style Collapse

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 7, 2025

Elon Musk is livid, and it’s not because the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit for Tesla was axed in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” He’s calling it the “Big Ugly Bill” for a reason: while Congress pats itself on the back for “bipartisan” deal-making, the bill’s massive spending hikes—loaded with subsidies for corporate giants like Boeing and Intel—wipe out the hard-won savings Musk delivered through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Worse, this spending spree puts America on a path toward a Greek-style economic collapse, like the one I warned about over a decade ago. The media, predictably, is obsessed with the supposed Musk-Trump feud, ignoring the real crisis: runaway government spending, especially on a broken healthcare system, that threatens to bankrupt the nation. What will it take to wake America up?

The “Big Ugly Bill” and Musk’s Rage

Musk’s anger isn’t about Tesla losing a tax break—it’s about the hypocrisy of a government that cuts one subsidy while shoveling billions to other industries. The bill, passed in early 2025, extends corporate welfare to companies like Boeing ($14 billion in subsidies), Intel ($8 billion), and others Visual Capitalist, while ballooning spending on programs that perpetuate inefficiency. Musk, who spent 130 days leading DOGE—often working seven days a week and sleeping at the White House—delivered $180 billion in claimed savings by June 2025, including $244 million from axing 81 “perpetual” contracts that lingered far beyond their intended terms. Independent estimates, like Reuters’, peg verified savings at $5 billion, but even that’s a start. Yet, the “Big Ugly Bill” nullifies these gains with new spending, estimated at $200–$300 billion over 10 years, on top of existing deficits.

Musk sees the writing on the wall: this isn’t just bad policy—it’s a step toward fiscal ruin. As I wrote in 2012, Greece’s collapse was a warning for America. A decade ago, Greece faced a debt-to-GDP ratio of 177%, crippled by overspending on pensions, healthcare, and public sector bloat. Austerity measures tanked the economy, sparking riots and 27% unemployment. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now 120% and climbing, with $35 trillion in debt. The “Big Ugly Bill” adds fuel to this fire, ignoring the five reasons government shouldn’t spend recklessly: it crowds out private investment, fuels inflation, distorts markets, rewards cronyism, and burdens future generations.

Healthcare: The Spending Black Hole

The biggest driver of America’s fiscal mess is healthcare, a system so decoupled from market principles it’s been broken for decades. Federal healthcare spending (Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies) eats up $1.8 trillion annually—nearly half the budget—and grows faster than inflation. Price controls, bloated bureaucracies, and lack of competition drive costs skyward, with no improvement in outcomes. For example, U.S. per capita healthcare spending is $12,500, double that of comparable nations, yet life expectancy lags. DOGE’s cuts barely touched this beast, and the “Big Ugly Bill” adds new healthcare subsidies, further entrenching a failed system. Reforming healthcare—through market-based pricing, deregulation, and ending subsidies—could save $5 trillion over 10 years, but Congress lacks the spine.

DOGE’s Savings Wiped Out

Musk’s DOGE targeted “perpetual” contracts—defense, IT, and NGO deals that auto-renew due to lobbying or inertia. DOGE claimed $180 billion in 2025 savings, with $100 billion potentially recurring from contract terminations, workforce cuts ($40 billion), and fraud reduction ($10 billion). Dynamic scoring, like that seen with Reagan’s tax cuts, could add $71 billion in revenue from economic growth, totaling $221 billion over 10 years. But the “Big Ugly Bill” obliterates this with $200–$300 billion in new spending, plus $415 billion in costs from DOGE’s cuts (e.g., $250 billion in lost IRS revenue, $100 billion in economic losses from reduced research). Net result? A $194 billion deficit increase over 10 years, even with optimistic growth effects.

Trump may argue he got all the cuts possible given a divided Congress, but that’s cold comfort when the bill subsidizes everyone but Tesla. Is this resignation, or is the Musk-Trump “feud” just political theater to push for more cuts, as I suggested? Either way, Musk’s frustration is justified: why cut one industry’s incentives while handing billions to Boeing, Intel, and healthcare cronies?

The Greek Warning

Greece’s 2012 collapse—driven by runaway spending and debt—should haunt us. I warned then that America was on a similar path. Greece’s debt crisis led to austerity, economic contraction, and social unrest. America’s $35 trillion debt, plus $1 trillion annual deficits, risks a similar fate if spending isn’t slashed. The “Big Ugly Bill” ignores this, piling on subsidies and programs while the media fixates on Musk vs. Trump drama, not the fiscal cliff. As I wrote in 2013, we can’t keep paying for everything—especially how with Biden we had 8,000 daily illegal crossings adding $150 billion annually in costs.

Trump’s Reagan Moment

Trump wants to emulate Reagan, whose 1981 tax cuts sparked 3.5% GDP growth and doubled revenue by 1989, shrinking deficits as a share of GDP. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts boosted revenue to $3.5 trillion by 2019, despite CBO’s dire predictions. New tax cuts and tariffs could add 0.5–1% to GDP growth, generating $500 billion in revenue over 10 years. But to truly “pull a Reagan,” Trump must pair this with deep cuts:

• Eliminate Departments: The Department of Education ($800 billion over 10 years) and USAID ($500 billion) are prime targets. Education outcomes have worsened since 1979, and USAID often funds corrupt regimes.
• End Corporate Welfare: Cut $100 billion in subsidies to Boeing, Intel, and others, leveling the playing field Musk demands.
• Secure the Border: Save $1 trillion by curbing illegal immigration costs, this is maybe the ONE thing he has going right.
• Reform Healthcare: Market-based reforms could save $5 trillion, dwarfing DOGE’s efforts.

Total potential savings: $7.4 trillion over 10 years. Subtract $415 billion in costs, and net savings could hit $7 trillion, slashing the deficit-to-GDP ratio. This is the Milei-style purge America needs.

Waking Up America

The media’s obsession with Musk-Trump drama distracts from the real issue: spending addiction. While Democrats’ corruption, like Hunter Biden’s CEFC deals, gets a pass, Trump and Musk are vilified. The “Big Ugly Bill” proves Congress won’t act without pressure. As I wrote in 2011, government spending fails because it distorts markets and rewards inefficiency. Americans must demand their representatives slash departments, end subsidies, and reform healthcare before we face Greece’s fate.

Call to Action: Contact your senators and representatives. Demand they reject the “Big Ugly Bill” and support Trump’s tax cuts, DOGE’s mission, and Milei-style cuts to Education, USAID, and corporate welfare. Share this article and my 2012 warning about Greece. Wake up, America—our economy depends on it.

Harvard’s Funding and Foreign Influence: Taxpayer Subsidies Fueling Anti-Semitism, Communism, and Jihadism?

 By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 6, 2025

Harvard University, one of the wealthiest academic institutions in the world with an endowment exceeding $50 billion, has come under scrutiny for its reliance on taxpayer-funded grants and foreign donations, raising questions about its priorities and influence. Recent reports and public discourse suggest that Harvard’s financial ties, particularly with entities like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), may be linked to broader issues, including the promotion of ideologies such as anti-Semitism, communism, and jihadism on campus. This article explores these connections, drawing on recent developments and critical perspectives to question whether taxpayer money is indirectly subsidizing harmful agendas.

Harvard’s Financial Landscape: Billions in Endowments and Taxpayer Support

Harvard’s endowment, reported at over $52 billion, provides the university with unparalleled financial security. Yet, it continues to receive substantial federal funding—approximately $2.6 billion in research grants until recent freezes by the Trump administration. Critics argue this reliance on taxpayer money is unnecessary given Harvard’s wealth. As one observer noted, “No research is worth funding affirmative action, antisemitism, DEI, and plagiarism” when the university already has billions at its disposal.

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze or redirect these grants, as reported by multiple outlets, stems from concerns over Harvard’s handling of campus issues, including alleged anti-Semitism and discriminatory practices. The administration has called for reforms, such as terminating diversity programs and screening foreign students for views deemed hostile to “American values.” This move has sparked debate about whether Harvard’s financial model prioritizes ideological agendas over academic integrity.

Foreign Funding and Chinese Influence

Harvard’s financial ties to foreign entities, particularly China, have raised alarms about potential compromises to academic freedom and national security. Since 2012, Harvard has received over $1.1 billion in foreign funding, with significant contributions from Chinese sources. For instance, in 2014, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was renamed following a $350 million donation from a Chinese donor, raising questions about the influence of such gifts. Additionally, a $150 million pledge from a Chinese real estate company, Country Garden, reportedly influenced Harvard’s shift in stance on the origins of COVID-19, moving from supporting the lab-leak hypothesis to the wet-market theory.

More recently, Harvard partnered with a Chinese Communist Party influence group flagged by the U.S. government for subverting institutions to promote Beijing’s policies. Critics argue these financial ties create “strings attached” that enable espionage and ideological influence, particularly through Chinese researchers operating under Harvard’s umbrella. Such connections fuel concerns that Harvard’s academic environment may be shaped by foreign agendas, potentially fostering ideologies like communism that clash with American values.  Especially right after Chinese Students were caught RED HANDED smuggling a deadly fungus that could absolutely DEVASTATE American staple crops.

Allegations of Anti-Semitism, Communism, and Jihadism

The Trump administration and others have accused Harvard of failing to address anti-Semitism on campus, prompting actions like the formation of a DOJ task force led by Leo Terrell to target alleged anti-Semitism and foreign student enrollment issues. Harvard’s own “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” outlined demands for policy changes, including ending DEI programs and screening foreign students for anti-Semitic or terrorism-supportive views. Critics, including Harvard alumnus Jonathan Harounoff, argue the university prioritizes fighting these demands over addressing anti-Semitism itself.

Beyond anti-Semitism, concerns have emerged about the promotion of communism and jihadism. The Trump administration has explicitly stated that redirected federal funds would support institutions free of “wokeness or jihadism.” Posts on X have linked Harvard’s foreign funding, particularly from China, to the presence of faculty collaborating with China’s military-civilian research centers, suggesting a deeper infiltration of communist ideologies. Additionally, the smuggling of biological materials, such as fungus, into the U.S. by Chinese entities—potentially facilitated through academic channels—raises national security concerns.

Connecting the Dots: A Broader Agenda?

The convergence of Harvard’s financial practices, foreign ties, and campus environment suggests a troubling pattern. Taxpayer subsidies, through federal grants, have indirectly supported an institution accused of fostering anti-Semitism, communist influence, and even jihadist sympathies. The university’s resistance to reforms, as seen in its legal battles against the Trump administration, has only intensified scrutiny. Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, has defended the need for federal funding to support research, but critics argue this is a pretext for maintaining unchecked influence.

The case of Chinese smuggling, as highlighted in recent articles, underscores how academic institutions like Harvard may serve as conduits for foreign agendas. The smuggling of biological materials, combined with Harvard’s partnerships with CCP-linked groups, suggests vulnerabilities that extend beyond ideology to national security.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

Harvard’s vast wealth and foreign funding raise serious questions about its reliance on taxpayer subsidies. As the Trump administration pushes to defund the university, citing anti-Semitism and other ideological concerns, the public must demand transparency. Are taxpayer dollars inadvertently supporting anti-Semitic, communist, or jihadist influences under the guise of academic research? The evidence suggests a need for greater oversight to ensure universities like Harvard prioritize academic integrity and national interests over foreign money and ideological agendas.

Trump and Musk’s Feud: Political Theater to Wake America Up to the Debt Crisis

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 6, 2025

Is the explosive public spat between Donald Trump and Elon Musk just another act in the grand political theater? As Timothy Hopper has argued before in his article, “Trump 2 and the Dawn of the Era of Strategic Chaos” Trump thrives on disruption, using controversy to steer the narrative. Now, with Musk lobbing insults at Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” and Trump threatening to gut Musk’s government contracts, the drama feels oddly familiar—like the 2015 clash between Trump and Megyn Kelly, which The Guardian covered in “Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents” Back then, their feud dominated headlines, only for Kelly to emerge years later as a vocal Trump supporter. Could this Trump-Musk rift be a calculated ploy to shine a spotlight on America’s ballooning $36.2 trillion national debt—a crisis the media barely covers and most Americans shrug off?

The Debt: A National Emergency Ignored

Let’s cut through the noise: the U.S. national debt is a ticking time bomb. Nonpartisan estimates, like those from the Congressional Budget Office, peg Trump’s recent tax-and-spending bill as adding $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the debt over a decade. Yet, as I pointed out in “Why Congress Loves Spending Your Money,” lawmakers on both sides have a vested interest in kicking this can down the road. Real spending cuts—especially to sacred cows like Social Security, Medicare, or defense—require political courage Congress simply doesn’t have. The mainstream media, meanwhile, buries this crisis under clickbait headlines about celebrity feuds or the latest culture war flare-up. Most Americans, lulled by normalcy bias, don’t grasp the urgency. Enter Trump and Musk, two masters of spectacle, possibly staging a high-stakes drama to force the issue into the open.

The Trump-Musk “Feud”: Too Perfect to Be Real?

The timeline of this so-called feud raises eyebrows. Musk, fresh off his stint leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), slammed Trump’s bill as a “disgusting abomination” that “massively increases the already gigantic budget deficit.” Trump fired back, calling Musk “disloyal” and hinting at slashing his companies’ government contracts. Musk upped the ante, suggesting Trump’s impeachment and even tossing out baseless Epstein-related jabs. The X platform lit up, with some users speculating this rift is “orchestrated to build bipartisan support and frame the national debt as a critical security issue.”

Sound familiar? It’s the same playbook Trump used with Kelly in 2015. Their clash, which I analyzed in “When Trump and Kelly Clashed,” seemed personal but ultimately served to amplify Trump’s brand while letting Kelly rebrand as a conservative darling. Here, Trump and Musk—both “political pugilists with sizable egos,” as Reuters put it—might be playing parts to jolt Americans awake. Musk’s DOGE promised $1 trillion in savings, yet his actual cuts barely scratched 0.5% of federal spending. Trump’s bill, meanwhile, pushes tax cuts and defense spending while slashing programs like Medicaid, adding trillions to the debt. By publicly clashing, they’re forcing the conversation: Musk plays the fiscal hawk, Trump the dealmaker, and the debt crisis gets prime-time exposure.

Why Political Theater Makes Sense

Bill Maher’s recent take on Trump, after visiting him, nails it: Trump is “playing the role of a crazy person” to keep the spotlight on his agenda. Maher's argued Trump’s chaos is deliberate, “Trump’s Chaos Strategy.” Musk, with his 220 million X followers and $250 million spent backing Trump in 2024, is no stranger to spectacle either. Their feud, erupting just as the Senate debates Trump’s debt-heavy bill, feels timed to perfection. It’s not about personal betrayal; it’s about making the debt impossible to ignore. As one X user put it, this could be a “manufactured crisis” to push for "radical solutions."

Consider the stakes. Musk’s DOGE cuts, while disruptive, can’t touch the real drivers of the deficit—Social Security, Medicare, and defense—without congressional action. Trump’s bill, despite its “beautiful” branding, faces pushback from fiscal conservatives like Sen. Ron Johnson, who called it a “distraction” from the “forest that’s on fire.” By staging a public brawl, Trump and Musk could be pressuring Congress to confront the debt head-on, knowing full well that lawmakers prefer “wimpy and anemic” cuts to avoid voter backlash.

The Bigger Picture: Forcing America to Care

The average American doesn’t lose sleep over the national debt. Why? Because the media doesn’t cover it with the urgency it demands, and Congress keeps passing bloated budgets. As I wrote in “Why Congress Loves Spending Your Money,” politicians thrive on short-term wins, not long-term fixes. Trump and Musk, with their outsized platforms, are uniquely positioned to change that. Their feud—whether genuine or staged—puts the debt front and center, framing it as a national emergency. Musk’s X posts, like “America is in the fast lane to debt slavery,” hit hard, while Trump’s defense of his bill keeps the debate alive.

This isn’t their first rodeo. Trump’s history of turning feuds into leverage—think Kelly, Cruz, or even McCain—shows he knows how to use conflict to dominate the narrative. Musk, with his knack for viral provocations, is the perfect sparring partner. Together, they could be orchestrating a wake-up call: the debt is a crisis, Congress is failing, and Americans need to demand action now.

What’s Next?

If this is theater, the next act is crucial. Will Musk back off, as he did with his Dragon spacecraft threat? Will Trump pivot to deeper cuts to win over fiscal hawks? Or will they escalate, using their platforms to rally voters against a do-nothing Congress? One thing’s clear: the debt crisis isn’t going away, and neither is the Trump-Musk show. As I argued in “The Debt Ceiling Farce: A Political Circus That’s Bankrupting America,” we’re on a collision course with economic disaster unless leaders act. If Trump and Musk are playing roles to force that action, it’s a risky but brilliant move.

Stay vigilant, patriots. The debt clock is ticking, and this drama might just be the spark to finally make America listen.

Follow NoSocialism.com on X @NoSocialism for more no-nonsense takes on saving America from socialism and fiscal ruin.

The Debt Ceiling Farce: A Political Circus That’s Bankrupting America

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com 

Every few years, Washington puts on a predictable show: the debt ceiling drama. Politicians from both parties clutch their pearls, warn of catastrophic defaults, and then—surprise!—they raise the debt ceiling, pat themselves on the back, and kick the can down the road. Meanwhile, the national debt is barreling toward $36 trillion, and the interest payments alone are set to cripple our economy. This isn’t governance; it’s a farce. At NoSocialism.com, I’ve been calling out this nonsense for years, and it’s time we face the truth: the debt ceiling is a meaningless ritual that’s bankrupting America.

The Debt Ceiling: A Toothless Charade

Let’s start with the basics. The debt ceiling is a legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow to cover its spending. Sounds reasonable, right? Except it’s not. Congress sets the budget, spends the money, and then pretends to be shocked when we hit the ceiling. It’s like maxing out your credit card and then debating whether to raise your credit limit—while still shopping. Since 1960, the debt ceiling has been raised or suspended nearly 80 times. It’s not a restraint; it’s a political prop.

The latest round of debt ceiling talks, as I wrote about in my piece on the debt spiral crisis, was more of the same. Republicans demand spending cuts, Democrats cry about Social Security and Medicare, and in the end, they strike a deal that does nothing to address the root problem: we’re spending way more than we take in. The Congressional Budget Office projects deficits of $2 trillion a year for the next decade. Yet, every time the debt ceiling looms, we get the same tired script—grandstanding, brinkmanship, and a last-minute “bipartisan” deal that solves nothing.

The Real Emergency: Interest Payments

Here’s where it gets scary. The national debt isn’t just a big number; it’s a ticking time bomb. Right now, we’re spending about $1 trillion a year on interest payments alone—more than we spend on defense or Medicare. But most of our long-term bonds were issued when interest rates were dirt-cheap, around 3%. As those bonds mature and get refinanced at today’s rates—closer to 5 or 6%—those interest payments could skyrocket to $1.5–2 trillion annually. That’s not speculation; it’s math.

As I pointed out in my article on Trump’s tariff strategy, President Trump is trying to boost federal revenue through tariffs to offset this mess, but it’s a drop in the bucket. The reality is, Congress has no appetite for the tough choices needed to rein in spending. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which make up nearly half the budget, are treated as sacred cows. Meanwhile, we’re piling on new spending—green energy subsidies, bloated bureaucracies, you name it. The debt ceiling debate is the perfect distraction, letting politicians pretend they’re being fiscally responsible without actually doing anything.

Why the Farce Persists

So why does this charade keep happening? Simple: politics. The debt ceiling is a convenient way for both parties to score points with their base. Republicans can rail against “big government” while quietly supporting pork-barrel projects in their districts. Democrats can accuse the GOP of wanting to gut social programs while ignoring their own role in ballooning the deficit. And the media eats it up, hyping the “crisis” to keep us glued to their screens.

But the real crisis isn’t a potential default—everyone knows we’ll raise the ceiling. The crisis is that we’re mortgaging our future. Every dollar we spend on interest is a dollar we can’t spend on infrastructure, defense, or tax cuts. And as interest rates climb, that squeeze gets tighter. Elon Musk, as noted in Glenn Beck’s recent piece, has been vocal about the need for real spending cuts. He’s right, but he’s also up against a Congress that’s addicted to spending and a political system that rewards short-term posturing over long-term solutions.

Time for Real Solutions

The debt ceiling farce won’t end until we demand better. At NoSocialism.com, I’ve argued for years that we need systemic reform: a balanced budget amendment, a flat tax, and serious entitlement reform see my take on fiscal sanity. Trump’s trying to do what he can—limiting government growth, canceling wasteful subsidies, and pushing tariffs—but he’s hamstrung by a Congress that lacks the guts to act. The 2026 midterms could be a game-changer if voters send a message: stop the spending spree.

Until then, the debt ceiling will remain what it’s always been: a political circus that distracts us from the real emergency. We can’t keep borrowing our way into oblivion. It’s time to ditch the theatrics and face the math. Our kids deserve better than a bankrupt America.

What do you think? Is the debt ceiling a useful tool, or just a distraction? Drop your thoughts below, and check out more of my takes on the fiscal crisis at NoSocialism.com.