6/5/25: Trump Travel Ban, Economy Seizes Amid Trade War, Trump To Explode On Elon, Bibi Gov In Collapse

Krystal and Ryan discuss Trump's new travel ban, economy seizes amid trade war, Trump set to explode on Elon, Bibi government collapsing.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

 

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
Ryan Grim, great to see you, my friends, great.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
To see you. I again will be channeling the Esteem
Saga excellent, so I will be making sure that the
populist right gets it's you know, it's full throated voice.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Maybe not full throated, you could lay off the full
throat it.

Speaker 4 (00:50):
I'll give it straw man version of Sager's art fair
and then you can dismantle them.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Actually, I think we are going to have the one
and only Esteem Saga back next week.

Speaker 4 (00:58):
Indeed we will.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Yeah, so you want to have to wait much longer
for that.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
When I say today it's a Jim Pack show, there
are probably ten more things that we could have put
into this show that.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Got left on the what is it the cutting room floors?

Speaker 4 (01:10):
That the expression and let's talk about one of those
real quick.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
So Trump and Putin spoke yesterday about Ukraine's attack on
Russia the drone. Trump then posted on truth Social and
then deleted immediately, and then reposted again on truth Social
basically his own readout of the conversation with Putin, and
he said, Putin very angry. He's going to respond very strongly.

(01:34):
And Trump was just saying it matter of factly, like this,
like this is going to happen. And he also said
that he enlisted Putin's help to get closer to an
Iran deal. Now, the German Chancellor is coming here today
and he's having a Trump's having a call with she tomorrow.
And the Wall Street Journal this week said that people
need to start referring to this period no longer as

(01:56):
the post war period, but as now the pre war period. True,
which is an awfully scary thing to hear from the
Wall Street Journal, and they say it aspirationally, like they
want this to be the the pre war period, not
understanding that the greatest destructions of wealth in like human
history were World War One and World War two. Like

(02:16):
what Wall Street Journal readers like, you're not going to
like a few of you will do well, most of
you will lose your shirts, some of you will lose
your lives. Yeah, So anyway, we're getting very close to
a very dark time.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah, I mean I think many people feel that and didn't.
I also see Trump said something like the drones swarm attack.
He thought it was badass, something like.

Speaker 4 (02:36):
That, Yes, which is kind of anyway Trump, Yes, it's
like and maybe he hopes.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Ad nuclear war. Yeah, that's badass.

Speaker 4 (02:46):
It feels great. Yeah, it's going to be a badass
world War three.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
So anyway, that didn't make it into the show. But
we've got a new travel band from Trump as well.
Some other immigration news in terms of court decisions, we've
got new jobs numbers that came in quite We've got
new Elon Musk foulout. Bebe's coalition appears to be collapsing.
Democrats are studying men. My friend Torri is going to
join both to talk about Yeah, that's right, I'll just

(03:10):
sit back and let you gentlemen tell me what I
need to know. But we are going to let Joy
beharway on that. On that one is she has some
great ideas, she has thoughts. Tory is also going to
give us a diddy trial round up because he's been
following closely and posting a bunch of tiktoks about it.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
He blew up on TikTok.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
He's doing so well there and also actually has a
new show as well that he is involved with.

Speaker 3 (03:31):
And then we had big news last night.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
First of all, there's a debate in the New York
City Mayor's race, which has many very interesting moments that
I think you guys will be interested in. But then
when I woke up this morning, we got the news
that AOC did decide to jump in and endorse Zoron Mundani,
who is, as you guys probably know, the Democratic Socialist
challenger to front runner Andrew Cuomo. There's a bunch of

(03:54):
other people in this race too, but really it comes
down to is it going to be Cuomo or is
it going to be Mom.

Speaker 4 (03:58):
Donnie At the end of the day two dog haunt
at this point.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, there's some yeah, well, we'll get to it, but
let's go ahead and start. We don't even have this
on the board yet because we've b added this in
yesterday evening as well, but wanted to make sure to
make mention of the fact Trump did announce a new
travel ban. He put out a video explaining his thinking
here and why he's imposing this. Now, let's go ahead

(04:22):
and take a listen to that.

Speaker 5 (04:23):
The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the
extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of
foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as
those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their
visas we don't want them. In the twenty first century,
we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by

(04:46):
foreign visa overstairs from dangerous places all over the world,
and thanks to Biden's open door policies, today there are
millions and millions of these illegals who should not be
in our country. In my first term, my powerful travel
restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they

(05:06):
were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks
on American soil. We will not let what happened in
Europe happen to America. That's why on my first day
back in office, I directed the Secretary of State to
perform a security review of high risk regions and make
recommendations for where restrictions should be imposed. Among the national

(05:30):
security threats their analysis considered are the large scale presence
of terrorists, failure to cooperate on visa security, inability to
verify travelers' identities, inadequate record keeping of criminal histories, and
persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays, and other things.

(05:54):
Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country
where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screened those
who seek to enter the United States.

Speaker 4 (06:05):
And this is an example of Trump two being prepared
in a way that Trump one wasn't. Because Trump one,
they do the Muslim ban right out of the gate.
It's ridiculous, it gets thrown out in court. Can't do
you can't do a Muslim.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
Ban, right.

Speaker 4 (06:18):
So then they look through over the next eight years,
looked and they sort of tried a version of it
in Trump won. But they looked through the bregs and
the laws and they're like, oh wait, so a president
can say that restriction from a particular country is restricted
if we say it's not because we're bigoted against Muslims,
but because of reasons. Right, So on day one he said,

(06:39):
State Department go find reasons for a variety of countries,
and noticeably they throw in a few non Muslim majority
countries so that you can't say that it's a Muslim ban.

Speaker 2 (06:50):
Yeah, put them two up on the screen. This has
the list of a dozen I think countries that they
have picked.

Speaker 4 (06:55):
Here, Afghanistan, Burmachad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Era A Haiti, Iron, Libyas,
and Maya su Dan Yemen. None of this is funny,
but I did see one good joke. It's man Equatorial
Guinea must have crossed the line. Okay, that's kind of bad,
but also.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
Kind of good ultimate dad joke there again.

Speaker 4 (07:14):
Yeah, again not funny. And then there's another seven similar
ish countries that are you know, getting restrictions but not
a total ban. So yeah, this is uh just slapdash
across the board, but designed to stand up in court.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
And this was the thing is, it's not like they
needed much justification last time around. You just can't, you know,
like outright be like we are racist and discriminating against Muslims, right,
you had to give some fig leaf, and then yes,
the executive does have a you know a significant amount
of discretion. So I still expect this will face court challenges,

(07:54):
and you know, I don't want to like predict ultimately
where that goes, but it has a much more higher
likelihood of standing up in court than it did the
first time around. And the other thing people are raising
Ryan is like, we have a World Cup coming here,
and like there's exemptions in here for players from these countries,
but not from fans for fans from these countries. So

(08:16):
this has really obviously significant impact. Not to mention being
sort of overtly discriminatory and throw back to Trump one
point zero. The other thing that's worth mentioning is he
name checks there the Egyptian national who committed that terror
attack in Boulder, Colorado as justification.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
I mean, Egypt isn't on this listy, but.

Speaker 4 (08:37):
You know he's using this as is too important of
an ally to do this.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Exactly, Yeah, but he's using this as a pretext to say,
oh see, you know this is the justification creating.

Speaker 4 (08:46):
A wrack because al Qaeda in Afghanistan attacked this exactly.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
Yes, similar to that exactly. So in any case, I
don't think that that was the reason that he did this.
I think it, you know, was something that he used
to make the rhetorical case. But to your point, Ryan,
it looks like they've been working on this effectively from
day one to try to do this in a way
that may actually stand up in court. There was one
other piece of immigration news here that is quite significant
we wanted to get in the show.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
Can put M four up on the screen that.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Federal Court Judge Boseburg here in DC issued ruling saying, Hey,
those people that you just swept up and sent to
El Salvador to Seacott, to brought in a concentration camp
for life with zero due process, you got to figure
out some way for them to be able to challenge
their removals. So, you know, obviously the Trump administration has

(09:35):
done everything they can to defy the courts, especially when
it comes to the migrants who were sent to Seacott.
So I don't expect anything imminent in terms of a
process that will enable these men who were you know,
sentenced to life and a gulog with no due process
to be able.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
To challenge their detention there.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
But this will you begin a process that will play
out through the courts and we'll see where it goes
from here.

Speaker 4 (09:58):
Ryan, Yes, indeed, we have a programming note. We mentioned
this yesterday and the day before. For this month, we
are we're bringing back the monthly, so ten dollars a
month premium subscriptions to Brkingpoints that we used to have those,
then it switched to just annual. But you know, sometimes
it's tough to plunk down a whole hundred dollars, So

(10:21):
this is if you want to be a premium subscriber,
but you don't want to lay all that out all
at once, you can just do the monthly. And also,
in order to coax you in there, here's a free month.
So you go to Brekingpoints dot com and put the
promo code BP free. That is just for people watching this.
Do not share this with anybody. This is just this

(10:41):
is just between us, and you tell your friends and family, Yeah,
tell anybody, Don't tell anybody else other than that.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
Yes, only the best people are allowed to avail themselves
of this offer. And you made a great point yesterday Ryan,
when we were talking about this have you noticed that
we don't subject to you to obnoxious ad reads where
we try to you know, hawk like a case only
disturbing products to you exactly. The reason is because of
you guys supporting us. And by the way, there's been
a big response to this promotion, so thank you guys
so much to those of you who have signed up.

Speaker 4 (11:08):
And if we don't have a huge response, then we
will start reading ads. That is a that is not
a threat, that is a promise, and I will be
on air reading hymns ads and it won't be the
hair loss ones. So if you don't want to subject
yourself to that, Breakingpoints dot com the promo code is beef.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
Some people might be into that, Ryan, I don't know.
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (11:31):
Some people might be canceling right now. I don't want
to do I actually wouldn't do.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
That, So don't there's some hardcore grim heads on there.
You never know, you never know what they might be into.
All right, let's move on from this some big news
with regard to the economy. An interesting exchange between a
Republican senator and Howard Lutnik asking about Hey, okay, so

(11:55):
what does Vietnam? As one example, actually need to do
to be able to come to some sort of a
beneficial trade deal with this administration. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to this exchange.

Speaker 6 (12:06):
If Vietnam, for example, came to you tomorrow and said, okay,
mister Secretary, you win. We're going to remove all tariffs
and all trade barriers. Would the United States please do
the same? Would you accept that deal? Absolutely not? Absolutely not.

(12:29):
That would be the silliest thing we could do. Why
is that Vietnam has a one hundred.

Speaker 7 (12:36):
And twenty five billion dollars exports to US and imports
from US twelve and a half million dollars. And you're
thinking Vietnam exports one hundred and twenty five billion.

Speaker 6 (12:48):
I'm aware of the figures, but tell me where do
they get it from?

Speaker 7 (12:50):
The buy ninety billion from China? Then they mark it
up and send it to us, So it was just
a patent way of.

Speaker 5 (12:56):
China to us.

Speaker 6 (12:57):
You wouldn't accept that deal.

Speaker 4 (12:59):
No, it's terrible.

Speaker 7 (13:00):
We're the one with money, We're the one with the store.

Speaker 6 (13:03):
What's the purpose of reciprocity then? Is reciprocity not one
of your goals? Are you telling the President that we
shouldn't seek reciprocity. If that's what you're telling them, why
are you trying to do these trade deals? So you
are you are you not seeking reciprocity in these trade deals?

Speaker 7 (13:23):
We are thinking, we are absolutely seeking reciprocity with respective
things that can be recipable for China and sending.

Speaker 6 (13:32):
I said that if a country came to you and
offered you the ultimate reciprocity, no tariffs, no trade barriers
in return for us doing the same, you would reject.

Speaker 7 (13:44):
That, of course, because they buy from China and send
it to us.

Speaker 4 (13:47):
Don't you agree with those They said, we won't buy
from China.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
Now we're talking, and there's actually a lot to say
about this with regard to Vietnam specifically, what he's referring
to there is the issue of what they call it transhipping,
where it's like, okay, well we've got terrors on China,
but maybe some companies will just ship their goods from China.
This is illegal, by the way, but it still happens.
We'll ship their goods from China to Vietnam to avoid
the tariff. There has been also an effort in subsequent

(14:12):
US administrations to actually try to relocate manufacturing from China
to Vietnam, you know, to sort of since we have
a close relationship with them, friendly relationship with them at
this point. But it's this is exactly the problem and
why they have zero trade deals effectively at this point
is because if you say to a country, like even

(14:33):
if you lower your tariff barrier to zero, that is
still a terrible deal that we won't take, like what.

Speaker 4 (14:38):
Can you do? Right? And to Channel Sager and also
like Matt Stoller here, they would point out that the
Commerce Department, even under Biden, did an investigation into this
was in particular with the renewable energy clean energy industry
that China was basically shipping a whole bunch of stuff,
producing the things in China, moving them to Vietnam and

(14:58):
then getting around kind of bans on yeah, monopoly.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
Because there's also another thing you can do to try
to skirt the rules is you you know, have it
all but assembled and then ship it to Vietnam and
then there's just you know, building where they just sort
of put the pieces together and then claim, okay, this
is made in Vietnam instead of China.

Speaker 4 (15:16):
Right, And so he says, hey, look if and what
if they say they won't take the stuff from China anymore.
He says, now now we're talking. But again, the problem
here is that they're talking as if this trade war
is still going on as a strategic thing that may
result in some useful outcome for the United States, when
it seems like the world has decided that we don't

(15:40):
have cards, that Trump just kind of popped off with
these tariffs and is going to have to climb down,
and so they're just kind of waiting them out. And
then after that maybe they're making the time to be
able to sit down and create some you know, new
global trade regime that we're all satisfied with. But this,
this is not getting us there.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Yeah, and of course significant that it's a Republican senator
who was going that aggressive at a Trump administration official
is rather noteworthy. Had some really bad jobs numbers yesterday
that came out in the ADP Private Payrolls report.

Speaker 3 (16:15):
This isn't the big one that gets the most attention,
but also, you know.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
Significant, it was Friday, The big boy is Friday, and
oftentimes you know, this one sort of front runs. Now
sometimes they're totally disconnected and they show different numbers, but
sometimes this is also indicative of what we could expect
on Friday, So put this up on the screen. Wanted
to make sure to highlight this. Private sector hiring rose
by just thirty seven thousand in May, so I mean
nearly flat. The expectation was that it would be one

(16:40):
hundred and ten thousand. That was the forecast, and it
is below the previous jobs report number in April, which
was revised down to sixty thousand. And in particular noteworthy
here Ryan that one of the industries that actually lost
jobs was manufacturing.

Speaker 4 (16:58):
Yeah, I have that here. Goods per ducing industries down
two thousand jobs, manufacturing down three thousand, natural resources and
mining down five thousand. If the tariffs were creating investment
here in the United States to produce goods here, to
min our own natural resources, and to manufacture, you would

(17:19):
not see the numbers going down. We were not prepared
to go into this trade war, which is incredible because
it's not as if anybody sprung this on us like
this was. We chose the time and the place right
trade war, but had nothing.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
To cut ourselves unawares.

Speaker 4 (17:37):
We caught ourselves unawares. We had nothing ready for this. Yeah,
and China's like, hey, all those things you need for
your manufacturing industry, we're also going to restrict those. And
We're like, that's deeply unfair. How could you do that
to us? How rude?

Speaker 3 (17:53):
Incredible?

Speaker 4 (17:54):
This is utterly outrageous, incredible.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
And actually, let's go ahead and put the next piece
up on the screen because this is in This is
a CBO estimate which I don't even know how you
estimate the impact of these tariffs, and too the held.

Speaker 4 (18:06):
Right, this assumes that they're going to what they're going
to be right.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
But anyway, the Congressional Budget Office, which we're going to
talk more about in the big beautiful bill block, they
did an analysis and they got, Okay, if we left
this in place, because of the tariff revenue, you would
see a reduction in the federal deficit by two point
eight trillion dollars over ten years. But the double edged
sword of that is, on the other hand, they say,

(18:30):
real economic output will fall on net, meaning that you're
going to have a smaller economy, And if you are
collecting a high level of tariff revenue, that means ryan
you have not actually been successful at reshoring those industries.
So this is why we talk about when you know,
when Trump talks about two goals, one is restoring manufacturer

(18:50):
reindustrializing the country, the other being getting a whole bunch
of tariff revenue in those two things are.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
Actually at odds. The more that you reshore production, the
lower the tariff.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
Revenue is ultimately going to because obviously you'd be buying
those goods domestically rather than importing them from abroad.

Speaker 4 (19:05):
And the zero point four percentage point inflation over each
of the next two years that the CBO includes in
that analysis is quite significant. Like if your target for
inflation annually is two percent, you know that's that's twenty
percent higher than your target, just just for that. And again,
this assumes that they stay flat or that the policy

(19:28):
doesn't change, which the policy has changed. I can't even
count the number of times just since Liberation Day.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
So there's already been policy of vacillation before Liberation Day.

Speaker 4 (19:41):
So it doesn't make any sense to think that they
would they'll stay this way for ten years.

Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah, especially when you consider another administration. I mean, all
of it is incredibly uncertain. It's almost worthless to do
an analysis. But anyway, that's what they're saying. If you
left the tariffs in place. A couple of things we
want to highlight here in terms of fallout already, you know,
early indications of where things could be heading. This interesting
put a four up on the screen. So the Trump
officials delayed this report on farm trade.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
Because they didn't like what it said.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Effectively, the report indicated that the trade deficit in farm
goods had actually increased, and Republicans had made a bunch
of hay over a increase in the farm trade deficit
during the Biden administration. So rather than just you know,
going ahead of schedule, putting out the report on time,
or revealing these numbers that are uncomfortable and inconvenient for

(20:28):
the Trump administration policy, they just pushed the report off.
And then some of the numbers they're just like, yeah,
we're just not going to put that part out.

Speaker 4 (20:35):
And the written analysis they haven't put out yet and
they're not even sure if they're going to. Now the
analysts are saying that the redacted version does match the
original version, so like they didn't actually and in the
end monkey with the numbers. But this goes to what
Trump keeps doing, which is cutting off at the knees.

(20:55):
The real US advantages that we have globally, and I
I agree with Trump that we need to you know,
rearrange our economic relationships and that and that the way
the global trade is set up is damaging to everybody
and should be rethought. But if you're going to rethink it,
you have to you have to build on what you
have and then you go from there to transform into

(21:19):
something better. What he's doing without building something better, he's
wiping out what we do have and that and one
of the things, you know, going after all the universities
is one. Making it impossible to build a manufacturing base
is another. But what this does is it goes right
to the heart of our hub as the financial services
sector for the global economy. Like people and this is

(21:45):
crazy to think people trust American banks, right and people
trust American financial analysts. We don't. We have all sorts
of you know, macro corruption, but on a micro level,
people trust that if you give your money to JP
Morgan Chase, you know, you give you give your money
to Bank of America, you get a loan from them,

(22:06):
Your your your pension is whatever it is, like, it's
going to stay there. It's going to be there, and
it's going to be and the terms are going the
the activity is going to match the terms that you're offered,
and so on. Part that that that trust is very
hard to win back, and part of the trust comes
from the government data being considered reliable by everybody across

(22:29):
the board. And you're already seeing I think we're talking
about this in a second. People questioning the BLS data
because the Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that there's
this hiring freeze. They had to do a bunch of
layoffs and so they couldn't do the same analysis that
they could do before. They're like, we're not We're not
sure about these numbers. And what's so scary now? The
commodities traders have waiting for this report. This is like

(22:52):
every quarter this report comes out, people trade. It's a
big event. For it not to be there, and then
for people to be whispering, are they are they mess
with the numbers?

Speaker 8 (23:01):
Right?

Speaker 4 (23:02):
Then you might as well be investing in China. That's
China's big problem is people don't trust the stock market.
People don't trust the numbers coming out of the companies
or the government. They think they're fudging the GDP raid
all this stuff sometimes they are sometimes y'or not, but
that just the trust isn't there. We have the trust
and we're just gonna, uh just let it drain right out.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
There was discussion early on in this administration too. I
can't remember if it was Lutnik or bussn't, but I
covered it at the time of changing the way GDP
is calculated, because they you know, this was at the
height of DOGE and the chainsaw and all this stuff,
and they're like, government activities shouldn't count in GDP, right,
which is like so silly if you actually think it through.

Speaker 3 (23:40):
Not to mention there actually already is a metric that I.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
Can't remember it's called, but it is a measure GDP
without the you know, government and public sector spending. So
if you want that metric, it already exists. They just
didn't like the potential consequences of what they were doing
with DOGE on what it could mean with GDP, and
so they're you know, at that point, there were a
bunch of you know, a bunch of experts and analysts
who raise red flags about them potentially monking with that

(24:06):
data behind the scenes or you know, trying to fudge
the number. So that they are beneficial, and I mean,
could you put that passes I measure?

Speaker 3 (24:13):
Of course you couldn't, Right, of course you couldn't. Like
they will lie to you straight to your face. Every day.

Speaker 2 (24:19):
You will be confronted with directly contradictory, like definitive proof
that what they're saying is blatant, complete lies, and it
does not move them at all.

Speaker 4 (24:27):
The Carolin Levitt saying that the bill actually decreases the.

Speaker 2 (24:30):
Depth exactly, and yeah, yeah, and you're supposed to trust
that they're not going to like monkey with the GDP
or the jobs or the farm trade numbers.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Like of course people are going to be like, I.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
Don't know, if something that looked kind of bad was
set to come out, I could definitely see them just
kind of let's round it this way, let's round it
that way, let's push it off, let's just not let
these numbers get down to the public.

Speaker 4 (24:51):
And the other the advantage China does have is that
when their government wants to do things, you know, they
are broadly in strategic control of their of the direction
that they're going to take, and the companies have to
then feed off of that and follow along. Here not
the case, so you can put up this next element

(25:11):
axios reporting same thing we saw in the Biden administration
during COVID, but now and supply chains. But now this
time companies maybe using the new tariffs as an excuse
to raise prices across the board. Uh again, So we
saw this during COVID. You started seeing inflation kick in,
and all of these companies who had who have market

(25:32):
power in other words, you can't go somewhere else to
get the thing, started raising their prices and blaming COVID
or blaming supply chains. And then when you looked into it,
oh wow, their profits are way up, and their profits
are you know, significantly up over you know what the
input costs are. And so what they what they did

(25:56):
here with this report is they looked at companies that
do not have tariff related implications right, and saw significant
increases there as well.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Well some of them admitt So you have a heavy
construction equipment supplier told the New York Fed they were
raising prices on goods unaffected by tariffs, quote to enjoy
the extra margin before teriffs did increase their costs.

Speaker 3 (26:16):
I thought it.

Speaker 4 (26:17):
Extra margins are very enjoyable.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
Of course, I'd like to enjoy those extra margins. What
company wouldn't want to enjoy those extra margins. Some of
what is being done is somewhat justifiable because rather than
putting the entire cost of one tariff on one good,
they're like spreading it across. But there's a a I
didn't really I just learned this recently. There's an industry
term called taking price, which effectively is when.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
Your competitor or when you have the opportunity.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
To raise prices and you have some sort of an
excuse you're going to do it. You're going to take price.
And we also know from the COVID shocks that once
those prices go up, guess what they're not rushing to
even after if they had real cost increases.

Speaker 3 (26:56):
Once those costs go back down, your prices do not
go back down.

Speaker 4 (27:00):
You're going to give up price.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Now, once you've taken that price, you're not going to
give up that price.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
So yeah, yeah, And so meanwhile Trump is finding that, yeah,
things with Negotia with China not as easy as he
thought it was going to be. He's talking to she tomorrow.
He's been pining for this, and put this next element
from The New York Times up on the screen. He's
been pining for this call for a very long time.
Crazy headline the Times, Trump bemoans how quote hard it

(27:26):
is to strike a China deal with with hard and
yes it does. It's like New York Times. He's on
YouTube now, all caps H g R D there and
so it looks at this true social where Trump said,
I like President She of China, always have and always will.
But he is and this is all caps very tough

(27:47):
and extremely hard to make a deal with three exclamation
points with the time staying. Politico had reported that Trump
has grown quote obsessed with holding a call with She,
but as they report, she is showing no interest in
making a deal because he doesn't have to. He yes,
China like needs the United States as a market, but

(28:11):
we need China more. That is that is very clearly
the sense, and they note that, you know, Bloomberg reported
that China is now talking to Airbus about buying a
whole bunch of planes from there. Like, China's doing everything
it can to to try to reduce its dependency on
either American exports. Like the last time he tried this,

(28:35):
China was like, let's stop buying so many soybeans. From
the US and went to Brazil, and now they have
this locked in relationship with Brazil, which is leading to
enormous amounts of rainforest getting getting whacked and and it
has also like very much hurt Iowa and other soybean
producing parts of the country because it just it just
never came back. So they're they're figuring out, how can

(28:56):
we find how can we find other markets for our goods,
and also how can we find other places where we
can buy what we need.

Speaker 2 (29:03):
Yeah, and this way we're adjustments that they made prior
to this trade war. So unlike US, they've.

Speaker 4 (29:09):
Been thinking, they've been thinking about it. We haven't.

Speaker 2 (29:11):
And their largest trading partner is no longer the US
if you count the Ossion countries as a block, that
actually is their largest trading partner now. And our share
and we're still a gigantic customer, is still very important
to them. I don't want to diminish it, but our
share of their exports has you know, significantly declined over
the years, so it's not the same dynamic that it

(29:31):
was even five years ago.

Speaker 4 (29:33):
And we talked about this briefly yesterday, but the hardline
kind of anti China president in Korea, you know, try
to do a self coup to like get more power.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
Right.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
Lost. Six months later, the election comes around and the
more pro China center left candidate wins, the more pro
US anti China conservative candidate loses, and so that area
of the world, their area of the world, you know,
gets more friendly to them. Yeah. Again, everything Trump is

(30:08):
doing a systematically turning the world against us.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Well, and check this next one out in terms of
unintended consequences and the policy having exactly the opposite impact
of what this administration has claimed to be their goals.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
Put this up on the screen.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
A number of US automakers now are considering moving some
of their auto parks manufacturing to China.

Speaker 3 (30:29):
Why because China's put into.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Place very predictably, these rare earth magnet export controls. They
are absolutely necessary for the completion of you know, of automobiles.
And so you have several both evy and traditional automakers
who are like, maybe we got to do part of
this in China. And maybe, by the way, long term,

(30:51):
maybe if the teriff regime stays in place, yes we
manufacture you know cars here for the domestic US market,
but for the rest of the world, maybe we relocate
some of this into China. So and again, this is
incredibly predictable. I think anyone with a baseline knowledge of
the way China has been operating around the world to
try to shore up these supply lines and how far

(31:13):
behind we are in terms of that race to secure
those those minerals, those materials, could have predicted that this
would be one of the ways that they would retaliate
against US. And the automakers purportedly we're going to Trump
and saying, hey, we're going to be in trouble, like
really soon if we don't get this thing figured out right.

Speaker 4 (31:30):
It feels like we have a few years. And this
is setting aside whether or not some massive war breaks out.
It feels like we have a couple of years where
we can reach some kind of daytunt with China and
do a China. Everybody thinks China's like trying it here
in the US thinks they want to rule the world
or something. I don't think that's quite accurate. If we

(31:52):
proposed a G two, basically, all right, it's a huge world.
You're all the way over there, we're all the way
over here. We're going to do a G two we're
gonna we're going to share the world. We're going to
cooperate where we can. We're not going to be in
a direct conflict. We'll compete, but we'll compete like you know, Uh,
we'll compete fairly and uh, A rising tide lifts all boats. Otherwise,

(32:19):
a US that doesn't have it, doesn't have some sort
of you know, soft power projection is basically Brazil. Like
that's what we'll that's that's will be long term. Very
a lot of similarities geovographically and resource and demographically and
historically between US and Brazil. But we became much more
of a global power. They didn't. So they've got they

(32:41):
have the same amount of kind of runaway inequality, but
they don't have as much wealth. So they've got favelas
whereas we have. You know, you'd much rather live in
our favelas than theirs. Yeah, but that's where we're headed
if we don't reach some kind of daytime, is my take.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
Yeah, there's a world in which that each administration is
rushing towards which is just zero sum and based on
hard military conflict. I mean, they're you know, getting rid
of all the soft power and obviously the bill and
this is a good transition to the beautiful bill increases
are hard military power like that seems to be the
only type of power that they're interested in. There's a

(33:18):
world that's zero sum, where we are directly at odds
in a way that is both dangerous and also you know,
economically terrible for us. And there's a world in which
we you know, care about mutual cooperation, coexistence. And I
would say that world has never been more more important,
given the fact that many of the challenges that face
the globe are truly, truly are global existential challenges and

(33:41):
which you will need to work with China and other
countries around the world. And you know, instead they have
this sort of like bunker prepper mentality something Naomi Klin's
been talking about. Just take the proper mentality and extrapolate
it out to a national basis. That's effectively the mentality
they right and on.

Speaker 4 (33:58):
The on the hard war side, and which we should
do a segment on this, get somebody on maybe in
mas My colleague Mas Hussein has been studying this a lot.
It's not obvious that we would win, Like we have
a corrupt, backwards Western kind of military industrial complex.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
And when is the last time one of our military
adventures went well?

Speaker 4 (34:16):
And here's some bad news in India Pakistan. The US
asked Pakistan not to use airplanes that we had provided
to them because you know, for geopolitical reasons, you don't
want they don't you don't want a US made bomb
and a US made jet like killing Indians. So there's like,
so stand down on that. So Pakistan said, Okay, We're

(34:37):
going to use a bunch of these next gen Chinese
weapons that we have missed, both anti aircraft both you know,
air to air surfced air and and warplanes as well.
The and India is much much richer and bigger now
than Pakistan economically, right, and Pakistan outperformed the Chinese weapons

(34:57):
that people in the military industrial complex world called it
kind of China's deep seek military moment. These Chinese airplanes
knocked a bunch of Western airplanes out of the sky
and you know, cheaper and more effective. So it's like
hm and so Pakistans, which you know, was in that

(35:18):
case a proxy against India for China, showed that this
is not already this would not necessarily go well for US.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
Of all, drones are produced in China, right, and when
you think about the future of warfare, which is already arriving,
if you look at Ukraine versus Russia and what they
were just able to pull off, even though they're you know,
much smaller country, much smaller population, much smaller industrial base,
what they were able to pull off inside of Russia.
And I mean a lot of that war is like
drone versus drone at this point. And yeah, we are

(35:48):
dramatically behind, ramatically behind. Let's go ahead and transition to
the latest with regard to the beautiful bill. A lot
going on here. So Steve Bannon making some interesting comments
about the nature of what you would actually need to
do if you cared about deficit reduction, and he has
been saying for a while now, you really need to

(36:11):
lift taxes on the rich.

Speaker 3 (36:12):
Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 9 (36:13):
I want to stop the dead bomb elon and the
guys on Capitol here, You're going to have to raise taxes.
The wealthy can't get an extension of the tax cut.
That's got to go the middle class and the working
class that has to be extended and has to be
made permanent. At forty percent, the top racket of forty percent.

(36:33):
You pick them, that's got to go to thirty nine
and go back to thirty snap back to thirty nine
and a half percent, and go to forty percent. The
math simply doesn't work. There are no Doge cuts. Let
me repeat this, and this is not usaid. Those are
programmatic things. Sometimes it waste for it. Where's the fraud medicaid?

Speaker 4 (36:51):
Which is?

Speaker 5 (36:51):
Where?

Speaker 4 (36:51):
Where is it?

Speaker 9 (36:52):
Haven't showed up with any has anybody been turned.

Speaker 4 (36:54):
Over to DOJ for fraud?

Speaker 9 (36:57):
The problem with Musk and I said this from the beginning,
he gave fall else hope to this political class who
doesn't want to cut anything. The reason if the big
beautiful bill's got all these problems and it had some issues,
he drove it because he promised a trillion dollars ladies
and gentlemen, one trillion dollars. That got him off the hook.

(37:17):
It's time for everybody to grow up, run around. Oh
so show me where it is. The recision next week
is nine billion dollars and two billion folks is PBS
and NPR. Give me a break. Didn't he doze for that?
Been fighting for that one forever. There's seven billion dollars
in there, Supposedly of I don't know, fraud on a

(37:38):
seven trillion dollar he committed to committed to the President
United States one trillion dollars.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
So Ryan his position is basically like, oh, well, the
reason the big beautiful bill blows up the deficit is
because of Elon, because they actually took seriously Trump included
apparently this idea he was going to cut a two
trillion or a trillion dollars, which I just I just
can't believe that they or I just can't accept that
they are really that dumb, Like do you accept that,

(38:03):
Like I if you just look at the governments and
where it is and what you would need to do,
were they really they really thought he was going to
cut a trillion dollars?

Speaker 4 (38:15):
I have, as you know, covered Congress for a very
long time.

Speaker 3 (38:18):
Yeah, tell me, I believe you think they're really really
that dumb.

Speaker 4 (38:22):
We are not sending our best, I mean, and he's.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
Trying to put so part of it obviously, Like you know,
I agree that they should lift the taxes on the ridge.
And also, by the way, when they say lift taxes,
they just mean like, don't cut taxes as much as
is planned to in this bill.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
But in any case, it is.

Speaker 4 (38:38):
I'll say this, Yeah, every time I speak with a
member of Congress whose lights are on, it is a
revelation to me. It's like, it's like, oh, awesome, I
found you have a working bread Republican Democrat, Like this
is somebody who has an idea of what they're talking about. Yeah,
and that is very unusual. That is not the normal

(38:59):
member of Congress.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
And so he's saying effectively like that Trump too bought
this idea that there would be a trillion dollars in
cuts made by Doge and then they could just like
go wild in this bill and spend whatever they want,
most of which is you know, gigantic tax cut for
people who really don't need that tax cut, and that
it would be a okay, and that they were cut

(39:21):
increase caught unawares. Again that you know this wasn't going
to happen. But I mean, also this this also doesn't
really hold up to any level of screwy either, because
by the time this bill is being crafted, it is
already abundantly clear that Doge is an utter and complete failure.
And he points the thing that you've been pointing to,
basically like, okay, if there was fraud. Where are the
indictments like the name, Give me one instance of one,

(39:46):
a single one. Not things you didn't like, not things
that were DEI, not departments like USAI D that you
just don't you know, think should exist, actual fraud of
which I am quite sure exist within the federal government.

Speaker 3 (40:01):
Not a single instance, not one.

Speaker 4 (40:03):
Right, right, they would be frog marched in front of them.

Speaker 3 (40:05):
We would all know every detail.

Speaker 4 (40:08):
We know their name, we know their middle name. It'd
be one of those people, yes, like like a presidential assassin.
And so Elon Musk going all in. It reminded me
in the book there where there's an anecdote the Elon biography.
I'm sure you remember this where he plays poker and

(40:28):
he has no idea how to play poker, but he wins,
like his first night, he wins a decent amount of money,
and somebody's like, you know, how did you do that?
You know, not to play poker. He's like, I just
kept going all in constantly, and then when I would lose,
I would just buy back in and go all in again.
And if you do that, and you have unlimited funds
and you outlast everyone at the table, you will eventually

(40:51):
take all their money. He's right about that, and I
feel like he's that's his been his approach to politics.
He clearly doesn't know how politics works, but he just
keeps going all in. And you know he went he
went all in taking on Boeing and you know the
rest of the kind of rocket companies.

Speaker 3 (41:10):
Yeah, and it worked.

Speaker 4 (41:12):
Huge credit to him, like taking on those incumbent industries
and staking a position and then becoming kind of a
dominant player. Incredible and huge risk. Went all in. Then
he went all in with Trump, putting so much on
the line because if he lost, Democrats were like coming
for him on a lot of different levels. Yeah, went
all in. But then he loses because he went all

(41:33):
in on Doge. So he's like, oh and he had
no cards, so he loses the whole pile. Now put
up this next element. He's going all in against Trump
in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed
the American people. And he's talking about voting for this bill.

(41:56):
It was a party line vote in that.

Speaker 3 (41:57):
I was going to say all about what five Republicans
be my guest brother.

Speaker 4 (42:02):
Yeah, So now he's saying he's going after all politicians.
Now will he do it, I don't know, but saying
it is pushing all your chips in.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
Yeah, And I mean from my reading of him and
his history of biographies whatever, this is just how he operates.
He's one of these I'm sure you guys probably know
people like this who don't feel like they're living unless
it's all on the line. Yes, and he's one of
these people, Like, if he's not risking everything complete collapse, humiliation, bankruptcy,

(42:33):
then he doesn't feel like he doesn't feel like he's
really alive. And so I've been saying for a few
weeks now, I could totally see him doing another phase
turn because remember was Elon and Obama had a great relationship.
Obama basically saved both SpaceX and Tesla during his administration.

(42:54):
You know, Elon was, you know, much more on the
sort of like democratic liberal side of the equation, which
just shows you these guys like even in his complaints
about this bill, it's all about his own interests. He
doesn't like that the TV credits were stripped on. I
don't like the V credits were stripped down either, but
that's he's mad about that. He's mad about the fact
that Trump pulled his NASA pick, which obviously very important

(43:15):
to him with regard to SpaceX. But I could totally
see him trying to do a face turn and you know,
go back to the other side of the political party,
and there would be plenty of people in the Democratic
side who would be happy to welcome him back in,
at least at the elite level. I think at the
grassroots level, once you've done your you know, your Roman salute,
and all the things that he's done and all the

(43:35):
things that he's said, and the way that he has
just completely made himself the most toxic figure on the
planet to your average normally Democratic voter, I think that
is going to be very hard to forgive and forget
among the base.

Speaker 4 (43:46):
And I think he's also genuinely very concerned about the
deficit impact of the bill, the debt impact, because if
the United States enters a period where of high interest rate,
you know, yes, on our debt, that means that both
private companies and the federal government are going to have
less money to spend on his Marx mission. Yeah, so

(44:09):
this is in direct competition with his y, with his life's.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
Mission, And I do think my reading of Elon is
that that is the life mission, the making humans intra
planetarritary and like going to Mars as like ridiculous and
absurd as it seems. I do think that that is
his life mission, and that's why he jumped into government,
because he realized it's not something you can do as
a private company on your own. You basically need that

(44:33):
mission to be backstopped by the treasury.

Speaker 3 (44:36):
Of the United States of America.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
But we have to be like a you know, functioning
wealthy nation with the ability to borrow and spend on
something like a you know, fantasy mission to Mars. And
so I think you're right about that aspect.

Speaker 4 (44:52):
I think if he's spent curious for your take on this,
imagine this. Let's say he spends four million dollars against
Mike Lawler, Republican in Upstate New York. Yeah, who you
know is one of the key targets, and he spends
four million on handful folklaw is going to lose. I
don't know, they it's going to be very close. He

(45:14):
could he could hold on, okay, and we'll see, We'll
see what the world looks like in a year. Yeah,
but let's say he spends four million dollars on twenty
different races, eighty million bucks and helps Democrats win back
the House. I think most activist Democrats are instrumental enough
they'd be like welcome back. But I mean the level

(45:37):
of destruction he did in gleeful destruction with the chainsaw
on the stage, you know, just you know, demonstrating such cruelty. Yeah,
the Roman salute, elevating all of these freaks on Twitter. Yeah,
I don't know, it's in those are in competition. What
do you what do you think they where do you
think they land?

Speaker 2 (45:57):
I think it depends very much on the kind of
of intra party fight in twenty twenty eight, you know
whether you have because right now there is so much
energy among the base and among the American people more broadly,
for like fighting oligarchy, and he is the symbol of that.
And so you know, I mean, he made himself the symbol.
He's the richest man on the planet, and he has

(46:19):
spent his time in government destroying social security, you know,
killing kids in Africa. I mean, it really is grotesque
not to mention the like carnival level imagery of him
on the stage with the chainsaw and the glee that
he took in destroying people's lives so well, I think

(46:40):
the you know, elite leaders of the Democratic Party would
be happy to welcome him back in and happy to
take his money. I think that the Democratic Party base
is headed in a more radical, anti billionaire direction, and
that is not going to be something that he would
be able to coexist with.

Speaker 4 (46:56):
Let's hope it would be very funny to go, and
it's already funny that he's going from we must elect
all these guys to save with Western civilization. Two years
later we must throw them all out of Hamet right
to say Western civilization was overrated anyway. So Trump is
unsurprisingly a little bit annoyed by this. Let's roll B
three because it's kind of funny.

Speaker 5 (47:15):
I think the Elon must thing really caught the President
by surprise, and I hear he is furious.

Speaker 4 (47:21):
But I think he's so smart to keep his.

Speaker 5 (47:23):
Powder dry because he just plays into what where critics.

Speaker 9 (47:27):
Would have to say the right can't get out of
their own way.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
Instead, just you have a goal.

Speaker 5 (47:33):
Pass it. Elon Musk is not in the Senate or
the House.

Speaker 4 (47:36):
Don't worry a man.

Speaker 10 (47:37):
I offer a different perspective Ansley as someone who is
supportive of the President's agenda. I am upset with Congress
right now. I don't blame the President for the Big
Beautiful Bill. I blame Congress because they go to their
constituents every single election and they say they're going to
cut spinning, cut, cook cut, and it doesn't seem like

(47:58):
there's a willingness to do that. But I don't think
Elon is anti Maga now or anti the President now.
He works so hard, put a lot of stuff on
the line to get a lot of wateful stuff cut,
and it doesn't seem like Congress is showing that's saying.

Speaker 11 (48:13):
I thought Elon was very respectful in some of the
original interviews, just saying, look, we have differences.

Speaker 3 (48:18):
I don't agree with him on everything.

Speaker 11 (48:19):
But this latest comment about calling the Big Beautiful Bill
a disgusting abomination. I was shocked to hear him say that.
I can understand why the President would not be happy
about that. This is someone who worked on his team.

Speaker 4 (48:32):
You know, I want to die and come back as
he has Donald Trump, this guy he if he comes
out hard against Elon Musk, the base loves that he
did that. If he's mad at Elon Musk, but he's
too afraid to say a word. He's savvy and sophisticated.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
That's right the deal.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
If he writes a good, big, beautiful bill, then he's
a genius for writing a great piece of legislation. If
he writes a bad, big beautiful bill, then it's not
his fault. It's actually the people in the house betrayed. Betrayed,
Like there is nothing that he could do that would
warrant even a second of criticism on that network. It's

(49:09):
truly just absolutely phenomenal.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
I mean that was Steve Bannon too, of like, well,
it's not Trump's fault that.

Speaker 4 (49:15):
He Bannon still has not come out and said vote
this bill down, which he despite the fact that it
is important to know, enormously critical of it, and I
love hearing him rip it apart, But he has so
far stopped short of the logical conclusion, which is then
don't do it.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
Bannon is a politician.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
He realizes that he needs his you know, best chance
of getting whatever things he wants and having access to
power is by being on Trump's good side.

Speaker 3 (49:39):
He knows what that means.

Speaker 4 (49:40):
That's why he's so good. It never criticized.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
It's always somebody else's fault. It's never it's Elon promised
these things and didn't deliver.

Speaker 3 (49:48):
And it's his fault.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
And you relied on his, you know, ability to find
these cuts and he didn't do it. So it's ultimately
his fault. And you see the same kind of game
going on there with the with the Fox and Friends
people who are trying to make sense of this new
world where Elon and Trump are at odds with one another.

Speaker 4 (50:03):
He did criticize Trump on the Bannon did criticize Trump
on the H one B front and every time directly
and every time he would say, we love you, You're
the greatest. We've disagreed with you on this for a
long time. And I remember there was this Bannon interview
that Bannon did when he was just a radio host
in twenty fifteen with Trump and they were arguing about

(50:23):
H one BS.

Speaker 2 (50:24):
Well, it looks like Bannon ultimately won that fight because
at the time Trump rhetorically back to the you know, yes,
we support H one B side of things, but in practice,
in terms of the policy, it's been Steven Miller's policy agenda,
and obviously they're going aggressively after foreign students and visa holders,
so you know, Ultimately, he.

Speaker 4 (50:41):
Was sad enough to know he could criticize Trump, not personally,
just like go on the policy. Yeah, and that he
would probably win because he had Stephen Miller, who Trump
told I think it was MBZ and you a, he
told some emirate, some leader, and he's like, this is
the guy who runs my administration. That's how he introduced
Steven Miller.

Speaker 3 (51:00):
That's right. I think there's a lot to that.

Speaker 2 (51:02):
Yeah, yeah, you see who was calling the shots in
terms of speaking for the boss. There's some weirdness around
the deficit conversation that's going on on the Republican side
because you have people like Rand Paul Ron Johnson who
are upset about the amount that the bill blows up
the deficit. But the reason the bill blows up the

(51:23):
deficit is because of these gigantic tax cuts for the
rich that they ideologically support. And so there's we can
put the numbers up on the screen. Here, there's a
chart that they assembled, Steve Rattner actually assembled, but I
think it's useful to look at that shows how much
this does blow up the deficit compared to other large
packages in recent years. I mean the Biperson Infrastructure Bill,

(51:44):
is nowhere close. But even if you look at the
American Rescue Plan, which is the first COVID package that
cares or sorry, which was the second one, the CARES Act,
which was the first one, the original Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act, which was the original giant giveaway to the rich.
You know this this blows these out of the water.
But they can't really say that because they're supposed to
be really ideologically committed to the tax cuts, and also

(52:04):
because they're supposed to be really ideologically opposed to the
CBO and scoring the tax cuts in like anything approaching
a reasonable way and not just pretending like tax cuts
are fairy dust and they make you know, they make
deficits magically go away. So instead they've been honing in on, well,
it increases the debt ceiling, and that's what we really
are opposed to. So what do you make of some

(52:25):
of those dynamics there.

Speaker 4 (52:28):
Yeah, it's it's cowardly because the debt, the debt ceiling
is not a real thing. It's it's a it's a
manufactured yeah, product of an old, very old way of
thinking about financing the government. And it's ridiculous. And I've
said over you know, I got to be consistent here.
It's it's a it's a ridiculous thing.

Speaker 3 (52:48):
Yes, it should go away.

Speaker 4 (52:49):
The Congress appropriates money and authorizes the FED or the
government to borrow certain amounts of money produced, you know,
to pay for particular programs and to do particular spending,
like they do that. And then we throw in this
extra step where you have to then also authorize the
limit on which the debt can be generated. It's like,

(53:12):
one does this right, you already did all those things,
like you pass all those things, like get get rid
of this thing, and so, but it lands for voters
because it's one thing, and it's one number, like you
want to borrow five trillion dollars, that's crazy, that's an
insane number. And so for a politician, it's easier for them,
I think, Yeah, just to just latch onto that. Did

(53:35):
we just have the RUSS vote?

Speaker 3 (53:36):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (53:37):
Put B six up on the screen. No, we haven't
talked about this yet. We've got a RUSS vote. Tweet
here his spin.

Speaker 4 (53:42):
O and B director. This is the brains of this operation,
Like this is the real revolutionary this is.

Speaker 3 (53:48):
The Project twenty twenty five.

Speaker 12 (53:49):
Guy.

Speaker 3 (53:50):
You know, he's the one.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
What did he say, thinks federal government workers need to
be put through trauma or something like that.

Speaker 4 (53:55):
Yes, like he is, this guy is hardcore. He and
Stephen Miller together being basically the two most powerful people
in this government is just a startling turn of events
over the last one hundred years. Like these are absolutely revolutionary, gentleman.
So he writes here, omb just reviewed the new CBO

(54:18):
score of the One Big Beautiful Bill. It confirms what
we knew about the bill at House passes. The bill
reduces deficits by one point four trillion over ten years
when you adjust the CBO's one big gimmick not using
a realistic current policy baseline. It includes one point seven
trillion dollars in mandatory savings, the most in history. If
you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves

(54:41):
the fiscal picture. And so he does two things here.
One is he says it's not fair to use the
CBO's approach. These tax cuts were never going to expire,
so we should not assume they were going to expire
and then count that against us. Except the problem is
Wall Street and the bond markets. That's they think about

(55:03):
it much more closely to the CBO like that. The
CBO and the bond markets agree. Therefore the bond market
has to say in this, and that's where the movements
and interest rates are going to come from. The second
thing he does is he bullies OMB into giving him
the numbers that he wants, like he runs the OMB,

(55:23):
and he's not. He's going to start with a conclusion
and demand that they generated. And this I know from
sources inside OMB, and there's been plenty of reporting about this,
and so what he told them basically is you need
to conclude that cutting all of these taxes is going

(55:45):
to produce x amount of economic growth, which will then
lead to more tax revenue, which will then cut the deficit.
Maybe it will, there's but there's no reason to think
over all of the years that this has been tried
that that is what will actually happen in practice.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
No, of course not, because they'll just like you know,
richbe Wiles will not. You said this, well, it certainly
will not increase the real economy. They'll be more share
buybacks and things of that nature, more financial engineering, you know,
more in wealth inequality.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
There'll be all of that for sure.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
But but yeah, I mean, it's it and The other
thing is here in terms of the gimmick he what
he's saying with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and
what he's talking about with the policy baseline is when
they passed that bill, part of what they did to
monkey around with the numbers and make sure that it
didn't say an even more gigantic number that was being
added to the debt and the deficit was that they

(56:41):
had a technical sun setting of these rates.

Speaker 3 (56:44):
And now you say, oh, we never.

Speaker 2 (56:45):
Intended those rates to go away, so you shouldn't Now
you shouldn't count it in. So they didn't want to
count it in the first time, and now they don't
want to count it.

Speaker 3 (56:53):
In now either. Is that that's the you know, the
fuzzy math that they're.

Speaker 4 (56:56):
Engaged in here, Ryan, Right, And so russ vote testified
yesterday in Congress about the dire consequences of not passing
the big beautiful bill. Let's roll this. If HR one fails,
if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get
to the desk of the President and signed in the wall,
what happens at the end of this year.

Speaker 13 (57:14):
I think we'll have a recession. I think we will
be economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think
we'll have a sixty percent tax increase in the American people.
And just to if I could answer Cronsman Hoyer's question
or statement, the notion that this bill, I mean, we've
been actually criticized unfairly on the Reconciliation Bill for the

(57:37):
fact that it is all mandatory savers. I mean, you said, look,
we need to address the mandatory side of the House.
There's one point seven trillion dollars in mandatory savers on
the Reconciliation bill. Do we need to do things on
the appropriation side the discretionary side. Yes, that's what we're
here to talk about with recisions and the bill that
we've the budget that we've sent up to you. But

(57:57):
we have to get back to what we did in
nineteen ninety seven, where we had for the first time
substantial mandatory reforms around not just cutting people and just
getting people off programs, but reforms a work requirement. We're
using the same model that Bill Clinton signed into law,
and we think it will have incredible impact on not

(58:20):
just these programs, but giving people dignity of work.

Speaker 4 (58:23):
And we're not going to be ashamed by that mandatory means,
you know, Medicare and Medicaid, solid security, those types of products.
When Bill Clinton and the Republican House and Senate did
this last time, the way that they saved money was
by kicking people off programs like any So he's saying
right there, we should do it like Bill Clinton did.
And Bill Clinton also did work requirements in order to

(58:45):
kick people off the programs.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
CBO says that if this bill goes into law, ten
million fewer Americans will have health cut insurance coverage, mostly
from getting kicked off of Medicaid, but there are also
some changes to Affordable Care Act and Medicare that will
lead to losses and coverage. So you're talking about ten
million more Americans losing their health insurance coverage in order
to fund giant tax skift for the rich, not to
mention cuts the snap and food you know, food stances.

Speaker 4 (59:09):
Right, and unfortunately for all of us, those people don't
stop getting sick, having heart attacks, having diabetes, having health
complications that need to be treated. So you don't actually
save money out of the entire economy, right, You're just
moving it around. And it's cheaper to give people medicaid
as a society, yes, than it is to treat them.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
Yeah, that's in the emergence why we have the most
expensive healthcare you know regime in the you know, in
the developing world, in the world, because we have these
little piece meal and you got to pay, and you know,
millions of people don't get coverage at all, and it
ends up being incredibly penny wise and pound foolish because

(59:49):
at the end of the day, what you end up
paying for is the most expensive type of care where
people don't go to the doctor, they don't take preventative
measures because they can't afford to, and then you're at
the emergency room, you know, in crisis, which is obviously
terrible for human beings and also you know, terrible for
the budget.

Speaker 4 (01:00:05):
And also because the Supreme Court struck down the medicaid
expansion in Obamacare, that left it up to each individual
state for whether or not they would expand medicaid. Most
of those red states had to be pushed by the
people in the states. So a bunch of red states
only expanded medicaid via constitutional amendment. They would put it

(01:00:28):
on the ballot, the people went out and voted for it.
We thought, okay, this is over, Like like everybody's fought
for this, and now they Medicaid expansion is in there,
but you get a revolutionary like vote in there, and
he's going to then cut the Medicaid federal match that
goes to these Red states. But look what happened. They

(01:00:49):
put it in their constitutions. So the Red States don't
actually have the option of dialing it back like they
have to spend this because they agree to do it
in their constitution. So now the Red state has to
either raise taxes or they have to cut spending somewhere
else to meet their constitutional obligations. So who's he screwing here, right,

(01:01:16):
A lot.

Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
Of Red states, of a lot of maga. Yes, Steve
Bannon would say, yes, all right, let's go and turn
to Israel.

Speaker 4 (01:01:25):
So NBC's Andrea Mitchell has been attending the State Department
press briefings frequently since the Trump administration began, and has
been pressing Tammy Bruce, particularly on Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza,
as well as its starvation campaign and the collapse of

(01:01:47):
its aid distribution project. Here's an example just from yesterday
of the way that she's been going back and forth
with Tammy Bruce Andrew.

Speaker 13 (01:01:56):
On that because.

Speaker 6 (01:01:59):
No one should jumped inclusions.

Speaker 5 (01:02:00):
We all have reporters on the ground.

Speaker 8 (01:02:02):
Israel has not that US based reporters in, but we
have partners there and staff members there who have been
courageously there since October seventh doing this job. And if
unlike other war zones, even plane in Kiraki elsewhere where

(01:02:22):
US reporters have always been in Viannam, this is the
first conflict whom we have not been able to go
in accept with IDFX.

Speaker 4 (01:02:30):
You know escorts work.

Speaker 8 (01:02:32):
What he said was not just misleading reports in the
fog of war.

Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
We all know what happens in some instances, and I'm.

Speaker 8 (01:02:39):
Not sure if it's these cases, but to suggest that
the press reports fostered anti svagism, which led to the
death of the two embassy.

Speaker 14 (01:02:51):
People here in Washington and to other antisemitic attacks in
this country is hyperbole beyond what is normal diplomatic practice.
And as a journalist and as a member of this
press court, I think it's deeply offensive for someone who
has well, I don't speak for Ambassador Huckaby.

Speaker 12 (01:03:13):
I understand Andrea, I know, I understand, and I understand
the depth of your work and the work Andrea, I
understand your work, the depth of your work, the work
of people who cover war, and the dangers that exist.
I don't speak for Ambassador Huckabee. I'm not going to
parse what he has said, but what I can tell

(01:03:36):
you is that inevitably, as we have all watched, the
kind of Jew hatred and anti Semitism that has been
promulgated through media has been NonStop even after October seventh,
and that if you weren't involved in that, and others
who are not involved in that, that's not who he's
speaking about. I would argue that it would be naive

(01:03:58):
to suggest that the the Jew hatred that whether it's
through social media, through through fake news, through the rhetoric
regarding Israel through the years, has not developed or perpetuated
anti Semitism.

Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
Distribution and foods though certainly.

Speaker 8 (01:04:17):
I'm just saying that there is widespread criticism.

Speaker 4 (01:04:19):
And a service criticism.

Speaker 8 (01:04:21):
Yes, the consulting group that was supporting the.

Speaker 15 (01:04:24):
Foundation, which is back of it, that the distribution system
was not as professional as audit excuse me, the World
Food Program and other people who.

Speaker 8 (01:04:35):
Are used to working in this area, and that there
should have been more distribution points where people would not
have been told to line up.

Speaker 12 (01:04:42):
And Andrew again. I know, you know what, but these questions, now,
these are these are critiques of an environment that we've
talked about.

Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
Regularly every day, every time I'm up here.

Speaker 12 (01:04:51):
It is it is this critique of I say, seven
million meals have been distributed, but you know it would
have been but not for you.

Speaker 4 (01:04:59):
It should have been.

Speaker 12 (01:04:59):
Those guys over there or these people over here over
the last three years, with the with the U n
or the World Food Program, and no one has distributed
seven million meals to Gaza.

Speaker 14 (01:05:11):
Many many, hundreds of thousands of people in Israel as
well as the families the people being held by Almas
are protesting is food decision.

Speaker 8 (01:05:21):
The former Defense minister criticized these decisions.

Speaker 12 (01:05:25):
There's well, I'm sorry, andre Andrea, I understand, I understand.

Speaker 4 (01:05:32):
So two different avenues there to unpack. The first one,
she's standing up for journalists, saying it's unfair to say
that the media is responsible for the embassy staffers getting killed.
You what you make of that back and forth.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
I mean, first of all, it's just extraordinary that it's
Andrew Mitchell in there, and you know, even this administration
had like is much more deferential to me than they
would be like maybe.

Speaker 4 (01:06:01):
Two for example, we appreciate the depth of your work.

Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
Yeah, we appreciate it. And I mean, like, God bless
her for being in there.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
It up.

Speaker 3 (01:06:09):
She doesn't have to be doing any of this, So
it's kind of wild to see that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
And I think it's emblematic of you see her, you
see Piers Morgan, you see you know German and French
and other leaders who have gotten to a point where
the okay, this is ridiculous, and you know, the media
point Andrew Mitchell obviously.

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
Is like a mainstream media institution.

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
The idea that they have not been sufficiently pro Israel
is so utterly preposterous as to not even be worth
like dignifying arguing again, like, it's just so absurd even
to this day, the type of headlines you cover, the
Washington Post thing where they put out this obsequious apology
because they only had three witnesses to this massacre. Oh,

(01:06:55):
how dare we not give enough credence to Israel's complaint?

Speaker 4 (01:07:00):
CNN came out last night with seventeen witnesses. Wow, seventeen eyewitnesses. Wow,
that's saying that it was Israel. That and the washing
post stills. You know, we're so sorry we didn't give
proper weight to this Israeli denial of the thing that
everybody saw happen.

Speaker 5 (01:07:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:07:13):
So, I mean so, I think the fact that you
have even and Andrea Mitchell, who's in there like this
is ridiculous bullshit and going back and forth. I think
that is very indicative of the moment that we're in
right now.

Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
And the second set of questions goes to the first point.
It's not the media that has created the Gods of
Humanitarian Foundation crisis. It's Israel that produced this. It's not
the messenger that you need to shoot. It's the IDF
that is defending God's Humanitarian Foundation that is shooting all

(01:07:45):
the people who are coming to get aid. And you
keep seeing the administration and Israeli supporters saying that they
delivered seven million meals. She says, what do you want
from us? Nobody had figured out how to get aid
in and now all of us sudden, we've gotten seven
million meals in this week. And it's like, well, first
of all, that's not true that nobody had figured out
how to get aid in.

Speaker 3 (01:08:06):
Yeah, they had quite an effective distribution system.

Speaker 4 (01:08:08):
Yeah, the eight agencies were getting aid in it.

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
It was hard for them to get shot.

Speaker 4 (01:08:11):
It was hard for them to get through the crossings
because Israelis would sometimes allow no trucks, sometimes ten, sometimes
one hundred. But once they got in, you know, the
aid was getting distributed and you weren't seeing you weren't
seeing chaotic scenes. So but but now you are. And
so she keeps highlighting this seven million figure. But if

(01:08:32):
you do the math on that, there's two million people
plus in Gaza. That means that's and they're talking about
over a week, you know, seven million for a week.
That's three and a half meals per week per person,
and there is no aid coming from anywhere else. So
it's not as if this is just supplementing what you're

(01:08:53):
what people are already getting. Yeah, like that's what they're
that's what people are getting, and that's on.

Speaker 3 (01:08:58):
Average if you take their numbers at face value.

Speaker 4 (01:09:00):
If you take your.

Speaker 2 (01:09:01):
Numbers of face value, the mostable to them as you
possibly could.

Speaker 4 (01:09:05):
Be agentsI say you shouldn't, and because of the way
they're chaotically delivering it, the stronger getting most of it.
So maybe some people are getting twenty meals a week
and most everybody else is getting zero and they're not
the kind of nutritious meals. Jeremy Lefredo, for a drop
site News just went to an unawarehouse in Jordan. We

(01:09:27):
should maybe we can play that clip next week and
he tours it and there's all this food expiring. But
it's very precisely regimented for people who are facing malnutrition
and four people who are only getting this in their diet,
and so it's very precisely formulated to have need to
get all of the calories you need, all of the

(01:09:48):
balanced diet you need. If you look at what God's
Humanitarian Foundation is bringing in, it's like pasta right, It's
like it's not what aid organization sans who've been doing
this for a very long time would put together if
it was up to them. So meanwhile, the isolation and

(01:10:09):
the and the political problems facing the net Yahoo government,
both internationally and domestically continue. We can put this next
element up on the screen. French dock workers are refusing
to load machine gun AMMO, destined for Israel's army. This
comes as you know, Spain is cutting military contracts as

(01:10:32):
there's a lot of pressure on the government of Ireland
to abide by its own laws which say that weapons
are not supposed to be shipped through their airspace. And
so at every you know kink in the system, there's
increasingly there's going to be pressure.

Speaker 2 (01:10:50):
I mean, here's what I would say. I think Chris
Hedges was saying this to Hassan this week. The leaders
are not going to do like were this far along.
The leader are not going to end the stranger side.
So it is up to actions like this to cut
off the supply. And so to see these French dock
workers standing in solidarity, it's you know, it's it's quite
significant and we need.

Speaker 3 (01:11:11):
We need much more action like that around the world.

Speaker 4 (01:11:13):
Meanwhile, a very interesting coalition of bedfellows is coming together
to put pressure on Yahoo. So the Haredi Party is
threatening to kind of dissolve the Yahoo coalition. This is
the ultra author this is you know, the leading party
for the ultra Orthodox section of Israeli public. And it's

(01:11:34):
all over whether or not kind of Heredi men and women,
ultra Orthodox men and women would have to serve just
like everybody else, every other Jewish citizen of Israel, you know,
has to serve in the IDF and what's what's fascinating
about this? And Amir Tabone and also in Hirez has

(01:11:55):
a very useful kind of analysis that can explain and
how the politics of this are all shaking up. But
basically there's a fundamental contradiction that can't be resolved. One
is that Netnahu Smoe Church Benngavir want a never ending
war to realize what they see as a once in

(01:12:15):
several generations opportunity to fully expel the Palestinians from Gaza,
like that's that's that's on the one hand. On the
other hand is the material problem of not enough soldiers
to carry out this genocidal task. Reconciling those two requires

(01:12:36):
the ultra Orthodox. There's no other way to get there. Yeah,
requires the ultra Orthodox to participate in the military, and
they don't want to do that. So what what what
they are now? They're not saying out loud that this
is what they're doing, but there is a belief among
some in the ultra Orthodox community that if the war ends,

(01:13:00):
the pressure on them to participate in the military goes away,
because the pressure is being driven by the war, right,
and so a lot of people in Israel saying this
is an act. This is Ntya who's not falling because
of the gods of war. He's falling because of this
internal dispute within Israeli society, of internal religious dispute. And

(01:13:23):
that's true on a surface level, but it's only true
because the war is making it something that can't be avoided.

Speaker 3 (01:13:31):
That's right, and we can put Shiles tweet hair up
on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
He's talking about NETANYAHUO was apparently recorded saying that the
reason he fired Defense Ministry you have goan in chief
of staff Hertzi Hilevy, were because they were obstacles to
allowing Haredi men that exemption from the army. This was
a recording uppeared on Channel thirteen. Netnyahu's saying, we need
to save not only the state of Israel, but also
the Torah world. That is what I believe in God willing,

(01:13:56):
that is what we've done to do this. We need
time to pass the law properly so it cannot be
challenge the law allowing this exemption.

Speaker 3 (01:14:02):
We had huge obstacles that we removed.

Speaker 2 (01:14:04):
You know, when the Defense minister is against you, the
chief of staff is against you, you can't move forward.
Now we can, so you know, exposing sort of how
critical this fault line within Israeli society is and the
particular issue right now, obviously it's military service, but there
is a broader like demographic, significant longer term demographic issue

(01:14:25):
which the ultra Orthodox have, you know, the largest families,
so much of the demographics of the state are shifting
towards being ultra Orthodox.

Speaker 3 (01:14:34):
But don't participate in the military, you know it don't work.
Don't work.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
Yeah, And so the state really supports them. You know,
in the US lingo, they're the ultimate welfare queens. And
you know, if you have a shrinking population that is
of the more liberal liberal in Israeli context, secular variety
to support this growing ultra Orthodox population, you're going to
have long term, very signific demographic issues. So long as

(01:15:02):
you continue to deny basic rights to Palestinians who also
have large families, you know, and you know, perfectly willing
to work.

Speaker 3 (01:15:10):
But that's that's off the table as a solution apparently,
right and.

Speaker 4 (01:15:13):
Right which before October seventh, you know, Palestinians made up
a huge portion of the labor force in Israel, you know,
crossing you know, mostly Westbac but also Gaza as well,
and there have been efforts to bring in Indian workers
and so on that you know haven't worked, you know, remotely,

(01:15:35):
haven't worked remotely as well. The end of the Lebanon conflict,
in the sense of having manpower in Lebanon bought Nannyahu
some time. It is classic Nyah who that he doesn't
have a solution to this irreconcilable problem, and so he's

(01:15:56):
just trying to punt it forward, just trying to push
it off. This one more week, one more day, where
we I mean, that's.

Speaker 3 (01:16:00):
Worked for him so far, are last thing.

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
Let's go ahead and show this extraordinary footage Ryan, and
maybe you can explain what we're seeing, as supposed to
by drop site news of these two men who recorded
themselves trying to obtain food and coming under fire from
the IDF machine guns firing over their heads.

Speaker 1 (01:16:18):
Here.

Speaker 4 (01:16:19):
Yeah, as you can hear in the in the background,
this is the is These are gun shots. Let's be
very careful here in our wording because we don't want
to say anything that gets the IDF upset. These are
gunshots coming from the Israeli positions. Bullets, bullets are emerging
from Israeli weapons. Let's but you know, we can't know.

Speaker 2 (01:16:43):
Let's loan investigation a play out before you figure out.

Speaker 3 (01:16:45):
What really happens.

Speaker 4 (01:16:46):
We need an investigation to figure out how it is
that the bullet exited the Israeli weapons.

Speaker 3 (01:16:52):
And how Mastrich them into it and forwarded.

Speaker 4 (01:16:54):
Itself towards the Palestinians who were seeking this this AID. Yeah,
this is just another massacre, another debacle at an AID
distribution site where they tell everybody calm at this time.
And you know, basically first come, first serve. So of
course when you have millions of people starving, you get

(01:17:18):
chaos and then they and then they shoot at people.

Speaker 2 (01:17:21):
And I believe they have what four distribution sites set
up previously, you know, during times when there was a
more fully operational AID distribution network, you're talking about hundreds
of sites scattered throughout the Gaza Strip. Now you have
four sites in particular locations to your It's a literal
hunger game situation where if you were strong enough to

(01:17:42):
trek the miles and miles, you need to make it
to one of those distribution sites and then to basically
like fight your fellow Palestinian fellow Palestinians in order to
grab a box of this not at all nutritious stuff
and brave being fired upon those you know, those bullets
exiting is really weapons however that occurred.

Speaker 3 (01:18:02):
That's that's what they've set up here.

Speaker 2 (01:18:04):
And it is such a brutal and horrific and unconscionable
system that even the Boston consulting group has decided this
is too much for them.

Speaker 3 (01:18:14):
And we, of course.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
Originally had the you know, American mercenary who was at
the head of this thing. He dropped out before it
even was put into place because he was like, Jesus,
this is this is beyond this is bad, this is
beyond what I am even willing to do. And now
you have this, like, you know, completely soulless group of
consultants who have also said, okay, we can't be involved
with the quote unquote Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

Speaker 4 (01:18:36):
Yeah, and they claim that they were doing it pro bono.
Then there's it's like, actually there's a reporting that no,
they're they're getting million dollars a month or a week
or whatever it was. Well, we'll see, but yeah. So
it's yeah, it's an absolute hell on earth. It's like
squid Games.

Speaker 3 (01:18:54):
It's like, yeah, I.

Speaker 4 (01:18:57):
Mean you go back and listen to what these guys
are put up with to try to get you know,
a little bit of pasta in a box.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05):
The video of the American mercenaries who were there, who
were like, oh, here they come, and it's just it's
so disturbing. I was saying to this to you before
the show, like, there is no way that this policy unfolds,
of complete genocide and humiliation and dehumanization can unfold without
all of the players involved just fundamentally not really believing

(01:19:27):
Palestin it's your human beings, which is why they get
so mad at Miss Rachel, and then for the for humanizing.

Speaker 4 (01:19:32):
Them, and then for the people who win the squid
game and get one box, they smile, They take a
picture of them and post it on Twitter, and all
these pro Israel accounts share it, be like, look look
at what other adversary is feeding their.

Speaker 2 (01:19:46):
End And Tammi Bruce goes up and brags the familiar meals.
How can you complain about this?

Speaker 4 (01:19:50):
Yeah, you complain we're not giving them food. Now you
complain that we're giving them food. We can't do anything right,