Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points.
Speaker 3: Ryan Grim, great to see you, my friends, great.
Speaker 4: To see you. I again will be channeling the Esteem
Speaker 4: Saga excellent, so I will be making sure that the
Speaker 4: populist right gets it's you know, it's full throated voice.
Speaker 2: Maybe not full throated, you could lay off the full
Speaker 2: throat it.
Speaker 4: I'll give it straw man version of Sager's art fair
Speaker 4: and then you can dismantle them.
Speaker 2: Actually, I think we are going to have the one
Speaker 2: and only Esteem Saga back next week.
Speaker 4: Indeed we will.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you want to have to wait much longer
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 2: When I say today it's a Jim Pack show, there
Speaker 2: are probably ten more things that we could have put
Speaker 2: into this show that.
Speaker 3: Got left on the what is it the cutting room floors?
Speaker 4: That the expression and let's talk about one of those
Speaker 4: real quick.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So Trump and Putin spoke yesterday about Ukraine's attack on
Speaker 4: Russia the drone. Trump then posted on truth Social and
Speaker 4: then deleted immediately, and then reposted again on truth Social
Speaker 4: basically his own readout of the conversation with Putin, and
Speaker 4: he said, Putin very angry. He's going to respond very strongly.
Speaker 4: And Trump was just saying it matter of factly, like this,
Speaker 4: like this is going to happen. And he also said
Speaker 4: that he enlisted Putin's help to get closer to an
Speaker 4: Iran deal. Now, the German Chancellor is coming here today
Speaker 4: and he's having a Trump's having a call with she tomorrow.
Speaker 4: And the Wall Street Journal this week said that people
Speaker 4: need to start referring to this period no longer as
Speaker 4: the post war period, but as now the pre war period. True,
Speaker 4: which is an awfully scary thing to hear from the
Speaker 4: Wall Street Journal, and they say it aspirationally, like they
Speaker 4: want this to be the the pre war period, not
Speaker 4: understanding that the greatest destructions of wealth in like human
Speaker 4: history were World War One and World War two. Like
Speaker 4: what Wall Street Journal readers like, you're not going to
Speaker 4: like a few of you will do well, most of
Speaker 4: you will lose your shirts, some of you will lose
Speaker 4: your lives. Yeah, So anyway, we're getting very close to
Speaker 4: a very dark time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think many people feel that and didn't.
Speaker 2: I also see Trump said something like the drones swarm attack.
Speaker 2: He thought it was badass, something like.
Speaker 4: That, Yes, which is kind of anyway Trump, Yes, it's
Speaker 4: like and maybe he hopes.
Speaker 3: Ad nuclear war. Yeah, that's badass.
Speaker 4: It feels great. Yeah, it's going to be a badass
Speaker 4: world War three.
Speaker 2: So anyway, that didn't make it into the show. But
Speaker 2: we've got a new travel band from Trump as well.
Speaker 2: Some other immigration news in terms of court decisions, we've
Speaker 2: got new jobs numbers that came in quite We've got
Speaker 2: new Elon Musk foulout. Bebe's coalition appears to be collapsing.
Speaker 2: Democrats are studying men. My friend Torri is going to
Speaker 2: join both to talk about Yeah, that's right, I'll just
Speaker 2: sit back and let you gentlemen tell me what I
Speaker 2: need to know. But we are going to let Joy
Speaker 2: beharway on that. On that one is she has some
Speaker 2: great ideas, she has thoughts. Tory is also going to
Speaker 2: give us a diddy trial round up because he's been
Speaker 2: following closely and posting a bunch of tiktoks about it.
Speaker 3: He blew up on TikTok.
Speaker 2: He's doing so well there and also actually has a
Speaker 2: new show as well that he is involved with.
Speaker 3: And then we had big news last night.
Speaker 2: First of all, there's a debate in the New York
Speaker 2: City Mayor's race, which has many very interesting moments that
Speaker 2: I think you guys will be interested in. But then
Speaker 2: when I woke up this morning, we got the news
Speaker 2: that AOC did decide to jump in and endorse Zoron Mundani,
Speaker 2: who is, as you guys probably know, the Democratic Socialist
Speaker 2: challenger to front runner Andrew Cuomo. There's a bunch of
Speaker 2: other people in this race too, but really it comes
Speaker 2: down to is it going to be Cuomo or is
Speaker 2: it going to be Mom.
Speaker 4: Donnie At the end of the day two dog haunt
Speaker 4: at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's some yeah, well, we'll get to it, but
Speaker 2: let's go ahead and start. We don't even have this
Speaker 2: on the board yet because we've b added this in
Speaker 2: yesterday evening as well, but wanted to make sure to
Speaker 2: make mention of the fact Trump did announce a new
Speaker 2: travel ban. He put out a video explaining his thinking
Speaker 2: here and why he's imposing this. Now, let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and take a listen to that.
Speaker 5: The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the
Speaker 5: extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of
Speaker 5: foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as
Speaker 5: those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their
Speaker 5: visas we don't want them. In the twenty first century,
Speaker 5: we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by
Speaker 5: foreign visa overstairs from dangerous places all over the world,
Speaker 5: and thanks to Biden's open door policies, today there are
Speaker 5: millions and millions of these illegals who should not be
Speaker 5: in our country. In my first term, my powerful travel
Speaker 5: restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they
Speaker 5: were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks
Speaker 5: on American soil. We will not let what happened in
Speaker 5: Europe happen to America. That's why on my first day
Speaker 5: back in office, I directed the Secretary of State to
Speaker 5: perform a security review of high risk regions and make
Speaker 5: recommendations for where restrictions should be imposed. Among the national
Speaker 5: security threats their analysis considered are the large scale presence
Speaker 5: of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to
Speaker 5: verify travelers' identities, inadequate record keeping of criminal histories, and
Speaker 5: persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays, and other things.
Speaker 5: Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country
Speaker 5: where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screened those
Speaker 5: who seek to enter the United States.
Speaker 4: And this is an example of Trump two being prepared
Speaker 4: in a way that Trump one wasn't. Because Trump one,
Speaker 4: they do the Muslim ban right out of the gate.
Speaker 4: It's ridiculous, it gets thrown out in court. Can't do
Speaker 4: you can't do a Muslim.
Speaker 1: Ban, right.
Speaker 4: So then they look through over the next eight years,
Speaker 4: looked and they sort of tried a version of it
Speaker 4: in Trump won. But they looked through the bregs and
Speaker 4: the laws and they're like, oh wait, so a president
Speaker 4: can say that restriction from a particular country is restricted
Speaker 4: if we say it's not because we're bigoted against Muslims,
Speaker 4: but because of reasons. Right, So on day one he said,
Speaker 4: State Department go find reasons for a variety of countries,
Speaker 4: and noticeably they throw in a few non Muslim majority
Speaker 4: countries so that you can't say that it's a Muslim ban.
Speaker 2: Yeah, put them two up on the screen. This has
Speaker 2: the list of a dozen I think countries that they
Speaker 2: have picked.
Speaker 4: Here, Afghanistan, Burmachad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Era A Haiti, Iron, Libyas,
Speaker 4: and Maya su Dan Yemen. None of this is funny,
Speaker 4: but I did see one good joke. It's man Equatorial
Speaker 4: Guinea must have crossed the line. Okay, that's kind of bad,
Speaker 4: but also.
Speaker 3: Kind of good ultimate dad joke there again.
Speaker 4: Yeah, again not funny. And then there's another seven similar
Speaker 4: ish countries that are you know, getting restrictions but not
Speaker 4: a total ban. So yeah, this is uh just slapdash
Speaker 4: across the board, but designed to stand up in court.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And this was the thing is, it's not like they
Speaker 2: needed much justification last time around. You just can't, you know,
Speaker 2: like outright be like we are racist and discriminating against Muslims, right,
Speaker 2: you had to give some fig leaf, and then yes,
Speaker 2: the executive does have a you know a significant amount
Speaker 2: of discretion. So I still expect this will face court challenges,
Speaker 2: and you know, I don't want to like predict ultimately
Speaker 2: where that goes, but it has a much more higher
Speaker 2: likelihood of standing up in court than it did the
Speaker 2: first time around. And the other thing people are raising
Speaker 2: Ryan is like, we have a World Cup coming here,
Speaker 2: and like there's exemptions in here for players from these countries,
Speaker 2: but not from fans for fans from these countries. So
Speaker 2: this has really obviously significant impact. Not to mention being
Speaker 2: sort of overtly discriminatory and throw back to Trump one
Speaker 2: point zero. The other thing that's worth mentioning is he
Speaker 2: name checks there the Egyptian national who committed that terror
Speaker 2: attack in Boulder, Colorado as justification.
Speaker 3: I mean, Egypt isn't on this listy, but.
Speaker 4: You know he's using this as is too important of
Speaker 4: an ally to do this.
Speaker 2: Exactly, Yeah, but he's using this as a pretext to say,
Speaker 2: oh see, you know this is the justification creating.
Speaker 4: A wrack because al Qaeda in Afghanistan attacked this exactly.
Speaker 2: Yes, similar to that exactly. So in any case, I
Speaker 2: don't think that that was the reason that he did this.
Speaker 2: I think it, you know, was something that he used
Speaker 2: to make the rhetorical case. But to your point, Ryan,
Speaker 2: it looks like they've been working on this effectively from
Speaker 2: day one to try to do this in a way
Speaker 2: that may actually stand up in court. There was one
Speaker 2: other piece of immigration news here that is quite significant
Speaker 2: we wanted to get in the show.
Speaker 3: Can put M four up on the screen that.
Speaker 2: Federal Court Judge Boseburg here in DC issued ruling saying, Hey,
Speaker 2: those people that you just swept up and sent to
Speaker 2: El Salvador to Seacott, to brought in a concentration camp
Speaker 2: for life with zero due process, you got to figure
Speaker 2: out some way for them to be able to challenge
Speaker 2: their removals. So, you know, obviously the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: done everything they can to defy the courts, especially when
Speaker 2: it comes to the migrants who were sent to Seacott.
Speaker 2: So I don't expect anything imminent in terms of a
Speaker 2: process that will enable these men who were you know,
Speaker 2: sentenced to life and a gulog with no due process
Speaker 2: to be able.
Speaker 3: To challenge their detention there.
Speaker 2: But this will you begin a process that will play
Speaker 2: out through the courts and we'll see where it goes
Speaker 2: from here.
Speaker 4: Ryan, Yes, indeed, we have a programming note. We mentioned
Speaker 4: this yesterday and the day before. For this month, we
Speaker 4: are we're bringing back the monthly, so ten dollars a
Speaker 4: month premium subscriptions to Brkingpoints that we used to have those,
Speaker 4: then it switched to just annual. But you know, sometimes
Speaker 4: it's tough to plunk down a whole hundred dollars, So
Speaker 4: this is if you want to be a premium subscriber,
Speaker 4: but you don't want to lay all that out all
Speaker 4: at once, you can just do the monthly. And also,
Speaker 4: in order to coax you in there, here's a free month.
Speaker 4: So you go to Brekingpoints dot com and put the
Speaker 4: promo code BP free. That is just for people watching this.
Speaker 4: Do not share this with anybody. This is just this
Speaker 4: is just between us, and you tell your friends and family, Yeah,
Speaker 4: tell anybody, Don't tell anybody else other than that.
Speaker 2: Yes, only the best people are allowed to avail themselves
Speaker 2: of this offer. And you made a great point yesterday Ryan,
Speaker 2: when we were talking about this have you noticed that
Speaker 2: we don't subject to you to obnoxious ad reads where
Speaker 2: we try to you know, hawk like a case only
Speaker 2: disturbing products to you exactly. The reason is because of
Speaker 2: you guys supporting us. And by the way, there's been
Speaker 2: a big response to this promotion, so thank you guys
Speaker 2: so much to those of you who have signed up.
Speaker 4: And if we don't have a huge response, then we
Speaker 4: will start reading ads. That is a that is not
Speaker 4: a threat, that is a promise, and I will be
Speaker 4: on air reading hymns ads and it won't be the
Speaker 4: hair loss ones. So if you don't want to subject
Speaker 4: yourself to that, Breakingpoints dot com the promo code is beef.
Speaker 3: Some people might be into that, Ryan, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Some people might be canceling right now. I don't want
Speaker 4: to do I actually wouldn't do.
Speaker 2: That, So don't there's some hardcore grim heads on there.
Speaker 2: You never know, you never know what they might be into.
Speaker 2: All right, let's move on from this some big news
Speaker 2: with regard to the economy. An interesting exchange between a
Speaker 2: Republican senator and Howard Lutnik asking about Hey, okay, so
Speaker 2: what does Vietnam? As one example, actually need to do
Speaker 2: to be able to come to some sort of a
Speaker 2: beneficial trade deal with this administration. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: take a listen to this exchange.
Speaker 6: If Vietnam, for example, came to you tomorrow and said, okay,
Speaker 6: mister Secretary, you win. We're going to remove all tariffs
Speaker 6: and all trade barriers. Would the United States please do
Speaker 6: the same? Would you accept that deal? Absolutely not? Absolutely not.
Speaker 6: That would be the silliest thing we could do. Why
Speaker 6: is that Vietnam has a one hundred.
Speaker 7: And twenty five billion dollars exports to US and imports
Speaker 7: from US twelve and a half million dollars. And you're
Speaker 7: thinking Vietnam exports one hundred and twenty five billion.
Speaker 6: I'm aware of the figures, but tell me where do
Speaker 6: they get it from?
Speaker 7: The buy ninety billion from China? Then they mark it
Speaker 7: up and send it to us, So it was just
Speaker 7: a patent way of.
Speaker 5: China to us.
Speaker 6: You wouldn't accept that deal.
Speaker 4: No, it's terrible.
Speaker 7: We're the one with money, We're the one with the store.
Speaker 6: What's the purpose of reciprocity then? Is reciprocity not one
Speaker 6: of your goals? Are you telling the President that we
Speaker 6: shouldn't seek reciprocity. If that's what you're telling them, why
Speaker 6: are you trying to do these trade deals? So you
Speaker 6: are you are you not seeking reciprocity in these trade deals?
Speaker 7: We are thinking, we are absolutely seeking reciprocity with respective
Speaker 7: things that can be recipable for China and sending.
Speaker 6: I said that if a country came to you and
Speaker 6: offered you the ultimate reciprocity, no tariffs, no trade barriers
Speaker 6: in return for us doing the same, you would reject.
Speaker 7: That, of course, because they buy from China and send
Speaker 7: it to us.
Speaker 4: Don't you agree with those They said, we won't buy
Speaker 4: from China.
Speaker 2: Now we're talking, and there's actually a lot to say
Speaker 2: about this with regard to Vietnam specifically, what he's referring
Speaker 2: to there is the issue of what they call it transhipping,
Speaker 2: where it's like, okay, well we've got terrors on China,
Speaker 2: but maybe some companies will just ship their goods from China.
Speaker 2: This is illegal, by the way, but it still happens.
Speaker 2: We'll ship their goods from China to Vietnam to avoid
Speaker 2: the tariff. There has been also an effort in subsequent
Speaker 2: US administrations to actually try to relocate manufacturing from China
Speaker 2: to Vietnam, you know, to sort of since we have
Speaker 2: a close relationship with them, friendly relationship with them at
Speaker 2: this point. But it's this is exactly the problem and
Speaker 2: why they have zero trade deals effectively at this point
Speaker 2: is because if you say to a country, like even
Speaker 2: if you lower your tariff barrier to zero, that is
Speaker 2: still a terrible deal that we won't take, like what.
Speaker 4: Can you do? Right? And to Channel Sager and also
Speaker 4: like Matt Stoller here, they would point out that the
Speaker 4: Commerce Department, even under Biden, did an investigation into this
Speaker 4: was in particular with the renewable energy clean energy industry
Speaker 4: that China was basically shipping a whole bunch of stuff,
Speaker 4: producing the things in China, moving them to Vietnam and
Speaker 4: then getting around kind of bans on yeah, monopoly.
Speaker 2: Because there's also another thing you can do to try
Speaker 2: to skirt the rules is you you know, have it
Speaker 2: all but assembled and then ship it to Vietnam and
Speaker 2: then there's just you know, building where they just sort
Speaker 2: of put the pieces together and then claim, okay, this
Speaker 2: is made in Vietnam instead of China.
Speaker 4: Right, And so he says, hey, look if and what
Speaker 4: if they say they won't take the stuff from China anymore.
Speaker 4: He says, now now we're talking. But again, the problem
Speaker 4: here is that they're talking as if this trade war
Speaker 4: is still going on as a strategic thing that may
Speaker 4: result in some useful outcome for the United States, when
Speaker 4: it seems like the world has decided that we don't
Speaker 4: have cards, that Trump just kind of popped off with
Speaker 4: these tariffs and is going to have to climb down,
Speaker 4: and so they're just kind of waiting them out. And
Speaker 4: then after that maybe they're making the time to be
Speaker 4: able to sit down and create some you know, new
Speaker 4: global trade regime that we're all satisfied with. But this,
Speaker 4: this is not getting us there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and of course significant that it's a Republican senator
Speaker 2: who was going that aggressive at a Trump administration official
Speaker 2: is rather noteworthy. Had some really bad jobs numbers yesterday
Speaker 2: that came out in the ADP Private Payrolls report.
Speaker 3: This isn't the big one that gets the most attention,
Speaker 3: but also, you know.
Speaker 2: Significant, it was Friday, The big boy is Friday, and
Speaker 2: oftentimes you know, this one sort of front runs. Now
Speaker 2: sometimes they're totally disconnected and they show different numbers, but
Speaker 2: sometimes this is also indicative of what we could expect
Speaker 2: on Friday, So put this up on the screen. Wanted
Speaker 2: to make sure to highlight this. Private sector hiring rose
Speaker 2: by just thirty seven thousand in May, so I mean
Speaker 2: nearly flat. The expectation was that it would be one
Speaker 2: hundred and ten thousand. That was the forecast, and it
Speaker 2: is below the previous jobs report number in April, which
Speaker 2: was revised down to sixty thousand. And in particular noteworthy
Speaker 2: here Ryan that one of the industries that actually lost
Speaker 2: jobs was manufacturing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I have that here. Goods per ducing industries down
Speaker 4: two thousand jobs, manufacturing down three thousand, natural resources and
Speaker 4: mining down five thousand. If the tariffs were creating investment
Speaker 4: here in the United States to produce goods here, to
Speaker 4: min our own natural resources, and to manufacture, you would
Speaker 4: not see the numbers going down. We were not prepared
Speaker 4: to go into this trade war, which is incredible because
Speaker 4: it's not as if anybody sprung this on us like
Speaker 4: this was. We chose the time and the place right
Speaker 4: trade war, but had nothing.
Speaker 3: To cut ourselves unawares.
Speaker 4: We caught ourselves unawares. We had nothing ready for this. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and China's like, hey, all those things you need for
Speaker 4: your manufacturing industry, we're also going to restrict those. And
Speaker 4: We're like, that's deeply unfair. How could you do that
Speaker 4: to us? How rude?
Speaker 3: Incredible?
Speaker 4: This is utterly outrageous, incredible.
Speaker 2: And actually, let's go ahead and put the next piece
Speaker 2: up on the screen because this is in This is
Speaker 2: a CBO estimate which I don't even know how you
Speaker 2: estimate the impact of these tariffs, and too the held.
Speaker 4: Right, this assumes that they're going to what they're going
Speaker 4: to be right.
Speaker 2: But anyway, the Congressional Budget Office, which we're going to
Speaker 2: talk more about in the big beautiful bill block, they
Speaker 2: did an analysis and they got, Okay, if we left
Speaker 2: this in place, because of the tariff revenue, you would
Speaker 2: see a reduction in the federal deficit by two point
Speaker 2: eight trillion dollars over ten years. But the double edged
Speaker 2: sword of that is, on the other hand, they say,
Speaker 2: real economic output will fall on net, meaning that you're
Speaker 2: going to have a smaller economy, And if you are
Speaker 2: collecting a high level of tariff revenue, that means ryan
Speaker 2: you have not actually been successful at reshoring those industries.
Speaker 2: So this is why we talk about when you know,
Speaker 2: when Trump talks about two goals, one is restoring manufacturer
Speaker 2: reindustrializing the country, the other being getting a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of tariff revenue in those two things are.
Speaker 3: Actually at odds. The more that you reshore production, the
Speaker 3: lower the tariff.
Speaker 2: Revenue is ultimately going to because obviously you'd be buying
Speaker 2: those goods domestically rather than importing them from abroad.
Speaker 4: And the zero point four percentage point inflation over each
Speaker 4: of the next two years that the CBO includes in
Speaker 4: that analysis is quite significant. Like if your target for
Speaker 4: inflation annually is two percent, you know that's that's twenty
Speaker 4: percent higher than your target, just just for that. And again,
Speaker 4: this assumes that they stay flat or that the policy
Speaker 4: doesn't change, which the policy has changed. I can't even
Speaker 4: count the number of times just since Liberation Day.
Speaker 2: So there's already been policy of vacillation before Liberation Day.
Speaker 4: So it doesn't make any sense to think that they
Speaker 4: would they'll stay this way for ten years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially when you consider another administration. I mean, all
Speaker 2: of it is incredibly uncertain. It's almost worthless to do
Speaker 2: an analysis. But anyway, that's what they're saying. If you
Speaker 2: left the tariffs in place. A couple of things we
Speaker 2: want to highlight here in terms of fallout already, you know,
Speaker 2: early indications of where things could be heading. This interesting
Speaker 2: put a four up on the screen. So the Trump
Speaker 2: officials delayed this report on farm trade.
Speaker 3: Because they didn't like what it said.
Speaker 2: Effectively, the report indicated that the trade deficit in farm
Speaker 2: goods had actually increased, and Republicans had made a bunch
Speaker 2: of hay over a increase in the farm trade deficit
Speaker 2: during the Biden administration. So rather than just you know,
Speaker 2: going ahead of schedule, putting out the report on time,
Speaker 2: or revealing these numbers that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for
Speaker 2: the Trump administration policy, they just pushed the report off.
Speaker 2: And then some of the numbers they're just like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're just not going to put that part out.
Speaker 4: And the written analysis they haven't put out yet and
Speaker 4: they're not even sure if they're going to. Now the
Speaker 4: analysts are saying that the redacted version does match the
Speaker 4: original version, so like they didn't actually and in the
Speaker 4: end monkey with the numbers. But this goes to what
Speaker 4: Trump keeps doing, which is cutting off at the knees.
Speaker 4: The real US advantages that we have globally, and I
Speaker 4: I agree with Trump that we need to you know,
Speaker 4: rearrange our economic relationships and that and that the way
Speaker 4: the global trade is set up is damaging to everybody
Speaker 4: and should be rethought. But if you're going to rethink it,
Speaker 4: you have to you have to build on what you
Speaker 4: have and then you go from there to transform into
Speaker 4: something better. What he's doing without building something better, he's
Speaker 4: wiping out what we do have and that and one
Speaker 4: of the things, you know, going after all the universities
Speaker 4: is one. Making it impossible to build a manufacturing base
Speaker 4: is another. But what this does is it goes right
Speaker 4: to the heart of our hub as the financial services
Speaker 4: sector for the global economy. Like people and this is
Speaker 4: crazy to think people trust American banks, right and people
Speaker 4: trust American financial analysts. We don't. We have all sorts
Speaker 4: of you know, macro corruption, but on a micro level,
Speaker 4: people trust that if you give your money to JP
Speaker 4: Morgan Chase, you know, you give you give your money
Speaker 4: to Bank of America, you get a loan from them,
Speaker 4: Your your your pension is whatever it is, like, it's
Speaker 4: going to stay there. It's going to be there, and
Speaker 4: it's going to be and the terms are going the
Speaker 4: the activity is going to match the terms that you're offered,
Speaker 4: and so on. Part that that that trust is very
Speaker 4: hard to win back, and part of the trust comes
Speaker 4: from the government data being considered reliable by everybody across
Speaker 4: the board. And you're already seeing I think we're talking
Speaker 4: about this in a second. People questioning the BLS data
Speaker 4: because the Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that there's
Speaker 4: this hiring freeze. They had to do a bunch of
Speaker 4: layoffs and so they couldn't do the same analysis that
Speaker 4: they could do before. They're like, we're not We're not
Speaker 4: sure about these numbers. And what's so scary now? The
Speaker 4: commodities traders have waiting for this report. This is like
Speaker 4: every quarter this report comes out, people trade. It's a
Speaker 4: big event. For it not to be there, and then
Speaker 4: for people to be whispering, are they are they mess
Speaker 4: with the numbers?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 4: Then you might as well be investing in China. That's
Speaker 4: China's big problem is people don't trust the stock market.
Speaker 4: People don't trust the numbers coming out of the companies
Speaker 4: or the government. They think they're fudging the GDP raid
Speaker 4: all this stuff sometimes they are sometimes y'or not, but
Speaker 4: that just the trust isn't there. We have the trust
Speaker 4: and we're just gonna, uh just let it drain right out.
Speaker 2: There was discussion early on in this administration too. I
Speaker 2: can't remember if it was Lutnik or bussn't, but I
Speaker 2: covered it at the time of changing the way GDP
Speaker 2: is calculated, because they you know, this was at the
Speaker 2: height of DOGE and the chainsaw and all this stuff,
Speaker 2: and they're like, government activities shouldn't count in GDP, right,
Speaker 2: which is like so silly if you actually think it through.
Speaker 3: Not to mention there actually already is a metric that I.
Speaker 2: Can't remember it's called, but it is a measure GDP
Speaker 2: without the you know, government and public sector spending. So
Speaker 2: if you want that metric, it already exists. They just
Speaker 2: didn't like the potential consequences of what they were doing
Speaker 2: with DOGE on what it could mean with GDP, and
Speaker 2: so they're you know, at that point, there were a
Speaker 2: bunch of you know, a bunch of experts and analysts
Speaker 2: who raise red flags about them potentially monking with that
Speaker 2: data behind the scenes or you know, trying to fudge
Speaker 2: the number. So that they are beneficial, and I mean,
Speaker 2: could you put that passes I measure?
Speaker 3: Of course you couldn't, Right, of course you couldn't. Like
Speaker 3: they will lie to you straight to your face. Every day.
Speaker 2: You will be confronted with directly contradictory, like definitive proof
Speaker 2: that what they're saying is blatant, complete lies, and it
Speaker 2: does not move them at all.
Speaker 4: The Carolin Levitt saying that the bill actually decreases the.
Speaker 2: Depth exactly, and yeah, yeah, and you're supposed to trust
Speaker 2: that they're not going to like monkey with the GDP
Speaker 2: or the jobs or the farm trade numbers.
Speaker 3: Like of course people are going to be like, I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, if something that looked kind of bad was
Speaker 2: set to come out, I could definitely see them just
Speaker 2: kind of let's round it this way, let's round it
Speaker 2: that way, let's push it off, let's just not let
Speaker 2: these numbers get down to the public.
Speaker 4: And the other the advantage China does have is that
Speaker 4: when their government wants to do things, you know, they
Speaker 4: are broadly in strategic control of their of the direction
Speaker 4: that they're going to take, and the companies have to
Speaker 4: then feed off of that and follow along. Here not
Speaker 4: the case, so you can put up this next element
Speaker 4: axios reporting same thing we saw in the Biden administration
Speaker 4: during COVID, but now and supply chains. But now this
Speaker 4: time companies maybe using the new tariffs as an excuse
Speaker 4: to raise prices across the board. Uh again, So we
Speaker 4: saw this during COVID. You started seeing inflation kick in,
Speaker 4: and all of these companies who had who have market
Speaker 4: power in other words, you can't go somewhere else to
Speaker 4: get the thing, started raising their prices and blaming COVID
Speaker 4: or blaming supply chains. And then when you looked into it,
Speaker 4: oh wow, their profits are way up, and their profits
Speaker 4: are you know, significantly up over you know what the
Speaker 4: input costs are. And so what they what they did
Speaker 4: here with this report is they looked at companies that
Speaker 4: do not have tariff related implications right, and saw significant
Speaker 4: increases there as well.
Speaker 2: Well some of them admitt So you have a heavy
Speaker 2: construction equipment supplier told the New York Fed they were
Speaker 2: raising prices on goods unaffected by tariffs, quote to enjoy
Speaker 2: the extra margin before teriffs did increase their costs.
Speaker 3: I thought it.
Speaker 4: Extra margins are very enjoyable.
Speaker 2: Of course, I'd like to enjoy those extra margins. What
Speaker 2: company wouldn't want to enjoy those extra margins. Some of
Speaker 2: what is being done is somewhat justifiable because rather than
Speaker 2: putting the entire cost of one tariff on one good,
Speaker 2: they're like spreading it across. But there's a a I
Speaker 2: didn't really I just learned this recently. There's an industry
Speaker 2: term called taking price, which effectively is when.
Speaker 3: Your competitor or when you have the opportunity.
Speaker 2: To raise prices and you have some sort of an
Speaker 2: excuse you're going to do it. You're going to take price.
Speaker 2: And we also know from the COVID shocks that once
Speaker 2: those prices go up, guess what they're not rushing to
Speaker 2: even after if they had real cost increases.
Speaker 3: Once those costs go back down, your prices do not
Speaker 3: go back down.
Speaker 4: You're going to give up price.
Speaker 3: Now, once you've taken that price, you're not going to
Speaker 3: give up that price.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, And so meanwhile Trump is finding that, yeah,
Speaker 4: things with Negotia with China not as easy as he
Speaker 4: thought it was going to be. He's talking to she tomorrow.
Speaker 4: He's been pining for this, and put this next element
Speaker 4: from The New York Times up on the screen. He's
Speaker 4: been pining for this call for a very long time.
Speaker 4: Crazy headline the Times, Trump bemoans how quote hard it
Speaker 4: is to strike a China deal with with hard and
Speaker 4: yes it does. It's like New York Times. He's on
Speaker 4: YouTube now, all caps H g R D there and
Speaker 4: so it looks at this true social where Trump said,
Speaker 4: I like President She of China, always have and always will.
Speaker 4: But he is and this is all caps very tough
Speaker 4: and extremely hard to make a deal with three exclamation
Speaker 4: points with the time staying. Politico had reported that Trump
Speaker 4: has grown quote obsessed with holding a call with She,
Speaker 4: but as they report, she is showing no interest in
Speaker 4: making a deal because he doesn't have to. He yes,
Speaker 4: China like needs the United States as a market, but
Speaker 4: we need China more. That is that is very clearly
Speaker 4: the sense, and they note that, you know, Bloomberg reported
Speaker 4: that China is now talking to Airbus about buying a
Speaker 4: whole bunch of planes from there. Like, China's doing everything
Speaker 4: it can to to try to reduce its dependency on
Speaker 4: either American exports. Like the last time he tried this,
Speaker 4: China was like, let's stop buying so many soybeans. From
Speaker 4: the US and went to Brazil, and now they have
Speaker 4: this locked in relationship with Brazil, which is leading to
Speaker 4: enormous amounts of rainforest getting getting whacked and and it
Speaker 4: has also like very much hurt Iowa and other soybean
Speaker 4: producing parts of the country because it just it just
Speaker 4: never came back. So they're they're figuring out, how can
Speaker 4: we find how can we find other markets for our goods,
Speaker 4: and also how can we find other places where we
Speaker 4: can buy what we need.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this way we're adjustments that they made prior
Speaker 2: to this trade war. So unlike US, they've.
Speaker 4: Been thinking, they've been thinking about it. We haven't.
Speaker 2: And their largest trading partner is no longer the US
Speaker 2: if you count the Ossion countries as a block, that
Speaker 2: actually is their largest trading partner now. And our share
Speaker 2: and we're still a gigantic customer, is still very important
Speaker 2: to them. I don't want to diminish it, but our
Speaker 2: share of their exports has you know, significantly declined over
Speaker 2: the years, so it's not the same dynamic that it
Speaker 2: was even five years ago.
Speaker 4: And we talked about this briefly yesterday, but the hardline
Speaker 4: kind of anti China president in Korea, you know, try
Speaker 4: to do a self coup to like get more power.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Lost. Six months later, the election comes around and the
Speaker 4: more pro China center left candidate wins, the more pro
Speaker 4: US anti China conservative candidate loses, and so that area
Speaker 4: of the world, their area of the world, you know,
Speaker 4: gets more friendly to them. Yeah. Again, everything Trump is
Speaker 4: doing a systematically turning the world against us.
Speaker 2: Well, and check this next one out in terms of
Speaker 2: unintended consequences and the policy having exactly the opposite impact
Speaker 2: of what this administration has claimed to be their goals.
Speaker 3: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: A number of US automakers now are considering moving some
Speaker 2: of their auto parks manufacturing to China.
Speaker 3: Why because China's put into.
Speaker 2: Place very predictably, these rare earth magnet export controls. They
Speaker 2: are absolutely necessary for the completion of you know, of automobiles.
Speaker 2: And so you have several both evy and traditional automakers
Speaker 2: who are like, maybe we got to do part of
Speaker 2: this in China. And maybe, by the way, long term,
Speaker 2: maybe if the teriff regime stays in place, yes we
Speaker 2: manufacture you know cars here for the domestic US market,
Speaker 2: but for the rest of the world, maybe we relocate
Speaker 2: some of this into China. So and again, this is
Speaker 2: incredibly predictable. I think anyone with a baseline knowledge of
Speaker 2: the way China has been operating around the world to
Speaker 2: try to shore up these supply lines and how far
Speaker 2: behind we are in terms of that race to secure
Speaker 2: those those minerals, those materials, could have predicted that this
Speaker 2: would be one of the ways that they would retaliate
Speaker 2: against US. And the automakers purportedly we're going to Trump
Speaker 2: and saying, hey, we're going to be in trouble, like
Speaker 2: really soon if we don't get this thing figured out right.
Speaker 4: It feels like we have a few years. And this
Speaker 4: is setting aside whether or not some massive war breaks out.
Speaker 4: It feels like we have a couple of years where
Speaker 4: we can reach some kind of daytunt with China and
Speaker 4: do a China. Everybody thinks China's like trying it here
Speaker 4: in the US thinks they want to rule the world
Speaker 4: or something. I don't think that's quite accurate. If we
Speaker 4: proposed a G two, basically, all right, it's a huge world.
Speaker 4: You're all the way over there, we're all the way
Speaker 4: over here. We're going to do a G two we're
Speaker 4: gonna we're going to share the world. We're going to
Speaker 4: cooperate where we can. We're not going to be in
Speaker 4: a direct conflict. We'll compete, but we'll compete like you know, Uh,
Speaker 4: we'll compete fairly and uh, A rising tide lifts all boats. Otherwise,
Speaker 4: a US that doesn't have it, doesn't have some sort
Speaker 4: of you know, soft power projection is basically Brazil. Like
Speaker 4: that's what we'll that's that's will be long term. Very
Speaker 4: a lot of similarities geovographically and resource and demographically and
Speaker 4: historically between US and Brazil. But we became much more
Speaker 4: of a global power. They didn't. So they've got they
Speaker 4: have the same amount of kind of runaway inequality, but
Speaker 4: they don't have as much wealth. So they've got favelas
Speaker 4: whereas we have. You know, you'd much rather live in
Speaker 4: our favelas than theirs. Yeah, but that's where we're headed
Speaker 4: if we don't reach some kind of daytime, is my take.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a world in which that each administration is
Speaker 2: rushing towards which is just zero sum and based on
Speaker 2: hard military conflict. I mean, they're you know, getting rid
Speaker 2: of all the soft power and obviously the bill and
Speaker 2: this is a good transition to the beautiful bill increases
Speaker 2: are hard military power like that seems to be the
Speaker 2: only type of power that they're interested in. There's a
Speaker 2: world that's zero sum, where we are directly at odds
Speaker 2: in a way that is both dangerous and also you know,
Speaker 2: economically terrible for us. And there's a world in which
Speaker 2: we you know, care about mutual cooperation, coexistence. And I
Speaker 2: would say that world has never been more more important,
Speaker 2: given the fact that many of the challenges that face
Speaker 2: the globe are truly, truly are global existential challenges and
Speaker 2: which you will need to work with China and other
Speaker 2: countries around the world. And you know, instead they have
Speaker 2: this sort of like bunker prepper mentality something Naomi Klin's
Speaker 2: been talking about. Just take the proper mentality and extrapolate
Speaker 2: it out to a national basis. That's effectively the mentality
Speaker 2: they right and on.
Speaker 4: The on the hard war side, and which we should
Speaker 4: do a segment on this, get somebody on maybe in
Speaker 4: mas My colleague Mas Hussein has been studying this a lot.
Speaker 4: It's not obvious that we would win, Like we have
Speaker 4: a corrupt, backwards Western kind of military industrial complex.
Speaker 3: And when is the last time one of our military
Speaker 3: adventures went well?
Speaker 4: And here's some bad news in India Pakistan. The US
Speaker 4: asked Pakistan not to use airplanes that we had provided
Speaker 4: to them because you know, for geopolitical reasons, you don't
Speaker 4: want they don't you don't want a US made bomb
Speaker 4: and a US made jet like killing Indians. So there's like,
Speaker 4: so stand down on that. So Pakistan said, Okay, We're
Speaker 4: going to use a bunch of these next gen Chinese
Speaker 4: weapons that we have missed, both anti aircraft both you know,
Speaker 4: air to air surfced air and and warplanes as well.
Speaker 4: The and India is much much richer and bigger now
Speaker 4: than Pakistan economically, right, and Pakistan outperformed the Chinese weapons
Speaker 4: that people in the military industrial complex world called it
Speaker 4: kind of China's deep seek military moment. These Chinese airplanes
Speaker 4: knocked a bunch of Western airplanes out of the sky
Speaker 4: and you know, cheaper and more effective. So it's like
Speaker 4: hm and so Pakistans, which you know, was in that
Speaker 4: case a proxy against India for China, showed that this
Speaker 4: is not already this would not necessarily go well for US.
Speaker 2: Of all, drones are produced in China, right, and when
Speaker 2: you think about the future of warfare, which is already arriving,
Speaker 2: if you look at Ukraine versus Russia and what they
Speaker 2: were just able to pull off, even though they're you know,
Speaker 2: much smaller country, much smaller population, much smaller industrial base,
Speaker 2: what they were able to pull off inside of Russia.
Speaker 2: And I mean a lot of that war is like
Speaker 2: drone versus drone at this point. And yeah, we are
Speaker 2: dramatically behind, ramatically behind. Let's go ahead and transition to
Speaker 2: the latest with regard to the beautiful bill. A lot
Speaker 2: going on here. So Steve Bannon making some interesting comments
Speaker 2: about the nature of what you would actually need to
Speaker 2: do if you cared about deficit reduction, and he has
Speaker 2: been saying for a while now, you really need to
Speaker 2: lift taxes on the rich.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: I want to stop the dead bomb elon and the
Speaker 9: guys on Capitol here, You're going to have to raise taxes.
Speaker 9: The wealthy can't get an extension of the tax cut.
Speaker 9: That's got to go the middle class and the working
Speaker 9: class that has to be extended and has to be
Speaker 9: made permanent. At forty percent, the top racket of forty percent.
Speaker 9: You pick them, that's got to go to thirty nine
Speaker 9: and go back to thirty snap back to thirty nine
Speaker 9: and a half percent, and go to forty percent. The
Speaker 9: math simply doesn't work. There are no Doge cuts. Let
Speaker 9: me repeat this, and this is not usaid. Those are
Speaker 9: programmatic things. Sometimes it waste for it. Where's the fraud medicaid?
Speaker 4: Which is?
Speaker 5: Where?
Speaker 4: Where is it?
Speaker 9: Haven't showed up with any has anybody been turned.
Speaker 4: Over to DOJ for fraud?
Speaker 9: The problem with Musk and I said this from the beginning,
Speaker 9: he gave fall else hope to this political class who
Speaker 9: doesn't want to cut anything. The reason if the big
Speaker 9: beautiful bill's got all these problems and it had some issues,
Speaker 9: he drove it because he promised a trillion dollars ladies
Speaker 9: and gentlemen, one trillion dollars. That got him off the hook.
Speaker 9: It's time for everybody to grow up, run around. Oh
Speaker 9: so show me where it is. The recision next week
Speaker 9: is nine billion dollars and two billion folks is PBS
Speaker 9: and NPR. Give me a break. Didn't he doze for that?
Speaker 9: Been fighting for that one forever. There's seven billion dollars
Speaker 9: in there, Supposedly of I don't know, fraud on a
Speaker 9: seven trillion dollar he committed to committed to the President
Speaker 9: United States one trillion dollars.
Speaker 2: So Ryan his position is basically like, oh, well, the
Speaker 2: reason the big beautiful bill blows up the deficit is
Speaker 2: because of Elon, because they actually took seriously Trump included
Speaker 2: apparently this idea he was going to cut a two
Speaker 2: trillion or a trillion dollars, which I just I just
Speaker 2: can't believe that they or I just can't accept that
Speaker 2: they are really that dumb, Like do you accept that,
Speaker 2: Like I if you just look at the governments and
Speaker 2: where it is and what you would need to do,
Speaker 2: were they really they really thought he was going to
Speaker 2: cut a trillion dollars?
Speaker 4: I have, as you know, covered Congress for a very
Speaker 4: long time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, tell me, I believe you think they're really really
Speaker 3: that dumb.
Speaker 4: We are not sending our best, I mean, and he's.
Speaker 2: Trying to put so part of it obviously, Like you know,
Speaker 2: I agree that they should lift the taxes on the ridge.
Speaker 2: And also, by the way, when they say lift taxes,
Speaker 2: they just mean like, don't cut taxes as much as
Speaker 2: is planned to in this bill.
Speaker 3: But in any case, it is.
Speaker 4: I'll say this, Yeah, every time I speak with a
Speaker 4: member of Congress whose lights are on, it is a
Speaker 4: revelation to me. It's like, it's like, oh, awesome, I
Speaker 4: found you have a working bread Republican Democrat, Like this
Speaker 4: is somebody who has an idea of what they're talking about. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and that is very unusual. That is not the normal
Speaker 4: member of Congress.
Speaker 2: And so he's saying effectively like that Trump too bought
Speaker 2: this idea that there would be a trillion dollars in
Speaker 2: cuts made by Doge and then they could just like
Speaker 2: go wild in this bill and spend whatever they want,
Speaker 2: most of which is you know, gigantic tax cut for
Speaker 2: people who really don't need that tax cut, and that
Speaker 2: it would be a okay, and that they were cut
Speaker 2: increase caught unawares. Again that you know this wasn't going
Speaker 2: to happen. But I mean, also this this also doesn't
Speaker 2: really hold up to any level of screwy either, because
Speaker 2: by the time this bill is being crafted, it is
Speaker 2: already abundantly clear that Doge is an utter and complete failure.
Speaker 2: And he points the thing that you've been pointing to,
Speaker 2: basically like, okay, if there was fraud. Where are the
Speaker 2: indictments like the name, Give me one instance of one,
Speaker 2: a single one. Not things you didn't like, not things
Speaker 2: that were DEI, not departments like USAI D that you
Speaker 2: just don't you know, think should exist, actual fraud of
Speaker 2: which I am quite sure exist within the federal government.
Speaker 3: Not a single instance, not one.
Speaker 4: Right, right, they would be frog marched in front of them.
Speaker 3: We would all know every detail.
Speaker 4: We know their name, we know their middle name. It'd
Speaker 4: be one of those people, yes, like like a presidential assassin.
Speaker 4: And so Elon Musk going all in. It reminded me
Speaker 4: in the book there where there's an anecdote the Elon biography.
Speaker 4: I'm sure you remember this where he plays poker and
Speaker 4: he has no idea how to play poker, but he wins,
Speaker 4: like his first night, he wins a decent amount of money,
Speaker 4: and somebody's like, you know, how did you do that?
Speaker 4: You know, not to play poker. He's like, I just
Speaker 4: kept going all in constantly, and then when I would lose,
Speaker 4: I would just buy back in and go all in again.
Speaker 4: And if you do that, and you have unlimited funds
Speaker 4: and you outlast everyone at the table, you will eventually
Speaker 4: take all their money. He's right about that, and I
Speaker 4: feel like he's that's his been his approach to politics.
Speaker 4: He clearly doesn't know how politics works, but he just
Speaker 4: keeps going all in. And you know he went he
Speaker 4: went all in taking on Boeing and you know the
Speaker 4: rest of the kind of rocket companies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it worked.
Speaker 4: Huge credit to him, like taking on those incumbent industries
Speaker 4: and staking a position and then becoming kind of a
Speaker 4: dominant player. Incredible and huge risk. Went all in. Then
Speaker 4: he went all in with Trump, putting so much on
Speaker 4: the line because if he lost, Democrats were like coming
Speaker 4: for him on a lot of different levels. Yeah, went
Speaker 4: all in. But then he loses because he went all
Speaker 4: in on Doge. So he's like, oh and he had
Speaker 4: no cards, so he loses the whole pile. Now put
Speaker 4: up this next element. He's going all in against Trump
Speaker 4: in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed
Speaker 4: the American people. And he's talking about voting for this bill.
Speaker 4: It was a party line vote in that.
Speaker 3: I was going to say all about what five Republicans
Speaker 3: be my guest brother.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So now he's saying he's going after all politicians.
Speaker 4: Now will he do it, I don't know, but saying
Speaker 4: it is pushing all your chips in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean from my reading of him and
Speaker 2: his history of biographies whatever, this is just how he operates.
Speaker 2: He's one of these I'm sure you guys probably know
Speaker 2: people like this who don't feel like they're living unless
Speaker 2: it's all on the line. Yes, and he's one of
Speaker 2: these people, Like, if he's not risking everything complete collapse, humiliation, bankruptcy,
Speaker 2: then he doesn't feel like he doesn't feel like he's
Speaker 2: really alive. And so I've been saying for a few
Speaker 2: weeks now, I could totally see him doing another phase
Speaker 2: turn because remember was Elon and Obama had a great relationship.
Speaker 2: Obama basically saved both SpaceX and Tesla during his administration.
Speaker 2: You know, Elon was, you know, much more on the
Speaker 2: sort of like democratic liberal side of the equation, which
Speaker 2: just shows you these guys like even in his complaints
Speaker 2: about this bill, it's all about his own interests. He
Speaker 2: doesn't like that the TV credits were stripped on. I
Speaker 2: don't like the V credits were stripped down either, but
Speaker 2: that's he's mad about that. He's mad about the fact
Speaker 2: that Trump pulled his NASA pick, which obviously very important
Speaker 2: to him with regard to SpaceX. But I could totally
Speaker 2: see him trying to do a face turn and you know,
Speaker 2: go back to the other side of the political party,
Speaker 2: and there would be plenty of people in the Democratic
Speaker 2: side who would be happy to welcome him back in,
Speaker 2: at least at the elite level. I think at the
Speaker 2: grassroots level, once you've done your you know, your Roman salute,
Speaker 2: and all the things that he's done and all the
Speaker 2: things that he's said, and the way that he has
Speaker 2: just completely made himself the most toxic figure on the
Speaker 2: planet to your average normally Democratic voter, I think that
Speaker 2: is going to be very hard to forgive and forget
Speaker 2: among the base.
Speaker 4: And I think he's also genuinely very concerned about the
Speaker 4: deficit impact of the bill, the debt impact, because if
Speaker 4: the United States enters a period where of high interest rate,
Speaker 4: you know, yes, on our debt, that means that both
Speaker 4: private companies and the federal government are going to have
Speaker 4: less money to spend on his Marx mission. Yeah, so
Speaker 4: this is in direct competition with his y, with his life's.
Speaker 2: Mission, And I do think my reading of Elon is
Speaker 2: that that is the life mission, the making humans intra
Speaker 2: planetarritary and like going to Mars as like ridiculous and
Speaker 2: absurd as it seems. I do think that that is
Speaker 2: his life mission, and that's why he jumped into government,
Speaker 2: because he realized it's not something you can do as
Speaker 2: a private company on your own. You basically need that
Speaker 2: mission to be backstopped by the treasury.
Speaker 3: Of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: But we have to be like a you know, functioning
Speaker 2: wealthy nation with the ability to borrow and spend on
Speaker 2: something like a you know, fantasy mission to Mars. And
Speaker 2: so I think you're right about that aspect.
Speaker 4: I think if he's spent curious for your take on this,
Speaker 4: imagine this. Let's say he spends four million dollars against
Speaker 4: Mike Lawler, Republican in Upstate New York. Yeah, who you
Speaker 4: know is one of the key targets, and he spends
Speaker 4: four million on handful folklaw is going to lose. I
Speaker 4: don't know, they it's going to be very close. He
Speaker 4: could he could hold on, okay, and we'll see, We'll
Speaker 4: see what the world looks like in a year. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but let's say he spends four million dollars on twenty
Speaker 4: different races, eighty million bucks and helps Democrats win back
Speaker 4: the House. I think most activist Democrats are instrumental enough
Speaker 4: they'd be like welcome back. But I mean the level
Speaker 4: of destruction he did in gleeful destruction with the chainsaw
Speaker 4: on the stage, you know, just you know, demonstrating such cruelty. Yeah,
Speaker 4: the Roman salute, elevating all of these freaks on Twitter. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't know, it's in those are in competition. What
Speaker 4: do you what do you think they where do you
Speaker 4: think they land?
Speaker 2: I think it depends very much on the kind of
Speaker 2: of intra party fight in twenty twenty eight, you know
Speaker 2: whether you have because right now there is so much
Speaker 2: energy among the base and among the American people more broadly,
Speaker 2: for like fighting oligarchy, and he is the symbol of that.
Speaker 2: And so you know, I mean, he made himself the symbol.
Speaker 2: He's the richest man on the planet, and he has
Speaker 2: spent his time in government destroying social security, you know,
Speaker 2: killing kids in Africa. I mean, it really is grotesque
Speaker 2: not to mention the like carnival level imagery of him
Speaker 2: on the stage with the chainsaw and the glee that
Speaker 2: he took in destroying people's lives so well, I think
Speaker 2: the you know, elite leaders of the Democratic Party would
Speaker 2: be happy to welcome him back in and happy to
Speaker 2: take his money. I think that the Democratic Party base
Speaker 2: is headed in a more radical, anti billionaire direction, and
Speaker 2: that is not going to be something that he would
Speaker 2: be able to coexist with.
Speaker 4: Let's hope it would be very funny to go, and
Speaker 4: it's already funny that he's going from we must elect
Speaker 4: all these guys to save with Western civilization. Two years
Speaker 4: later we must throw them all out of Hamet right
Speaker 4: to say Western civilization was overrated anyway. So Trump is
Speaker 4: unsurprisingly a little bit annoyed by this. Let's roll B
Speaker 4: three because it's kind of funny.
Speaker 5: I think the Elon must thing really caught the President
Speaker 5: by surprise, and I hear he is furious.
Speaker 4: But I think he's so smart to keep his.
Speaker 5: Powder dry because he just plays into what where critics.
Speaker 9: Would have to say the right can't get out of
Speaker 9: their own way.
Speaker 4: Instead, just you have a goal.
Speaker 5: Pass it. Elon Musk is not in the Senate or
Speaker 5: the House.
Speaker 4: Don't worry a man.
Speaker 10: I offer a different perspective Ansley as someone who is
Speaker 10: supportive of the President's agenda. I am upset with Congress
Speaker 10: right now. I don't blame the President for the Big
Speaker 10: Beautiful Bill. I blame Congress because they go to their
Speaker 10: constituents every single election and they say they're going to
Speaker 10: cut spinning, cut, cook cut, and it doesn't seem like
Speaker 10: there's a willingness to do that. But I don't think
Speaker 10: Elon is anti Maga now or anti the President now.
Speaker 10: He works so hard, put a lot of stuff on
Speaker 10: the line to get a lot of wateful stuff cut,
Speaker 10: and it doesn't seem like Congress is showing that's saying.
Speaker 11: I thought Elon was very respectful in some of the
Speaker 11: original interviews, just saying, look, we have differences.
Speaker 3: I don't agree with him on everything.
Speaker 11: But this latest comment about calling the Big Beautiful Bill
Speaker 11: a disgusting abomination. I was shocked to hear him say that.
Speaker 11: I can understand why the President would not be happy
Speaker 11: about that. This is someone who worked on his team.
Speaker 4: You know, I want to die and come back as
Speaker 4: he has Donald Trump, this guy he if he comes
Speaker 4: out hard against Elon Musk, the base loves that he
Speaker 4: did that. If he's mad at Elon Musk, but he's
Speaker 4: too afraid to say a word. He's savvy and sophisticated.
Speaker 3: That's right the deal.
Speaker 4: If he writes a good, big, beautiful bill, then he's
Speaker 4: a genius for writing a great piece of legislation. If
Speaker 4: he writes a bad, big beautiful bill, then it's not
Speaker 4: his fault. It's actually the people in the house betrayed. Betrayed,
Speaker 4: Like there is nothing that he could do that would
Speaker 4: warrant even a second of criticism on that network. It's
Speaker 4: truly just absolutely phenomenal.
Speaker 2: I mean that was Steve Bannon too, of like, well,
Speaker 2: it's not Trump's fault that.
Speaker 4: He Bannon still has not come out and said vote
Speaker 4: this bill down, which he despite the fact that it
Speaker 4: is important to know, enormously critical of it, and I
Speaker 4: love hearing him rip it apart, But he has so
Speaker 4: far stopped short of the logical conclusion, which is then
Speaker 4: don't do it.
Speaker 3: Bannon is a politician.
Speaker 2: He realizes that he needs his you know, best chance
Speaker 2: of getting whatever things he wants and having access to
Speaker 2: power is by being on Trump's good side.
Speaker 3: He knows what that means.
Speaker 4: That's why he's so good. It never criticized.
Speaker 2: It's always somebody else's fault. It's never it's Elon promised
Speaker 2: these things and didn't deliver.
Speaker 3: And it's his fault.
Speaker 2: And you relied on his, you know, ability to find
Speaker 2: these cuts and he didn't do it. So it's ultimately
Speaker 2: his fault. And you see the same kind of game
Speaker 2: going on there with the with the Fox and Friends
Speaker 2: people who are trying to make sense of this new
Speaker 2: world where Elon and Trump are at odds with one another.
Speaker 4: He did criticize Trump on the Bannon did criticize Trump
Speaker 4: on the H one B front and every time directly
Speaker 4: and every time he would say, we love you, You're
Speaker 4: the greatest. We've disagreed with you on this for a
Speaker 4: long time. And I remember there was this Bannon interview
Speaker 4: that Bannon did when he was just a radio host
Speaker 4: in twenty fifteen with Trump and they were arguing about
Speaker 4: H one BS.
Speaker 2: Well, it looks like Bannon ultimately won that fight because
Speaker 2: at the time Trump rhetorically back to the you know, yes,
Speaker 2: we support H one B side of things, but in practice,
Speaker 2: in terms of the policy, it's been Steven Miller's policy agenda,
Speaker 2: and obviously they're going aggressively after foreign students and visa holders,
Speaker 2: so you know, Ultimately, he.
Speaker 4: Was sad enough to know he could criticize Trump, not personally,
Speaker 4: just like go on the policy. Yeah, and that he
Speaker 4: would probably win because he had Stephen Miller, who Trump
Speaker 4: told I think it was MBZ and you a, he
Speaker 4: told some emirate, some leader, and he's like, this is
Speaker 4: the guy who runs my administration. That's how he introduced
Speaker 4: Steven Miller.
Speaker 3: That's right. I think there's a lot to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you see who was calling the shots in
Speaker 2: terms of speaking for the boss. There's some weirdness around
Speaker 2: the deficit conversation that's going on on the Republican side
Speaker 2: because you have people like Rand Paul Ron Johnson who
Speaker 2: are upset about the amount that the bill blows up
Speaker 2: the deficit. But the reason the bill blows up the
Speaker 2: deficit is because of these gigantic tax cuts for the
Speaker 2: rich that they ideologically support. And so there's we can
Speaker 2: put the numbers up on the screen. Here, there's a
Speaker 2: chart that they assembled, Steve Rattner actually assembled, but I
Speaker 2: think it's useful to look at that shows how much
Speaker 2: this does blow up the deficit compared to other large
Speaker 2: packages in recent years. I mean the Biperson Infrastructure Bill,
Speaker 2: is nowhere close. But even if you look at the
Speaker 2: American Rescue Plan, which is the first COVID package that
Speaker 2: cares or sorry, which was the second one, the CARES Act,
Speaker 2: which was the first one, the original Tax Cuts and
Speaker 2: Jobs Act, which was the original giant giveaway to the rich.
Speaker 2: You know this this blows these out of the water.
Speaker 2: But they can't really say that because they're supposed to
Speaker 2: be really ideologically committed to the tax cuts, and also
Speaker 2: because they're supposed to be really ideologically opposed to the
Speaker 2: CBO and scoring the tax cuts in like anything approaching
Speaker 2: a reasonable way and not just pretending like tax cuts
Speaker 2: are fairy dust and they make you know, they make
Speaker 2: deficits magically go away. So instead they've been honing in on, well,
Speaker 2: it increases the debt ceiling, and that's what we really
Speaker 2: are opposed to. So what do you make of some
Speaker 2: of those dynamics there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it's cowardly because the debt, the debt ceiling
Speaker 4: is not a real thing. It's it's a it's a
Speaker 4: manufactured yeah, product of an old, very old way of
Speaker 4: thinking about financing the government. And it's ridiculous. And I've
Speaker 4: said over you know, I got to be consistent here.
Speaker 4: It's it's a it's a ridiculous thing.
Speaker 3: Yes, it should go away.
Speaker 4: The Congress appropriates money and authorizes the FED or the
Speaker 4: government to borrow certain amounts of money produced, you know,
Speaker 4: to pay for particular programs and to do particular spending,
Speaker 4: like they do that. And then we throw in this
Speaker 4: extra step where you have to then also authorize the
Speaker 4: limit on which the debt can be generated. It's like,
Speaker 4: one does this right, you already did all those things,
Speaker 4: like you pass all those things, like get get rid
Speaker 4: of this thing, and so, but it lands for voters
Speaker 4: because it's one thing, and it's one number, like you
Speaker 4: want to borrow five trillion dollars, that's crazy, that's an
Speaker 4: insane number. And so for a politician, it's easier for them,
Speaker 4: I think, Yeah, just to just latch onto that. Did
Speaker 4: we just have the RUSS vote?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Put B six up on the screen. No, we haven't
Speaker 2: talked about this yet. We've got a RUSS vote. Tweet
Speaker 2: here his spin.
Speaker 4: O and B director. This is the brains of this operation,
Speaker 4: Like this is the real revolutionary this is.
Speaker 3: The Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 12: Guy.
Speaker 3: You know, he's the one.
Speaker 2: What did he say, thinks federal government workers need to
Speaker 2: be put through trauma or something like that.
Speaker 4: Yes, like he is, this guy is hardcore. He and
Speaker 4: Stephen Miller together being basically the two most powerful people
Speaker 4: in this government is just a startling turn of events
Speaker 4: over the last one hundred years. Like these are absolutely revolutionary, gentleman.
Speaker 4: So he writes here, omb just reviewed the new CBO
Speaker 4: score of the One Big Beautiful Bill. It confirms what
Speaker 4: we knew about the bill at House passes. The bill
Speaker 4: reduces deficits by one point four trillion over ten years
Speaker 4: when you adjust the CBO's one big gimmick not using
Speaker 4: a realistic current policy baseline. It includes one point seven
Speaker 4: trillion dollars in mandatory savings, the most in history. If
Speaker 4: you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves
Speaker 4: the fiscal picture. And so he does two things here.
Speaker 4: One is he says it's not fair to use the
Speaker 4: CBO's approach. These tax cuts were never going to expire,
Speaker 4: so we should not assume they were going to expire
Speaker 4: and then count that against us. Except the problem is
Speaker 4: Wall Street and the bond markets. That's they think about
Speaker 4: it much more closely to the CBO like that. The
Speaker 4: CBO and the bond markets agree. Therefore the bond market
Speaker 4: has to say in this, and that's where the movements
Speaker 4: and interest rates are going to come from. The second
Speaker 4: thing he does is he bullies OMB into giving him
Speaker 4: the numbers that he wants, like he runs the OMB,
Speaker 4: and he's not. He's going to start with a conclusion
Speaker 4: and demand that they generated. And this I know from
Speaker 4: sources inside OMB, and there's been plenty of reporting about this,
Speaker 4: and so what he told them basically is you need
Speaker 4: to conclude that cutting all of these taxes is going
Speaker 4: to produce x amount of economic growth, which will then
Speaker 4: lead to more tax revenue, which will then cut the deficit.
Speaker 4: Maybe it will, there's but there's no reason to think
Speaker 4: over all of the years that this has been tried
Speaker 4: that that is what will actually happen in practice.
Speaker 2: No, of course not, because they'll just like you know,
Speaker 2: richbe Wiles will not. You said this, well, it certainly
Speaker 2: will not increase the real economy. They'll be more share
Speaker 2: buybacks and things of that nature, more financial engineering, you know,
Speaker 2: more in wealth inequality.
Speaker 3: There'll be all of that for sure.
Speaker 2: But but yeah, I mean, it's it and The other
Speaker 2: thing is here in terms of the gimmick he what
Speaker 2: he's saying with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and
Speaker 2: what he's talking about with the policy baseline is when
Speaker 2: they passed that bill, part of what they did to
Speaker 2: monkey around with the numbers and make sure that it
Speaker 2: didn't say an even more gigantic number that was being
Speaker 2: added to the debt and the deficit was that they
Speaker 2: had a technical sun setting of these rates.
Speaker 3: And now you say, oh, we never.
Speaker 2: Intended those rates to go away, so you shouldn't Now
Speaker 2: you shouldn't count it in. So they didn't want to
Speaker 2: count it in the first time, and now they don't
Speaker 2: want to count it.
Speaker 3: In now either. Is that that's the you know, the
Speaker 3: fuzzy math that they're.
Speaker 4: Engaged in here, Ryan, Right, And so russ vote testified
Speaker 4: yesterday in Congress about the dire consequences of not passing
Speaker 4: the big beautiful bill. Let's roll this. If HR one fails,
Speaker 4: if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get
Speaker 4: to the desk of the President and signed in the wall,
Speaker 4: what happens at the end of this year.
Speaker 13: I think we'll have a recession. I think we will
Speaker 13: be economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think
Speaker 13: we'll have a sixty percent tax increase in the American people.
Speaker 13: And just to if I could answer Cronsman Hoyer's question
Speaker 13: or statement, the notion that this bill, I mean, we've
Speaker 13: been actually criticized unfairly on the Reconciliation Bill for the
Speaker 13: fact that it is all mandatory savers. I mean, you said, look,
Speaker 13: we need to address the mandatory side of the House.
Speaker 13: There's one point seven trillion dollars in mandatory savers on
Speaker 13: the Reconciliation bill. Do we need to do things on
Speaker 13: the appropriation side the discretionary side. Yes, that's what we're
Speaker 13: here to talk about with recisions and the bill that
Speaker 13: we've the budget that we've sent up to you. But
Speaker 13: we have to get back to what we did in
Speaker 13: nineteen ninety seven, where we had for the first time
Speaker 13: substantial mandatory reforms around not just cutting people and just
Speaker 13: getting people off programs, but reforms a work requirement. We're
Speaker 13: using the same model that Bill Clinton signed into law,
Speaker 13: and we think it will have incredible impact on not
Speaker 13: just these programs, but giving people dignity of work.
Speaker 4: And we're not going to be ashamed by that mandatory means,
Speaker 4: you know, Medicare and Medicaid, solid security, those types of products.
Speaker 4: When Bill Clinton and the Republican House and Senate did
Speaker 4: this last time, the way that they saved money was
Speaker 4: by kicking people off programs like any So he's saying
Speaker 4: right there, we should do it like Bill Clinton did.
Speaker 4: And Bill Clinton also did work requirements in order to
Speaker 4: kick people off the programs.
Speaker 2: CBO says that if this bill goes into law, ten
Speaker 2: million fewer Americans will have health cut insurance coverage, mostly
Speaker 2: from getting kicked off of Medicaid, but there are also
Speaker 2: some changes to Affordable Care Act and Medicare that will
Speaker 2: lead to losses and coverage. So you're talking about ten
Speaker 2: million more Americans losing their health insurance coverage in order
Speaker 2: to fund giant tax skift for the rich, not to
Speaker 2: mention cuts the snap and food you know, food stances.
Speaker 4: Right, and unfortunately for all of us, those people don't
Speaker 4: stop getting sick, having heart attacks, having diabetes, having health
Speaker 4: complications that need to be treated. So you don't actually
Speaker 4: save money out of the entire economy, right, You're just
Speaker 4: moving it around. And it's cheaper to give people medicaid
Speaker 4: as a society, yes, than it is to treat them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's in the emergence why we have the most
Speaker 2: expensive healthcare you know regime in the you know, in
Speaker 2: the developing world, in the world, because we have these
Speaker 2: little piece meal and you got to pay, and you know,
Speaker 2: millions of people don't get coverage at all, and it
Speaker 2: ends up being incredibly penny wise and pound foolish because
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, what you end up
Speaker 2: paying for is the most expensive type of care where
Speaker 2: people don't go to the doctor, they don't take preventative
Speaker 2: measures because they can't afford to, and then you're at
Speaker 2: the emergency room, you know, in crisis, which is obviously
Speaker 2: terrible for human beings and also you know, terrible for
Speaker 2: the budget.
Speaker 4: And also because the Supreme Court struck down the medicaid
Speaker 4: expansion in Obamacare, that left it up to each individual
Speaker 4: state for whether or not they would expand medicaid. Most
Speaker 4: of those red states had to be pushed by the
Speaker 4: people in the states. So a bunch of red states
Speaker 4: only expanded medicaid via constitutional amendment. They would put it
Speaker 4: on the ballot, the people went out and voted for it.
Speaker 4: We thought, okay, this is over, Like like everybody's fought
Speaker 4: for this, and now they Medicaid expansion is in there,
Speaker 4: but you get a revolutionary like vote in there, and
Speaker 4: he's going to then cut the Medicaid federal match that
Speaker 4: goes to these Red states. But look what happened. They
Speaker 4: put it in their constitutions. So the Red States don't
Speaker 4: actually have the option of dialing it back like they
Speaker 4: have to spend this because they agree to do it
Speaker 4: in their constitution. So now the Red state has to
Speaker 4: either raise taxes or they have to cut spending somewhere
Speaker 4: else to meet their constitutional obligations. So who's he screwing here, right,
Speaker 4: A lot.
Speaker 2: Of Red states, of a lot of maga. Yes, Steve
Speaker 2: Bannon would say, yes, all right, let's go and turn
Speaker 2: to Israel.
Speaker 4: So NBC's Andrea Mitchell has been attending the State Department
Speaker 4: press briefings frequently since the Trump administration began, and has
Speaker 4: been pressing Tammy Bruce, particularly on Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza,
Speaker 4: as well as its starvation campaign and the collapse of
Speaker 4: its aid distribution project. Here's an example just from yesterday
Speaker 4: of the way that she's been going back and forth
Speaker 4: with Tammy Bruce Andrew.
Speaker 13: On that because.
Speaker 6: No one should jumped inclusions.
Speaker 5: We all have reporters on the ground.
Speaker 8: Israel has not that US based reporters in, but we
Speaker 8: have partners there and staff members there who have been
Speaker 8: courageously there since October seventh doing this job. And if
Speaker 8: unlike other war zones, even plane in Kiraki elsewhere where
Speaker 8: US reporters have always been in Viannam, this is the
Speaker 8: first conflict whom we have not been able to go
Speaker 8: in accept with IDFX.
Speaker 4: You know escorts work.
Speaker 8: What he said was not just misleading reports in the
Speaker 8: fog of war.
Speaker 4: We all know what happens in some instances, and I'm.
Speaker 8: Not sure if it's these cases, but to suggest that
Speaker 8: the press reports fostered anti svagism, which led to the
Speaker 8: death of the two embassy.
Speaker 14: People here in Washington and to other antisemitic attacks in
Speaker 14: this country is hyperbole beyond what is normal diplomatic practice.
Speaker 14: And as a journalist and as a member of this
Speaker 14: press court, I think it's deeply offensive for someone who
Speaker 14: has well, I don't speak for Ambassador Huckaby.
Speaker 12: I understand Andrea, I know, I understand, and I understand
Speaker 12: the depth of your work and the work Andrea, I
Speaker 12: understand your work, the depth of your work, the work
Speaker 12: of people who cover war, and the dangers that exist.
Speaker 12: I don't speak for Ambassador Huckabee. I'm not going to
Speaker 12: parse what he has said, but what I can tell
Speaker 12: you is that inevitably, as we have all watched, the
Speaker 12: kind of Jew hatred and anti Semitism that has been
Speaker 12: promulgated through media has been NonStop even after October seventh,
Speaker 12: and that if you weren't involved in that, and others
Speaker 12: who are not involved in that, that's not who he's
Speaker 12: speaking about. I would argue that it would be naive
Speaker 12: to suggest that the the Jew hatred that whether it's
Speaker 12: through social media, through through fake news, through the rhetoric
Speaker 12: regarding Israel through the years, has not developed or perpetuated
Speaker 12: anti Semitism.
Speaker 3: Distribution and foods though certainly.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that there is widespread criticism.
Speaker 4: And a service criticism.
Speaker 8: Yes, the consulting group that was supporting the.
Speaker 15: Foundation, which is back of it, that the distribution system
Speaker 15: was not as professional as audit excuse me, the World
Speaker 15: Food Program and other people who.
Speaker 8: Are used to working in this area, and that there
Speaker 8: should have been more distribution points where people would not
Speaker 8: have been told to line up.
Speaker 12: And Andrew again. I know, you know what, but these questions, now,
Speaker 12: these are these are critiques of an environment that we've
Speaker 12: talked about.
Speaker 3: Regularly every day, every time I'm up here.
Speaker 12: It is it is this critique of I say, seven
Speaker 12: million meals have been distributed, but you know it would
Speaker 12: have been but not for you.
Speaker 4: It should have been.
Speaker 12: Those guys over there or these people over here over
Speaker 12: the last three years, with the with the U n
Speaker 12: or the World Food Program, and no one has distributed
Speaker 12: seven million meals to Gaza.
Speaker 14: Many many, hundreds of thousands of people in Israel as
Speaker 14: well as the families the people being held by Almas
Speaker 14: are protesting is food decision.
Speaker 8: The former Defense minister criticized these decisions.
Speaker 12: There's well, I'm sorry, andre Andrea, I understand, I understand.
Speaker 4: So two different avenues there to unpack. The first one,
Speaker 4: she's standing up for journalists, saying it's unfair to say
Speaker 4: that the media is responsible for the embassy staffers getting killed.
Speaker 4: You what you make of that back and forth.
Speaker 2: I mean, first of all, it's just extraordinary that it's
Speaker 2: Andrew Mitchell in there, and you know, even this administration
Speaker 2: had like is much more deferential to me than they
Speaker 2: would be like maybe.
Speaker 4: Two for example, we appreciate the depth of your work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we appreciate it. And I mean, like, God bless
Speaker 3: her for being in there.
Speaker 2: It up.
Speaker 3: She doesn't have to be doing any of this, So
Speaker 3: it's kind of wild to see that.
Speaker 2: And I think it's emblematic of you see her, you
Speaker 2: see Piers Morgan, you see you know German and French
Speaker 2: and other leaders who have gotten to a point where
Speaker 2: the okay, this is ridiculous, and you know, the media
Speaker 2: point Andrew Mitchell obviously.
Speaker 3: Is like a mainstream media institution.
Speaker 2: The idea that they have not been sufficiently pro Israel
Speaker 2: is so utterly preposterous as to not even be worth
Speaker 2: like dignifying arguing again, like, it's just so absurd even
Speaker 2: to this day, the type of headlines you cover, the
Speaker 2: Washington Post thing where they put out this obsequious apology
Speaker 2: because they only had three witnesses to this massacre. Oh,
Speaker 2: how dare we not give enough credence to Israel's complaint?
Speaker 4: CNN came out last night with seventeen witnesses. Wow, seventeen eyewitnesses. Wow,
Speaker 4: that's saying that it was Israel. That and the washing
Speaker 4: post stills. You know, we're so sorry we didn't give
Speaker 4: proper weight to this Israeli denial of the thing that
Speaker 4: everybody saw happen.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I mean so, I think the fact that you
Speaker 2: have even and Andrea Mitchell, who's in there like this
Speaker 2: is ridiculous bullshit and going back and forth. I think
Speaker 2: that is very indicative of the moment that we're in
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 4: And the second set of questions goes to the first point.
Speaker 4: It's not the media that has created the Gods of
Speaker 4: Humanitarian Foundation crisis. It's Israel that produced this. It's not
Speaker 4: the messenger that you need to shoot. It's the IDF
Speaker 4: that is defending God's Humanitarian Foundation that is shooting all
Speaker 4: the people who are coming to get aid. And you
Speaker 4: keep seeing the administration and Israeli supporters saying that they
Speaker 4: delivered seven million meals. She says, what do you want
Speaker 4: from us? Nobody had figured out how to get aid
Speaker 4: in and now all of us sudden, we've gotten seven
Speaker 4: million meals in this week. And it's like, well, first
Speaker 4: of all, that's not true that nobody had figured out
Speaker 4: how to get aid in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they had quite an effective distribution system.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the eight agencies were getting aid in it.
Speaker 3: It was hard for them to get shot.
Speaker 4: It was hard for them to get through the crossings
Speaker 4: because Israelis would sometimes allow no trucks, sometimes ten, sometimes
Speaker 4: one hundred. But once they got in, you know, the
Speaker 4: aid was getting distributed and you weren't seeing you weren't
Speaker 4: seeing chaotic scenes. So but but now you are. And
Speaker 4: so she keeps highlighting this seven million figure. But if
Speaker 4: you do the math on that, there's two million people
Speaker 4: plus in Gaza. That means that's and they're talking about
Speaker 4: over a week, you know, seven million for a week.
Speaker 4: That's three and a half meals per week per person,
Speaker 4: and there is no aid coming from anywhere else. So
Speaker 4: it's not as if this is just supplementing what you're
Speaker 4: what people are already getting. Yeah, like that's what they're
Speaker 4: that's what people are getting, and that's on.
Speaker 3: Average if you take their numbers at face value.
Speaker 4: If you take your.
Speaker 2: Numbers of face value, the mostable to them as you
Speaker 2: possibly could.
Speaker 4: Be agentsI say you shouldn't, and because of the way
Speaker 4: they're chaotically delivering it, the stronger getting most of it.
Speaker 4: So maybe some people are getting twenty meals a week
Speaker 4: and most everybody else is getting zero and they're not
Speaker 4: the kind of nutritious meals. Jeremy Lefredo, for a drop
Speaker 4: site News just went to an unawarehouse in Jordan. We
Speaker 4: should maybe we can play that clip next week and
Speaker 4: he tours it and there's all this food expiring. But
Speaker 4: it's very precisely regimented for people who are facing malnutrition
Speaker 4: and four people who are only getting this in their diet,
Speaker 4: and so it's very precisely formulated to have need to
Speaker 4: get all of the calories you need, all of the
Speaker 4: balanced diet you need. If you look at what God's
Speaker 4: Humanitarian Foundation is bringing in, it's like pasta right, It's
Speaker 4: like it's not what aid organization sans who've been doing
Speaker 4: this for a very long time would put together if
Speaker 4: it was up to them. So meanwhile, the isolation and
Speaker 4: the and the political problems facing the net Yahoo government,
Speaker 4: both internationally and domestically continue. We can put this next
Speaker 4: element up on the screen. French dock workers are refusing
Speaker 4: to load machine gun AMMO, destined for Israel's army. This
Speaker 4: comes as you know, Spain is cutting military contracts as
Speaker 4: there's a lot of pressure on the government of Ireland
Speaker 4: to abide by its own laws which say that weapons
Speaker 4: are not supposed to be shipped through their airspace. And
Speaker 4: so at every you know kink in the system, there's
Speaker 4: increasingly there's going to be pressure.
Speaker 2: I mean, here's what I would say. I think Chris
Speaker 2: Hedges was saying this to Hassan this week. The leaders
Speaker 2: are not going to do like were this far along.
Speaker 2: The leader are not going to end the stranger side.
Speaker 2: So it is up to actions like this to cut
Speaker 2: off the supply. And so to see these French dock
Speaker 2: workers standing in solidarity, it's you know, it's it's quite
Speaker 2: significant and we need.
Speaker 3: We need much more action like that around the world.
Speaker 4: Meanwhile, a very interesting coalition of bedfellows is coming together
Speaker 4: to put pressure on Yahoo. So the Haredi Party is
Speaker 4: threatening to kind of dissolve the Yahoo coalition. This is
Speaker 4: the ultra author this is you know, the leading party
Speaker 4: for the ultra Orthodox section of Israeli public. And it's
Speaker 4: all over whether or not kind of Heredi men and women,
Speaker 4: ultra Orthodox men and women would have to serve just
Speaker 4: like everybody else, every other Jewish citizen of Israel, you know,
Speaker 4: has to serve in the IDF and what's what's fascinating
Speaker 4: about this? And Amir Tabone and also in Hirez has
Speaker 4: a very useful kind of analysis that can explain and
Speaker 4: how the politics of this are all shaking up. But
Speaker 4: basically there's a fundamental contradiction that can't be resolved. One
Speaker 4: is that Netnahu Smoe Church Benngavir want a never ending
Speaker 4: war to realize what they see as a once in
Speaker 4: several generations opportunity to fully expel the Palestinians from Gaza,
Speaker 4: like that's that's that's on the one hand. On the
Speaker 4: other hand is the material problem of not enough soldiers
Speaker 4: to carry out this genocidal task. Reconciling those two requires
Speaker 4: the ultra Orthodox. There's no other way to get there. Yeah,
Speaker 4: requires the ultra Orthodox to participate in the military, and
Speaker 4: they don't want to do that. So what what what
Speaker 4: they are now? They're not saying out loud that this
Speaker 4: is what they're doing, but there is a belief among
Speaker 4: some in the ultra Orthodox community that if the war ends,
Speaker 4: the pressure on them to participate in the military goes away,
Speaker 4: because the pressure is being driven by the war, right,
Speaker 4: and so a lot of people in Israel saying this
Speaker 4: is an act. This is Ntya who's not falling because
Speaker 4: of the gods of war. He's falling because of this
Speaker 4: internal dispute within Israeli society, of internal religious dispute. And
Speaker 4: that's true on a surface level, but it's only true
Speaker 4: because the war is making it something that can't be avoided.
Speaker 3: That's right, and we can put Shiles tweet hair up
Speaker 3: on the screen.
Speaker 2: He's talking about NETANYAHUO was apparently recorded saying that the
Speaker 2: reason he fired Defense Ministry you have goan in chief
Speaker 2: of staff Hertzi Hilevy, were because they were obstacles to
Speaker 2: allowing Haredi men that exemption from the army. This was
Speaker 2: a recording uppeared on Channel thirteen. Netnyahu's saying, we need
Speaker 2: to save not only the state of Israel, but also
Speaker 2: the Torah world. That is what I believe in God willing,
Speaker 2: that is what we've done to do this. We need
Speaker 2: time to pass the law properly so it cannot be
Speaker 2: challenge the law allowing this exemption.
Speaker 3: We had huge obstacles that we removed.
Speaker 2: You know, when the Defense minister is against you, the
Speaker 2: chief of staff is against you, you can't move forward.
Speaker 2: Now we can, so you know, exposing sort of how
Speaker 2: critical this fault line within Israeli society is and the
Speaker 2: particular issue right now, obviously it's military service, but there
Speaker 2: is a broader like demographic, significant longer term demographic issue
Speaker 2: which the ultra Orthodox have, you know, the largest families,
Speaker 2: so much of the demographics of the state are shifting
Speaker 2: towards being ultra Orthodox.
Speaker 3: But don't participate in the military, you know it don't work.
Speaker 3: Don't work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And so the state really supports them. You know,
Speaker 2: in the US lingo, they're the ultimate welfare queens. And
Speaker 2: you know, if you have a shrinking population that is
Speaker 2: of the more liberal liberal in Israeli context, secular variety
Speaker 2: to support this growing ultra Orthodox population, you're going to
Speaker 2: have long term, very signific demographic issues. So long as
Speaker 2: you continue to deny basic rights to Palestinians who also
Speaker 2: have large families, you know, and you know, perfectly willing
Speaker 2: to work.
Speaker 3: But that's that's off the table as a solution apparently,
Speaker 3: right and.
Speaker 4: Right which before October seventh, you know, Palestinians made up
Speaker 4: a huge portion of the labor force in Israel, you know,
Speaker 4: crossing you know, mostly Westbac but also Gaza as well,
Speaker 4: and there have been efforts to bring in Indian workers
Speaker 4: and so on that you know haven't worked, you know, remotely,
Speaker 4: haven't worked remotely as well. The end of the Lebanon conflict,
Speaker 4: in the sense of having manpower in Lebanon bought Nannyahu
Speaker 4: some time. It is classic Nyah who that he doesn't
Speaker 4: have a solution to this irreconcilable problem, and so he's
Speaker 4: just trying to punt it forward, just trying to push
Speaker 4: it off. This one more week, one more day, where
Speaker 4: we I mean, that's.
Speaker 3: Worked for him so far, are last thing.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and show this extraordinary footage Ryan, and
Speaker 2: maybe you can explain what we're seeing, as supposed to
Speaker 2: by drop site news of these two men who recorded
Speaker 2: themselves trying to obtain food and coming under fire from
Speaker 2: the IDF machine guns firing over their heads.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, as you can hear in the in the background,
Speaker 4: this is the is These are gun shots. Let's be
Speaker 4: very careful here in our wording because we don't want
Speaker 4: to say anything that gets the IDF upset. These are
Speaker 4: gunshots coming from the Israeli positions. Bullets, bullets are emerging
Speaker 4: from Israeli weapons. Let's but you know, we can't know.
Speaker 2: Let's loan investigation a play out before you figure out.
Speaker 3: What really happens.
Speaker 4: We need an investigation to figure out how it is
Speaker 4: that the bullet exited the Israeli weapons.
Speaker 3: And how Mastrich them into it and forwarded.
Speaker 4: Itself towards the Palestinians who were seeking this this AID. Yeah,
Speaker 4: this is just another massacre, another debacle at an AID
Speaker 4: distribution site where they tell everybody calm at this time.
Speaker 4: And you know, basically first come, first serve. So of
Speaker 4: course when you have millions of people starving, you get
Speaker 4: chaos and then they and then they shoot at people.
Speaker 2: And I believe they have what four distribution sites set
Speaker 2: up previously, you know, during times when there was a
Speaker 2: more fully operational AID distribution network, you're talking about hundreds
Speaker 2: of sites scattered throughout the Gaza Strip. Now you have
Speaker 2: four sites in particular locations to your It's a literal
Speaker 2: hunger game situation where if you were strong enough to
Speaker 2: trek the miles and miles, you need to make it
Speaker 2: to one of those distribution sites and then to basically
Speaker 2: like fight your fellow Palestinian fellow Palestinians in order to
Speaker 2: grab a box of this not at all nutritious stuff
Speaker 2: and brave being fired upon those you know, those bullets
Speaker 2: exiting is really weapons however that occurred.
Speaker 3: That's that's what they've set up here.
Speaker 2: And it is such a brutal and horrific and unconscionable
Speaker 2: system that even the Boston consulting group has decided this
Speaker 2: is too much for them.
Speaker 3: And we, of course.
Speaker 2: Originally had the you know, American mercenary who was at
Speaker 2: the head of this thing. He dropped out before it
Speaker 2: even was put into place because he was like, Jesus,
Speaker 2: this is this is beyond this is bad, this is
Speaker 2: beyond what I am even willing to do. And now
Speaker 2: you have this, like, you know, completely soulless group of
Speaker 2: consultants who have also said, okay, we can't be involved
Speaker 2: with the quote unquote Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and they claim that they were doing it pro bono.
Speaker 4: Then there's it's like, actually there's a reporting that no,
Speaker 4: they're they're getting million dollars a month or a week
Speaker 4: or whatever it was. Well, we'll see, but yeah. So
Speaker 4: it's yeah, it's an absolute hell on earth. It's like
Speaker 4: squid Games.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, I.
Speaker 4: Mean you go back and listen to what these guys
Speaker 4: are put up with to try to get you know,
Speaker 4: a little bit of pasta in a box.
Speaker 2: The video of the American mercenaries who were there, who
Speaker 2: were like, oh, here they come, and it's just it's
Speaker 2: so disturbing. I was saying to this to you before
Speaker 2: the show, like, there is no way that this policy unfolds,
Speaker 2: of complete genocide and humiliation and dehumanization can unfold without
Speaker 2: all of the players involved just fundamentally not really believing
Speaker 2: Palestin it's your human beings, which is why they get
Speaker 2: so mad at Miss Rachel, and then for the for humanizing.
Speaker 4: Them, and then for the people who win the squid
Speaker 4: game and get one box, they smile, They take a
Speaker 4: picture of them and post it on Twitter, and all
Speaker 4: these pro Israel accounts share it, be like, look look
Speaker 4: at what other adversary is feeding their.
Speaker 2: End And Tammi Bruce goes up and brags the familiar meals.
Speaker 2: How can you complain about this?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you complain we're not giving them food. Now you
Speaker 4: complain that we're giving them food. We can't do anything right,