Speaker 1: Live from the Heartland and the Crossroads of America. It's
Speaker 1: Tony Katz today. So what do you want? First? The
Speaker 1: Iranians putting a ten million dollar bounty on Baron Trump.
Speaker 1: Where do you want more tirefs on Canada? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's really a take your pick kind of day. And
Speaker 1: then you're going to have what it is that's gott
Speaker 1: best of the Treasury Secretary is going to apply to
Speaker 1: Iran I don't know what that is yet. What I
Speaker 1: do know is that the Iranian regime is showing signs
Speaker 1: of the cracks. We can show this, we can prove this.
Speaker 1: We did this the other day. We've got more Tony Katz.
Speaker 1: Tony Katz today, kitt and what's going on? Find everything
Speaker 1: I do over at tonykatz dot com. Apologize for no
Speaker 1: livestream today. I'll make that all understandable tomorrow. But here's
Speaker 1: what we've got going on. You have the Iranian regime
Speaker 1: saying that Baron Trump is fully monitored, putting a ten
Speaker 1: million dollar bounty on his head. It's a New York
Speaker 1: Post with the story quite literally where to kill Baron Trump.
Speaker 1: This is horrifying stuff. You're going after people's kids. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely horrifying stuff. Now you can argue the kids an
Speaker 1: adult and all that jazz, but it can't be argued.
Speaker 1: The only thing they could be argued here is that
Speaker 1: what it is that the regime is trying to do
Speaker 1: is get the United States to stop, and they have
Speaker 1: lost capability. We discussed this the other day when the
Speaker 1: president of Aram Pozzeshkia. Now, I've seen it written as Pozzeskian,
Speaker 1: and I've seen it written as Pozzeshkia, so I'm going
Speaker 1: with Pozeshkia. So if I'm wrong, blame anybody who writes
Speaker 1: things on the internet. He just last week when we
Speaker 1: talked about this Friday. Guys, I don't recall, get the
Speaker 1: podcast over at Tonycas dot com wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: and you'll be able to listen to it. That he
Speaker 1: is saying, you know, we've already defeated the United States
Speaker 1: and everybody around the world hates them, so why don't
Speaker 1: we just come to a peace deal. And while he's
Speaker 1: saying that, he's talking about actors within Iran and he's
Speaker 1: saying about them, they don't understand this conflict. So the
Speaker 1: translation there is the president, whatever is there of the
Speaker 1: leadership is saying to the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
Speaker 1: the fractured and factionalized we can call it IRGC, that
Speaker 1: they are causing more problems for Iran, specifically the leadership
Speaker 1: and keeping down the people and being able to make
Speaker 1: some money through illicit means. Stop it. These United States sanctions.
Speaker 1: Never mind, if they go on more bombing raids are
Speaker 1: going to destroy us. Cut it out, live to see
Speaker 1: another day, rebuild as the Iranians always do, and then
Speaker 1: we'll fight them again. We're not giving up our jihad.
Speaker 1: We're not giving up our desire for califry. We're not
Speaker 1: giving up our desire to destroy Israel, to go after
Speaker 1: the United States, because it's the little Satan before the
Speaker 1: Great Satan, because destroying Western civilization is the goal. The Iranians,
Speaker 1: the Chinese, and the communists of the DSA, they've all
Speaker 1: got the same wants and desires. That that's what the
Speaker 1: Red Green Alliance is. Of course, it is the only
Speaker 1: people dumb enough to introduce Islamis to their society is
Speaker 1: the whole of Europe and now more and more of
Speaker 1: the United States. So by saying that Pazeshkiya put on
Speaker 1: the table that sanctions and other things are working. We
Speaker 1: know from major Mike Lions, We know from Stephen Yates
Speaker 1: that oil is indeed moving around the UAE and Oman coast.
Speaker 1: They're on the Persian Gulf, which means that the Iranians
Speaker 1: can't see it or they can't get to it. They
Speaker 1: don't have the weaponry they can get to it. We
Speaker 1: know from the reporting of Noah Rothman over at National
Speaker 1: Review wor at about seventy five to eighty percent of
Speaker 1: prewar oil moving along that coast. Now, this will bring
Speaker 1: us to then, why in the world aren't gas prices down? Well,
Speaker 1: gas prices aren't necessarily down, because that's a trailing indicator.
Speaker 1: Why aren't barrel futures down? And that's a place where
Speaker 1: I wouldn't mind President Trump getting a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: upity with some people saying what do you think you're doing?
Speaker 1: Because that is an issue. I'm not a populist, but
Speaker 1: everyone could see that one right there. What did Pozeshkia do? Now? Pozeshkia,
Speaker 1: now in continued talks, says that the Ayatola Kamane the
Speaker 1: dead one, not the dead one, the dead one. So
Speaker 1: there's the old dead one that you knew as the Ayatola, until,
Speaker 1: of course we killed the Ayatola, or was it the Israelis?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It was Uso as a friend, that's cool.
Speaker 1: And then there was the son who became the new Iyatola,
Speaker 1: the baby Nepato, as Ed Morrissey would say. And then
Speaker 1: we think he's dead and no one's seen him. And
Speaker 1: if he is alive, he's drooling into a cup. Pozeshkia,
Speaker 1: the president of Iran, says of the old ayah Toola
Speaker 1: that he favored backing a diplomatic solution to end the
Speaker 1: feud with the United States. Now, before we go any further,
Speaker 1: can we both say together, because we're friends, right, we're buddies,
Speaker 1: we hang bull crap that didn't happen, That never happened.
Speaker 1: There's no way that happened. That's a lie. Now it
Speaker 1: is the Iranian regime, so everything is a lie. Everything
Speaker 1: is a lie. We are to believe that the Ayatola
Speaker 1: wanted to get peace. So Pozzeshkia, which is now written
Speaker 1: again as Pozeskian, good lord, with strength, but with logic,
Speaker 1: we could sit down and resolve our problems. Is that right,
Speaker 1: it is better that we bring the war to an
Speaker 1: end now as we are in a position of power
Speaker 1: and dignity. No you're not. You're begging. You're begging. You
Speaker 1: have come to realize that you are in a worse
Speaker 1: position than you thought. Maybe, indeed, as some people have
Speaker 1: been discussing for a while now, the strategy of we're
Speaker 1: going out, we're going to control the straight, we're going
Speaker 1: to abuse people on the Strait of Hormuz, maybe that
Speaker 1: strategy was not the best strategy. Maybe that strategy is
Speaker 1: a one trick pony. And once that trick is done, well,
Speaker 1: seventy five percent of the oil can get through. If
Speaker 1: we're moving more oil out of the Texas, Louisiana, Alabama area,
Speaker 1: that Gulf area than ever, well, maybe that's enough. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's enough to satisfy, Maybe that's enough to mollify. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's the reason. Even though oil price is the barrel
Speaker 1: price is still too high. The economy, well in a
Speaker 1: bad place, isn't off the cliff. The economy is one
Speaker 1: of the weirdest things going on out there. You and
Speaker 1: I both know in the every day everything is more expensive.
Speaker 1: People are still buying. This is like COVID spend all
Speaker 1: over again. We take a look at the numbers, we
Speaker 1: take a look at the inflation. We're like, this don't
Speaker 1: make no sense. And yet you go to a mall
Speaker 1: or or any luxury place, people have bags, they're buying.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating. Nothing matters. Now, it's going to bring us
Speaker 1: to a debt bomb. And what's going on with credit
Speaker 1: card debt where you've got one point two to two
Speaker 1: to one point two three trillion dollars where the credit
Speaker 1: card debt in the last quarter. This is not going
Speaker 1: to be good. But while the price is higher, and
Speaker 1: certainly the left has been complaining, and people can talk
Speaker 1: about affordability from now to the end of time, and
Speaker 1: there are worthy discussions within this, it hasn't broken US.
Speaker 1: Manufacturing is still up, and maybe they've come to realize
Speaker 1: that the economic sanctions are gonna hurt them longer. Their
Speaker 1: philosophy was they can outweight Trump, they can wait through
Speaker 1: the midterms and then get them to lose, get them
Speaker 1: in peach, break them that way. Maybe. I mean, if
Speaker 1: it's you and me sitting on a parcel having a bourbon,
Speaker 1: very possible right, that could absolutely positively be the strategy,
Speaker 1: no question about it. That doesn't mean that strategy is
Speaker 1: gonna work, and it doesn't mean it exists in an
Speaker 1: isolated way. So this is a great example of how
Speaker 1: media tries to paint the picture of here's the only
Speaker 1: way this happens. This the way it goes on, and
Speaker 1: it isn't. There are multiple things happening, and the idea
Speaker 1: that everything wasn't going to work for Trump that was
Speaker 1: never true. We said it. Of course, I disagree with
Speaker 1: the philosophy. I believe you got to take out the regime.
Speaker 1: It's the only thing that will work in the long
Speaker 1: term is ending this regime, ending the Islamist having them destroyed,
Speaker 1: quite literally, the raising of buildings in Iran by the people,
Speaker 1: administrative offices, moss everything. The people are gonna have to
Speaker 1: do that in order to show the end of the regime.
Speaker 1: That's how that one's gonna work. I mean, history does
Speaker 1: what it does. But they were relying on being able
Speaker 1: to outweig Trump, and no one ever asked the question,
Speaker 1: can they outweight themselves? Wait, hold on, I know one
Speaker 1: group of people that did. We did. We asked if
Speaker 1: he can outweight himself, if they can outwait themselves. We
Speaker 1: asked if the Iranian regime can handle this, and the
Speaker 1: answer based on now two pieces from this President Pozzeschi
Speaker 1: in I got an official it's with an end, it's
Speaker 1: got the end and there the answer is no. They
Speaker 1: can't wait it out. They just can't. So what is
Speaker 1: it that we are going to see Bessen to unleash today?
Speaker 1: Because we know that this is going to apply to
Speaker 1: anybody who's a trade partner. The real thing to watch
Speaker 1: is will it apply to anybody connected to Do you
Speaker 1: know the answer?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yes you do. I can already hear you saying it China, correct.
Speaker 1: That's where the pressure point comes in China and Russia
Speaker 1: because the word I'm street was that Russia was doing resupply.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else you can sanction of the Russians.
Speaker 1: I I really don't know what else that could be.
Speaker 1: But if no one is willing to buy any Iranian oil,
Speaker 1: if no one is willing to do this with a Ran,
Speaker 1: no one willing to do that with the RAM, the
Speaker 1: cost is too high, Well that's what I'm looking for
Speaker 1: in these sanctions. That's what I'm looking for from Besson
Speaker 1: in this discussion. We're gonna find out. Keep it here.
Speaker 1: I'm Tony Katz and this is Tony Katz today. So
Speaker 1: gergr lins. They're so angry they might throw a silver
Speaker 1: medal at us. Is that too soon?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Yes, no, maybe Tony Kats Tony Kats today, guys. Good
Speaker 1: to be here, Good to be with you. The Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, took to the microphone and
Speaker 1: oh he was steaming. But you know, in good Canadian
Speaker 1: spirits steaming.
Speaker 2: We'll see.
Speaker 1: I believe that was French for we surrender. I might
Speaker 1: be I might be wrong. This has to do with tariffs.
Speaker 1: So before I mean before the weekend began, everything was
Speaker 1: was great and everybody was they were, they were, they
Speaker 1: were on the same tune and they were gonna work
Speaker 1: this out before fifty tariffs went into effect. And then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Canada becomes the Iran of the
Speaker 1: Western hemisphere. Oh that's not nice at all, Tony. And
Speaker 1: they're like, you're not dealing with us as an honest broker.
Speaker 1: This is not working. Goodbye, and they walk away from
Speaker 1: the negotiating table. Now, this was a fifty percent tariff
Speaker 1: on a whole host of things, and one can argue
Speaker 1: that there's really no need for the fifty percent tariff
Speaker 1: at all, no need whatsoever. You know where I'm at,
Speaker 1: which is tariffs are taxes, and we're the ones who
Speaker 1: pay it tariff strategically, I can live with tariffs as
Speaker 1: a philosophy. I cannot, just can't. Absolutely. I think it's
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. I think it has kept the inflation
Speaker 1: where it is. It could have been much lower and
Speaker 1: we'd all be better off. Not a fan the Canadians
Speaker 1: think everything is about this fifty first state nonsense. Now,
Speaker 1: if you were to take a look at Canada population wise,
Speaker 1: if you were to take a look Canada GDP wise,
Speaker 1: you actually could make an argument for it. The population
Speaker 1: of Canada is thirty nine point one nine million people.
Speaker 1: The population of Florida is twenty three point four to
Speaker 1: six million people. Case rested. You also have when talking
Speaker 1: about the Canadians, this this fifty first state idea. People
Speaker 1: forget that they are Canadians. They don't appreciate being spoken
Speaker 1: to like this. They find this stuff frustrating and ugly
Speaker 1: and despicable and low rant and low class and who
Speaker 1: the bloody heck are you? They are taken aback by
Speaker 1: this from Trump. They find the whole thing wholly disgusting.
Speaker 1: They don't want any part of it, and so they acted.
Speaker 1: We put tariffs on them, they put tariffs on us.
Speaker 1: They weren't buying some bourbon, they were buying some other things. Okay,
Speaker 1: this latest round, one could argue, well, this is because
Speaker 1: Canada is not doing enough when it comes to securing
Speaker 1: in the northern border, something called the Swanton sector s
Speaker 1: wa NTN. This is in the Vermont area. And yes,
Speaker 1: it's been an issue Chinese nationals and a host of others.
Speaker 1: But speaking of China, one of the other issues has
Speaker 1: been the importation. We're talking about steel and how steel
Speaker 1: comes in, and we're talking about electric vehicles. China has
Speaker 1: been importing electric vehicles or exporting electric vehicles to Canada.
Speaker 1: Canada has been importing electric vehicles. These vehicles are ten
Speaker 1: thousand percent ten thousand percent rolling surveillance machines. That's all
Speaker 1: they are. They are keeping an eye on you, they
Speaker 1: are keeping an eye on me. They are transmitting back.
Speaker 1: There's no question. Did I hear it right? A friend
Speaker 1: was telling me this story that Polaris, which sells electric vehicles,
Speaker 1: will not as of twenty twenty seven be able to
Speaker 1: sell in No, not Polaris, sorry, Polestar. Polestar is the name.
Speaker 1: Polestar will not be able to sell in the US
Speaker 1: market in twenty twenty seven because ownership comes from China
Speaker 1: and we don't allow that stuff here Canada. Taking in
Speaker 1: electric vehicles is a serious problem for US because let's
Speaker 1: say someone owns in Toronto or Windsor and an electric
Speaker 1: car from China. Are they allowed to drive into the
Speaker 1: United States? And before you answer, allow me no, turn
Speaker 1: the car around. You're not allowed to enter the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't care what you're re it is, what your
Speaker 1: rationale is. I don't even care about your sick kid.
Speaker 1: That's how much we have to say. We don't allow it.
Speaker 1: Our safety and our security that comes first. You know,
Speaker 1: people talk about this America first thing. And I've never
Speaker 1: been a guy who really was, you know, in favor
Speaker 1: of that as an expression. But if we are going
Speaker 1: to use it as an expression as the Tuckers, Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green, Thomas Massey set want to use, maybe we
Speaker 1: should discuss what it means. Maybe we should ask ourselves
Speaker 1: whether or not these things do matter. And as I
Speaker 1: would argue there's a hierarchy. Some things come first, we
Speaker 1: come first. I don't know there's anything wrong with that.
Speaker 1: So we do have some issues with Canada. I don't
Speaker 1: know of another. Fifty percent tariff is the thing that
Speaker 1: makes a difference. It's now on twenty billion dollars worth
Speaker 1: of Canadian products. Canada has responded by saying, we are
Speaker 1: going to add Torris on American good on our goods.
Speaker 1: Dealing with America. Darry is going to be a big one.
Speaker 1: Fishing rods, cement wine, Canadian wine. What in the world
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that's syrup. I'm just I'm not an expert.
Speaker 1: And then they're gonna put a tariff on hockey equipment.
Speaker 1: So that's fine, that's fine. If we need any protection,
Speaker 1: we'll just cover ourselves with our gold medals. That's twice.
Speaker 1: That's twice. I made an Olympics dig and I feel
Speaker 1: good about that. Canada saying they asked too much and
Speaker 1: offered too little. Well maybe, and if this is how
Speaker 1: you want to negotiate, I can't stop them, nor do
Speaker 1: I actually fault them. Go ahead and negotiate this way.
Speaker 1: This might play very well at home, might make the
Speaker 1: economics rough, but it might play very well for the Canadians.
Speaker 1: We don't take no gup from Trump. Maybe Canadians have
Speaker 1: decided that they'll pay more, but they won't bow to
Speaker 1: Trump and everything will be better and they'll just wait
Speaker 1: them out. You know. There's a message in that. There's
Speaker 1: a huge message in that, and there's also the recognition
Speaker 1: that this is the story today. Tomorrow a deal can
Speaker 1: be struck and it all goes away. The first rule
Speaker 1: of trump Ism as Trump wins, and the second rule
Speaker 1: of trump Ism is that a deal can always be
Speaker 1: made as long as that adheres to the first rule
Speaker 1: of trump Ism. Do I think Mark Carney is playing
Speaker 1: this wrong? Look. I think the tariffs are wrong. So
Speaker 1: I think the whole thing is just flat out nutty.
Speaker 1: But all politics are local. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that the Trump faithful and the Maga faithful have to
Speaker 1: do is recognize that Carney owes Trump nothing. He owes
Speaker 1: it to himself to get reelected. That's true of South Korea,
Speaker 1: which I think is more and more upset with what
Speaker 1: has happened with these wargames and North Korea. That is
Speaker 1: true of Sinnai Takaichi, the Prime minister there, in Japan.
Speaker 1: It's true of all of them. Don't forget that in
Speaker 1: the great scheme of things. But time has a way
Speaker 1: of changing it around. We might actually I would bet
Speaker 1: money on it. We see that from Canada. I just
Speaker 1: don't have any loans Onmie. Isn't like the looney or something.
Speaker 1: Their money? All right, We'll betting sheruh, because at least
Speaker 1: that's delicious to Canada. Joke people, this is a tonic dout.
Speaker 2: The thing.
Speaker 3: When you hear Kelly Lefler rightfully talk about the rise
Speaker 3: of socialism, one of the things we believe in the
Speaker 3: Trump administration is that the way to defeat socialism it's
Speaker 3: not to throw slogans at people. It's not politician talk
Speaker 3: and repeating the same old thing. It's given people a
Speaker 3: real stake in the future. Now, thousand dollars may not
Speaker 3: sound like much, but you take one thousand dollars to
Speaker 3: a child born tomorrow in the United States of America,
Speaker 3: and you give that child eighteen years of compounding, eighteen
Speaker 3: years of interest accruede, eighteen years.
Speaker 2: Of investing in something.
Speaker 3: And that's how we make the next generation of Americans
Speaker 3: have a real stake in the next generation of the
Speaker 3: American economy.
Speaker 1: Now, I have nothing against compounding. I suggest you start
Speaker 1: investing now, ladies and gentlemen. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today.
Speaker 1: I am not your financial advisor. I'm not. We have
Speaker 1: the same last name, but I am not your financial advisor.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if people consider that joke funny anymore.
Speaker 1: I'm good with it. Haha, teh. Everyone calm down a little.
Speaker 1: But he's he's wrong in the presentation, which jd Vance
Speaker 1: drives me crazy, because jd Vance is wrong about in
Speaker 1: terms of it is not land, it is indeed an idea.
Speaker 1: He's wrong about that. He's wrong on foreign policy when
Speaker 1: we discuss where the threat is and how the threat
Speaker 1: must be dealt with the isolationism which he espouses without
Speaker 1: the utilizing that phraseology, I don't think is of value.
Speaker 1: Not being involved in everything is worthwhile. Thinking that you
Speaker 1: can't be involved in the people who want to be
Speaker 1: involved with you, that's just denial. And then this, the
Speaker 1: way to defeat socialism is not through slogans. It's by
Speaker 1: giving Americans a real stake in the future. It's explaining
Speaker 1: to them that they are their own future. So if
Speaker 1: you say to me you defeat socialism by the government
Speaker 1: giving every baby one thousand dollars so it could be invested.
Speaker 1: I don't think that swims as well as he does.
Speaker 1: That does not move the way he thinks it does.
Speaker 1: He's got the conceptually, He's right there, and.
Speaker 3: That's what you got to do if you want to
Speaker 3: fight socialism, give people a stake in the future. The
Speaker 3: Democrats are running a very corrupt game, which is they're
Speaker 3: trying to tear down this country, tear down our young people,
Speaker 3: tear down our military, and what's left over with the
Speaker 3: ashes of what they've torn down is socialism.
Speaker 2: Well, we've got a different approach, my friends. We want
Speaker 2: to invest in.
Speaker 3: You, we want to fight for you, and we want
Speaker 3: to fight.
Speaker 2: For your children's future.
Speaker 3: We're going to defeat socialism by giving you a stake
Speaker 3: in the American dream, and that's how we're going to.
Speaker 2: Win the future.
Speaker 1: Can I ask what stake they don't have right now?
Speaker 1: They want to live good lives, they want their kids
Speaker 1: to live good lives. I'm asking the question, where's how
Speaker 1: do they not have a steak? What is this approach
Speaker 1: from the Vice president, Because it sounds, oh, don't get
Speaker 1: angry with me, it sounds like it sounds a bit
Speaker 1: like the socialism. We're going to give you this stuff,
Speaker 1: and we're going to give you that stuff. We're gonna
Speaker 1: do this stuff for you. We're gonna do that stuff
Speaker 1: for you. That's what it sounds like. That's how it
Speaker 1: comes across. And let me say again, for the people
Speaker 1: in the cheap seats, do you know how talented JD.
Speaker 1: Mance's JD. Man's a stupid talented You want to hear
Speaker 1: a good line.
Speaker 3: And whenever I'm in Maine, I gotta give Susan a
Speaker 3: little bit of crap, because, as you know, Susan is
Speaker 3: the most independent member of the United States Senate, and
Speaker 3: as the President of the United States Senate, she sometimes
Speaker 3: makes my job just a.
Speaker 2: Little bit harder.
Speaker 3: But she makes it harder because she is coming to
Speaker 3: work every single day and fighting, not for a political
Speaker 3: party or not for any abstraction.
Speaker 2: She comes to work every single.
Speaker 3: Day and she fights for the great people of Maine.
Speaker 1: And that line is so good. That line is so
Speaker 1: good for the state of Maine. Why did she vote
Speaker 1: against Todd blanche for Attorney General? She voted against nomination
Speaker 1: because she needed to show the people of Maine, that
Speaker 1: she was independent of Trump. Everybody knows this. I assume
Speaker 1: that people of Maine know this. You know this. But
Speaker 1: that's exactly why it happened. She needed the out the
Speaker 1: vote Countador was already there. They already knew what they
Speaker 1: were gonna do about McConnell, and that's how Blanche got
Speaker 1: confirmed fifty to forty nine. Really, shame on the Democrats
Speaker 1: who in Toto didn't vote for him. They were wrong.
Speaker 1: And as for Lisa Murkowski, the Senator from Alaska, is
Speaker 1: always wrong. She doesn't fight for a political party, She
Speaker 1: fights for the great people of Maine. Come on awesome
Speaker 1: line and beautifully delivered. He is able and capable. When
Speaker 1: we get into policy, it just does not connect. His
Speaker 1: policies are not policies that one can consider having great value.
Speaker 1: Because if the answer is you don't want socialism, rather
Speaker 1: you want the United States government to give your kids
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars thousand dollars free healthcare, what's the difference. Honestly,
Speaker 1: what's the difference in the methodology. Now we're only talking
Speaker 1: about the amount. It's the methodology that's the issue. Right,
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you're willing to accept fifty bucks
Speaker 1: to sleep with someone, or fifty thousand dollars to sleep
Speaker 1: with someone, you're still a prostitute. Is that not an
Speaker 1: acceptable way to explain this? I think this is an
Speaker 1: acceptable way to explain this. Do I like the idea
Speaker 1: of being able to set up accounts where others can
Speaker 1: invest in our kids show? That's fine by me. So
Speaker 1: the Trump account concept is totally fine. As long as
Speaker 1: we are discussing where the money is coming from. It's
Speaker 1: not from US tax credits and things like that, Well
Speaker 1: that's completely fine because we're talking about not having to
Speaker 1: pay the government, you keeping your own money. Totally cool
Speaker 1: with that. So maybe that's what he means. Isn't how
Speaker 1: it came across across is we're going to give you
Speaker 1: money so you have a steak in America's future. And
Speaker 1: the problem with that is that they already have a
Speaker 1: steak in America's future. They're Americans. We have a steak.
Speaker 1: But I can tie this to President Trump on beef
Speaker 1: imports where he is feeling the heat, and I'm gonna say,
Speaker 1: for the record, I will get him on the show.
Speaker 1: Congressman Marlin Stutsman is out of Indiana. I know the congressman.
Speaker 1: He's not too far from where I work, and this
Speaker 1: is about labeling on products. So there's the idea. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if Thomas Massey had wanted this as well,
Speaker 1: because I've stopped paying attention to his anger, screaming, yelling, bigotry, silliness.
Speaker 1: But one thing I think we would all agree on,
Speaker 1: and as a matter of fact, if we didn't agree
Speaker 1: on it, I would take up very peculiar like regardless
Speaker 1: of party. Don't we want products that we buy to
Speaker 1: be labeled where they were made. That's a standard. I
Speaker 1: believe Amazon should have to do this in very large type,
Speaker 1: the kind of type your grandpa can read without glasses,
Speaker 1: Like very large type. It should be easy to understand
Speaker 1: where it comes from, because I think for a lot
Speaker 1: of us, maybe not all of us, that will determine
Speaker 1: whether or not we buy the product, and that information,
Speaker 1: the country of origin information, is hidden from us. So
Speaker 1: Stutsman is talking about this in regards to American beef,
Speaker 1: the beef story, I think I have it right now now,
Speaker 1: and I also have a theory. Tell me what you think.
Speaker 1: You can email me Tony at tonycats dot com anytime.
Speaker 1: Love to talk to you. President Trump wants to introduce
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand metric tons of ground beef into the
Speaker 1: US economy, not have any tariffs on that beef as
Speaker 1: a way of augmenting our supply and helping to bring
Speaker 1: down costs because beef is at an all time high.
Speaker 1: The reaction has been, what in the world are you
Speaker 1: doing a cattle ranchers, This is just a mess. Might
Speaker 1: be well intentioned, but it's going to exacerbate long term
Speaker 1: stock shortage in the cattle industry. Now, for those who
Speaker 1: may not know, we are at a low on cattle.
Speaker 1: The herd is as low as it's been since nineteen
Speaker 1: between nineteen fifty and nineteen fifty five. That's part of
Speaker 1: our problem. We have not replenished supply, replenishing the herd,
Speaker 1: and that takes time. Just like aging a bourbon. You
Speaker 1: can't rush that stuff. All the ai in the world
Speaker 1: can't rush a bourbon booboo. It's going to take it's
Speaker 1: two years, so it can be straight bourbon. It's gonna
Speaker 1: take it's four years, it's gonna take it eight years,
Speaker 1: or whatever it is you need. It's going to take
Speaker 1: time to do that. It's gonna take time to replenish
Speaker 1: the herd. Trump's philosophy is if we introduce the beef,
Speaker 1: we bring down the cost, and that's good for midterms.
Speaker 1: We also take the pressure off of the cattle rancher
Speaker 1: and allow them to allow the herd to grow. The
Speaker 1: President's argument is a legitimate argument. The problem is that
Speaker 1: that argument is countered by a multiplicity of people saying
Speaker 1: this is not the way to do it. The herd
Speaker 1: may need time, but while you're waiting for the herd
Speaker 1: to grow, you're telling the American cattle industry, the beef industry,
Speaker 1: screw you. Now, you're gonna get even less, even though
Speaker 1: you're already paid, saying more for everything it takes to
Speaker 1: raise the cattle. This brings us into another part of it,
Speaker 1: the regulatory environment around cattle. What is it that they're
Speaker 1: paying for. One of the places that's a massive problem
Speaker 1: the processing of beef. We have a problem with not
Speaker 1: enough USDA inspection plants, and those costs are outrageously high,
Speaker 1: which is leading to higher costs for us I'm not
Speaker 1: saying we should be sloppy with beef. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about bringing back the slaughterhouses of the thirties. I am
Speaker 1: saying we're making it too difficult. We also have, because
Speaker 1: of war in Ukraine, a very high price of fertilizer,
Speaker 1: which we've been dealing with for five years now. Farmers
Speaker 1: use fertilizer, there's feed, there's a whole host of things.
Speaker 1: So you have these things that are causing the higher costs.
Speaker 1: And now you're telling the American beef a world there
Speaker 1: that they're going to have to compete with. So I'm
Speaker 1: out of country source possibly Argentina, other places, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to sell it for less. Now we've
Speaker 1: got to be able to compete. And the next thing
Speaker 1: you know, they're making even less money on their beef
Speaker 1: of anything at all. That is where the pushback is.
Speaker 1: The President is making an argument, but the pushback argument,
Speaker 1: I argue, is the right one. And when we discussed
Speaker 1: this on Fridays this was just coming out. What I
Speaker 1: said was I'm not a fan of this after walking
Speaker 1: through it. And by the way, I could still be
Speaker 1: suaded by talking to more farmers, talking more ranchers. Email
Speaker 1: me tonyatonycats dot com. This is a mistake. This is
Speaker 1: not the route we should go. Now. Some people are saying, hey,
Speaker 1: it's just for ninety days. A lot of bad things
Speaker 1: can happen in ninety days, and as we all know,
Speaker 1: something that's ninety days could last longer. Because if I
Speaker 1: remember correctly, and tell me if I'm wrong, it was
Speaker 1: fifteen days to flatten the curve. I could hear your
Speaker 1: head shaking in agreement, like, oh yeah, so this is
Speaker 1: not a cut and dry issue. It's a worthy discussion point.
Speaker 1: I just believe that that the winner of this and
Speaker 1: the position I take is that we shouldn't be doing
Speaker 1: this importation. We do have to let the herd grow,
Speaker 1: and what can we do to help the herd grow?
Speaker 1: And one of the things I've been hearing from cattle
Speaker 1: anchers tax credit. We'll dig into that in the days ahead.
Speaker 1: Keep it here. This is Tony kats today, Freedom through
Speaker 1: fifty Washington, DC, Indy Car and it was exceptional that
Speaker 1: town lost their mind. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, an
Speaker 1: absolute pleasure to be with you guys. What's going down?
Speaker 1: What's with everybody? Here's the story. Indy Car decides they're
Speaker 1: going to bring a road race, the road course to DC.
Speaker 1: Trump wants to do it. They had actually tried to
Speaker 1: do it, and Congress wasn't interested, and then Trump said
Speaker 1: we should do this. The next thing you know, it's happening.
Speaker 1: DC gets behind this in a very very amazing way,
Speaker 1: including the Democrat mayor Muriel Bowser, who gave the command
Speaker 1: drivers to your cars. They set up a course. See
Speaker 1: I thought the course had the cars heading towards the Capitol. No,
Speaker 1: they wanted the visual of the Capitol and the background
Speaker 1: is the cars were coming towards you. Seven turns was
Speaker 1: at one point seven miles. I believe it was. It
Speaker 1: was outstanding. That town went crazy. They'd never seen anything
Speaker 1: like it before. And one of the things that they did.
Speaker 1: I was not expecting this. On Pennsylvania Avenue, where they
Speaker 1: had the big straightaway speeds of one hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: three miles an hour, people were able to get on
Speaker 1: balcon and rooftops, I would not have figured they would
Speaker 1: have allowed that at all. In DC, they got on
Speaker 1: rooftops to watch and they're sharing video. They're like, does
Speaker 1: anybody know how fast these cars go? Now, you guys
Speaker 1: know that I'm in Indianapolis. I get to do pre
Speaker 1: race coverage of the Indy five hundred. Every year I've
Speaker 1: done this for a decade. Until you've seen two hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty three miles an hour, you don't know nothing.
Speaker 1: And then they're like, oh my gosh, this same we
Speaker 1: know how loudness is. This is amazing, as everybody tells me,
Speaker 1: because I didn't live in Indiana at the time. If
Speaker 1: you heard Indie Car when they had Stug carburetors, that
Speaker 1: noise was heard across the state, the ground would rumble
Speaker 1: and it's loud. Now people are like, this are the
Speaker 1: coolest things ever. And the party was great, and there
Speaker 1: was a note to this, like a footnote. There were
Speaker 1: no protests, not a protest in DC. People just had
Speaker 1: a good time. Kle Kirkwood wins. He really did run
Speaker 1: the show. He has been great on road courses and
Speaker 1: now you've got a real fight for the IndyCar Championship,
Speaker 1: which is very, very cool because the spread is like
Speaker 1: ninety one points and that's an easy thing to overcome
Speaker 1: between Kirkwood and Alex Below. Is this going to happen again?
Speaker 1: That's a question. That's a question for IndyCar and no
Speaker 1: one else, because I mean, this is a real dollars
Speaker 1: and cents thing here. Costs a lot to do this.
Speaker 1: I got to assume DC wants it. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if IndyCar wants it every year, but could it happen again?
Speaker 1: My money's on yes. This is Tony Katz today