April 3, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Hunter's laptop & a new book on Biden's mental decline
- No phones in school & a song of one of our favorite clips
- The "trade war" & tariffs other countries charge us
- The media's economic coverage is awful
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty arm Strong and
Jettie and now he Armstrong and Jetty. So there are
(00:24):
three or four books coming out this spring with the
behind the scenes on the whole Joe Biden, he's senile
and we're hiding at Kamala Harris thing.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You probably that's right wing conspiracy theory, You lunatic.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
He's got a stutter. You probably remember that whole story.
He's got a stutter. I'm right, And there's another one
out in the Guided An Interview. We're gonna play some
clips here in a second, but before we get to that,
this hasn't gotten much attention, I guess partially because what's
the point now? But Miranda Devine, pointing out in the
New York Poe New FBI chat logs, revealed the extraordinary
(01:05):
gag order that senior leadership used to shut down the
Hunter Biden laptop discussion. Oh yeah, and it's just you know,
it's it's all in the history books now. But and
then you know everybody always claims, well, that sort of
thing couldn't happen.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Now, Well, I was gonna say. That's why you pay
attention to it. You've got to understand what the the
dangers are and work to build systems that won't allow
them to happen again.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The conversation's withheld by the FBI under Director Chris Ray
show that senior leadership issued an internal gag order on
the laptop. Here's the key thing you need to know.
When everyone in the country should know, but only half
the country knows. The FBI was in position of Hunter
Biden's laptop for ten months before the story broke in
(01:52):
the New York Post. They'd had it from the you know,
the computer owner or whatever like that, and their analysts
quickly to determined right after they got it that the
laptop did belong to Hunter, had not been tampered with
in anyway, and and could be used as evidence in court.
It was the real deal. All that stuff was true.
Nobody had messed with it. It was They decided that
(02:14):
ten months before the story broke, and then was immediately
turned into a this is a misinformation can't be printed,
you know the whole thing there. FBI kept their mouths shut.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
We're not gonna waste our time or our listener's time
with this story. Yeah, I wish they'd told those fifty
three whatever it was intelligence professionals that indeed it was legit.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
That's too bad and almost I don't know about certainly,
but you can make a decent argument that Trump would
have won if that story had been pursued the way
it should have been pursued.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, it's a change so massive in the landscape that, yeah,
you can't say that's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And even if you hate Trump a lot, you can't
be in favor of hiding the fact that the sitting
president's son was all kinds of a crook and had
all these business dealings with all these different companies and
the money and it's all very confusing and it doesn't
look good. So the hiding that, you can't be in
(03:10):
favor of that, even if you hate Trump, Right, we
can't have that in a presidential election.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah, the FBI ought to be restrained about releasing details
of ongoing investigations, obviously, but so selective they leaked like
a sieve. If it was detrimental Trump, just unforgivable.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Any who. So this is a guy named Jonathan Allen,
respected reporter, got a book out called Fight. He did
an interview today on Fox and Friends about what he
has learned or didn't know, or is telling us now
about the whole Biden Kannalla hairr selection thing. Here we go.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
You know, there's this incredible moment on the day that
Joe Biden decides to get out of the race. He's
been getting all this pressure, and he calls her up
and it's been reported, the very broad outlines were reported.
As he tells her he's getting out, she says, are
you sure? He says yes, and that's it. There were
actually two phone calls between them because she had to
beg Joe Biden to make a quick endorsement right as
soon as he gets out. She's got to get the delegates,
(04:06):
she's got to get her whip operation, call all the
members of Congress, the governors, whatever. And Biden's like, I'm
getting out. I might endorse you like on Thursday, like
a few days later. I want to take a victory
lab but soak in my moment. And she's like, Joe,
you have got to endorse me. And so they go
back and forth on this before Biden does it.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
If you remember the timeline of this, I mean from
the debate until he finally stepped down. There are many
days that she knew he is stepping down. Everybody knew
it was gonna happen, just when, so she wanted to
be lined up for that. Let's roll on.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Obama definitely did not think she should be the Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
He would not endorse that day either.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
He would not endorse that day either. She talked to him.
He said to her, I don't want to put my
thumb on the scale. She was disappointed, but not necessarily shocked,
because he's been behind the scenes trying to undermine her
for the last several weeks before Biden even got out.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Funny, I'm torn because you could make the argument, Well, no,
they withheld the endorsement because they believed rightly that there
should be a vigorous, if short, primary process to let
the strongest survive and become their candidate.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
They wouldn't have believed that it was Josh Shapiro that
was the vice president.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
No.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
No, the reality is they withheld the endorsement because she's
a half wit and has no talent, no political talent whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Wow, So she knew Obama was working behind the scenes
to try to Yeah, she should probably get some credit
for organizing the way she did to manage to get
the Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Oh, you know what, Yeah, she and her team I
stand corrected. They have that much political talent. They knew
how to whip up support in a big hurry to
make it look like she had to be the nominee
to avoid all the chaos. They did a good job
of that. Yes, means a good job to the point
that they like convinced their party that this dope should
(05:56):
be the nominee. You know what, I stand seriously corrected.
You gotta tip your cap.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Well, yes, so she's She and her people are good
at this, which book was after the one of these
sort of tell all books came out by real reporters
after the twenty twenty election pointing out what a great
job she did of knifing When it was when Biden
was trying to decide who to be his running mate,
anybody's name popped up, she had an operation in plan
(06:27):
to get them knifed in the public press, get a
story out about him, a negative story that would just
you know, ruin their chances. Yeah, and she was able
to and Biden at that time. I guess his brain
still worked enough, having been in DC his whole life.
He knew that's what was going on. So if somebody's
name popped, got floated and then they got shut down,
he knew Kamala Harris was working behind the scenes, and
(06:49):
that's what he liked about her. He thought, Okay, she understands,
you know, how this whole game works. But how has
she got that talent but nothing else? Or maybe she
people with that talent and she can't she has nothing herself.
I don't know. Let's hear a little more from this reporter.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Yeah, he needed a fluorescent tape on the Florida Show
where to Go. He needed telepropters to talk to small groups,
small donor groups. He would put on makeup early in
the morning to do cabinet meetings and then sometimes do
the makeup and not do the meetings right. So they
all knew that there was a level of decline. I
think there were varying appreciations for that. We talked to
(07:29):
one person who said it was particularly steep in early
twenty twenty four. But they were doing risk mitigation. How
do we make it less likely that Joe Biden falls
apart in front of the world. And look, if you
like the train wreck of what happened on the Democratic
side with all these cars piling up and all these
political leaders at odds with each other and being wrong
(07:51):
about a lot of things.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
This book's for you. So when I originally heard that
he put on makeup to look less old, well, everybody
on TV does that. But if he was doing that
to go into his cabinet meetings for like, for the
other people in the room, yeah, that's a slightly different thing. Well,
and I saw him on TV plenty and it didn't work. No,
maybe he looked less old than he would have, but
(08:13):
he looked like a man in the very final stages
of life. How about they put on the makeup and
then he doesn't go to the cabinet meeting because somebody realizes, yes,
isn't the day media, He can't go be around people today?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Right, Yeah, Jonathan Allen didn't mention that. But there's a
real day to day.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
What kind of day is it going to be if
anybody's dealt with the tragedy of you know, mental deterioration
with age, I think we got one more.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Yeah, it's sort of this amazing talent that Trump has
for being in the moment and also seeing it from outside,
sort of being a stage manager, if you will, and
he's watching Joe Biden fall a party, seeing these answers
go terribly. I think people will remember that moment where
Trump says, I don't know what he just said, and
I don't think he does either. It's sympathetic, I mean
(08:56):
for Trump with an opponent on stage, you know, typically
he's not particularly sympathetic, but in this case, he's looking
at Biden. He's like, this looks harrow and he starts
thinking to himself, how do I keep hitting this guy
without looking like a jerk because the media is going
to talk about how I went off the rails, and
I need to just kind of keep it in and
(09:17):
not not look like a jerk, not come off poorly.
And so he reins it in. But that's what's going on,
according to our sources, in Trump's mind as he's on
the stage with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Wow, that's really interesting. And he played that well because
if you remember when one of the Castro Brothers yelled
at Trump during a debate, all right, Biden.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Appropriately named communist Castro Brothers.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Yes, he yelled at Biden during a Democratic debate. So
did you forgot already, you forget already, and he just
he came off as an a hole, right. Yeah. Trump
let it hang out there and didn't because he could
have jumped in and said that sort of thing. Look
at him, he's senile, he's a mess. He just let it.
He knew because he understands TV and media. He knew
all the damage was being done right there next to him.
(10:03):
He didn't need to do that. Yeah, that is pretty
well played. Yeah. Oh wow, Well, Gollie G. Turns out
everything we were saying was exactly correct at the time.
Soon anyway, has there ever been a more exciting couple
of weeks since I don't know, Ford Theater in the
United States politics? Because all that happened so fast, the convention,
(10:26):
Trump being shot, the debate and all that sort of
stuff was just, oh my god.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
And now, speaking of exciting weeks, we have giant changes
in trade policy, for instance, the tariff thing. We will
get back into that in a few moments. First, though,
you've been delightful in eating your vegetables, so we've got
dessert next segment. Do you have the original Clipmichael that
we talked about, Go ahead and hit that.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
I'm just curious just to better understand your ruling. If
someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blind,
bad built bush body, that would not be engaging in personalities.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
What now, Chairman, I make a motion. We'll go ahead.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
We'll leave it there for now. We'll play the whole
thing coming back. Well, evidently somebody has made a song
out of them.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Of course they have. I think this a required by
the constitution. So we've got that on the way. Stay here.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
Armstrong Wakefield High is a guinea pig of sorts. Students
are expected to store their phones in this magnetic locking
pouch throughout the day. At first there was resistance.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
People were putting dents and holes in the wall, like
there are tables we had to get fixed.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Right after we got them. When I walked into the cafeteria,
all you hear is like the like it's sounded like gunshots.
Speaker 5 (11:41):
Greg Cabana, a government teacher at Wakefield, noticed it too.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
The fact that they're banging pouches around the cafeteria trying
to unlock their phone. This is proving our point right
here of how meaningful and how powerful that phone is.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
There are different versions of no phones in schools, I've noticed,
and it makes a difference. I want it to happen
at any school my kid ever goes to. But some
of them it's no phone in the classroom. You can
still like look at it in between classes over lunch hour.
I like this. You put it in a some sort
of lock box the beginning of school and you don't
(12:15):
see it again to the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So that was the early reaction of the policy. They
were trying desperately to get them out. But what happened next.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Student care in Mine says it's led to a new
kind of engagement.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Even just like at lunch you like talk to each other,
you know, like people bring games to class.
Speaker 5 (12:32):
You never experienced that kind of engagement. Well, it was
just like and maybe not since kindergarten, maybe not since preschool.
When the students and teachers here say, less isolation has
meant less interpersonal conflict.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
There were a lot less fights. I haven't seen any
of this year.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
The movement to restrict cell phones in classrooms is growing,
with nine states having already passed a ban or restricted
cell phone use in schools.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Do it everywhere immediately? Yeah, there's a difference between the
restriction and the band though. I want the ban I
want the you lock it up when you get there
and you won't see it again until the end. Because
that lunch hour thing. I don't doubt that a bit.
And the fights aside, even without that, I don't doubt that.
Day one. It's obviously different. Yes, with the kids interacting,
it hurts my heart to hear them. And kids were
(13:17):
talking and playing games. Yeah, we all freaking did for
all of human history. Oh back when we had fun,
and even if you were a little down, you wouldn't
contemplate suicide anyway. Oh yeah, I know, I know. Technology
is a double edged sword. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
We can talk about that all day. I feel strongly
about it, but let's move on. I would love to
play the entire verbal battle between Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie
Taylor Green a year or two ago, whatever it was
during a house hearing. It was one of the most
entertaining Miao miow Congressional cat fights in American history.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Here's a little bit of it.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
I'm just is just to better understand your ruling. If
someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blonde,
bad built, butsh body, that would not be engaging in personalities.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Correct, what now.
Speaker 7 (14:14):
Chairman, I make I make a motion to strike those
I don't think that's all trying to find clarification on
what qual emotion.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Said.
Speaker 7 (14:25):
We're not gonna We're not gonna do this like you
guys earlier.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Literally just you.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Just remember an MTG said something about he probably is
you can't see through your false eyelashes or something.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And that's good stuff. That's good stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Anyway, here's an artist by the name of King Wallonius,
and there is a twist coming up, but first dig
his soulful sounds.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I find this depression. Don't don't play with me. Why
didn't you explain why you find it depressing? Because it's Ai.
It's AI, that's right. Barry Gordy is considered one of
the great musical geniuses of all time for coming up
with that kind of music and recording it. Apparently you
(15:45):
can just tell AI to do it, because that is
really good.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
And Aretha Franklin slash a young Tina Turner maybe were
once in a generation talents in a computer just essentially
made them again. Oh singing that song and Supremes the
background singers there. Uh yeah, that's that's just weird man.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
So what I'm interesting because our producer Hanson was talking
about this guy does it? So what is his talent?
Because I don't understand this. I haven't messed around with
AI enough. What is Does he have a marketable talent
for being able to put together AI music? Well? Could
anybody do it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:27):
That's we were momentarily confused because Hanson's like, in guessquad,
it's AI. I've got a link to the artist who
produced it, and I'm like, wait, which one is it?
This guy, evidently, and this is based on the little
I know about it, is skilled enough in manipulating the
prompts to, through various iterations, perfect the idea he has
(16:49):
in his head of what the song ought to sound like.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
I wonder if it'd be like, make it a little
more like young Tina Turner, No, no, no, a little
more it would it be like that? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah, a little arethau and then you know, equing it
and doing the things music producers do. But yeah, well
wouldn't It'd be great when we're freed up by AI
to never have to create any more art.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
That's good? What Armstrong and Getty?
Speaker 8 (17:17):
The President announced that baseline ten percent tariff on all
US imports effective April fifth, and then nations that the
President considers to be bad actors are facing additional duties. China,
for instance, gets a total of fifty four percent, Vietnam
forty six percent, thirty two percent for Taiwan, twenty four
percent for Japan, and the EU was hit with twenty percent.
(17:39):
The baseline ten goes into effect on Friday, while about
sixty countries facing those higher reciprocal tariffs will see those
rates going to effect April ninth at twelve oh one am.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Sixty countries deemed bad actors. You're a bad actor, pushing
the US overall weighted average tariff among the sixty countries
to twenty five four percent. That's the highest and over
one hundred years, and likely headed to hiss high as
twenty seven percent once more expected moves are made.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And it is literally those numbers you threw around half
of what those other countries charge our manufacturer not mentioned enough.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Why isn't that mentioned more often?
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Because it absolutely undermines the Trump is an idiot narrative
or Trump is a maniac. Well, I just think it
makes it way more interesting, so I agree completely. I
didn't know Europe was hitting us with dang near fifty
percent tariff on everything all these years, and so when
we raise it to half that it's a trade war.
I honestly, I mean, I'm not advocating a position. I
don't know enough about this topic to advocate a position.
(18:45):
I just don't understand as a novice, why Europe hitting
us with almost fifty percent tariffs and then US coming
back with twenty or whatever.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It is is a trade war as opposed to I
don't know it. It's not. A German economic minister just
said Trump will quote buckle under pressure if Europe hits
back at tariffs. You've already hit us with tariffs like
high tariffs. Yeah, you've been hitting us with fifty, We're
gonna hit you with twenty. You're gonna you're gonna lash
(19:15):
back at us and punish us for that. I I
hate what this is doing to my savings and investments.
I haven't looked at I haven't I should go to
four oh one k dot com and see what it
is today.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
And I'm a tad concerned about how this plays out
in the medium term. And honestly, even if Trump is
one hundred percent right about everything. That doesn't mean it
is going to work out the way he says it's
going to not clear if he has enough time, and
and like like so many things.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Why you need that third term? Right, Like so many things.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The fact that it's executive orders as opposed to congressional
you know laws, Uh, it means that it could be
reversed pretty quickly and easily by the next guy to
come along or gal theoretically. So having said that, though
I hear the arguments in favor of what he's doing,
and I find them much much, much more persuasive than
(20:09):
the arguments against. At this point, we are getting hammered
with unfair tariffs, have been since WW two is over
for good enough reasons. We had to get the world's
economies back on their feet. Otherwise we would have had
nobody to sell our stuff to. But my question would
be when was when is that supposed to go on forever?
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Well?
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Right, yeah, exactly, That's that's where I am too. Now
that I've seen the actual numbers, let me click over
to them. Your opinion, Union on average charges US thirty
nine percent we'll call it forty percent in tariffs on
US goods now, The new Trump's trade war punitive tariffs
is twenty percent half that Vietnam hits us with ninety
(20:54):
percent tariffs. We're saying, okay, we're hitting you with forty
six percent. Taiwan, our good buddy, hit with sixty four
percent tariffs. They depend on us, so I said before,
to keep shesen Ping from nude sunbathing on their beach
with the Red Army.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Were it not for us, he'd be doing that.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Today they hit us with sixty four Trump said, okay, fine,
We're gonna hit you with thirty two. That's the trade war.
Is it disruptive? Oh hell yeah. Is it shaking up
all of Wall Street's expectations and plans?
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are people getting out of stocks at least temporarily because
they're betting on them going down?
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (21:37):
But how does it play out over two years, five years,
twenty five years. This is either a debacle or Trump
will be looked upon as an FDR like figure.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
But in a good way. I hate the stock market analysis.
I always have. As I've said for many years, economic
reporting is the dumbest reporting in America. And also there's
this whenever a Republican does something that causes the stock
market to go down. Democrats act like the most important
(22:08):
thing in the world is what big business wants to do. Right,
They hate big business, they hate capitalism, they hate the
Wall Street crowd. But it goes down because of a
Republican decision. The most holy thing we should all look
to for where we're happy or not, is what Wall
Street thinks.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Right's hilarious. Yeah, you people are something. Let's go ahead
and do Howard Lutnik fifty two's the secretary of Commerce.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
European Union won't take chicken from America. They won't take
lobsters from America. They hate our beef because our beef
is beautiful and theirs is weak. It's unbelievable they won't.
We can't sell corn to India, we can't sell rice
to Asia.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Now, the European Union as a whole, this is not
the way that you look at it. Economies, but it's
almost as big as ours. So why do they get
to exclude a bunch of products because of the devastation
of World War Two? But if we do it, it's something awful.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
By the way, I've adopted your beef as weak as
my new insult.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I'm going to go to a steakhouse and say, I'd
like your beautiful beef, not your week beef. Don't be
bringing me your week stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Jd Vance, he's the vice president, Jack Clip fifty eight.
Speaker 9 (23:28):
I wouldn't think of tax cuts as a way to
offset the tariffsto. Here's the way that I think about
it is, again, for forty years, we've had an economy
that rewards people who ship American jobs overseas and raises
taxes on American workers, and we're flipping that on its head.
We're going to cut taxes for American workers and for
American companies that build here. We're going to make it
harder to ship American jobs overseas.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
It's a total.
Speaker 9 (23:51):
Shift and the way that we've done economic policy in
the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
But it was necessary. So, yeah, we're going to cut
your taxes.
Speaker 9 (23:58):
You're going to have more money in your pocket, and
that's of course going to help you deal with the
cost of inflation. But that's not about offsetting the tariffs.
They work together penalized people for shipping our jobs overseas.
We want to reward hard working Americans. It's all part
of the same policy.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
M I don't like it when say people say penalize.
What's Canada's uh tariff on us? What do they do
to us? Because I'm watching the Canadian Prime minister up
there talking about how Trump's tariffs are so miskits. The
old guy wearing his panties are the new guy. I
don't think they have a new guy. It's the new guy. Nah,
they don't have they haven't had an election yet. Well,
they call him the Canadian prime minister. Is that the
(24:36):
guy right there? No, the guy that was just honest,
He was the Canadians right, fair enough? Uh, he's a
caretaker jack. Well, that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Uh, where's Canada stand by? They're not listed in alphabetical order.
They don't have Canada on this chart. I'll have to
look it up.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Trudeau had to step down because he's going through menopause.
Well played, What was I going to say? You've distracted me?
Now as you want to do fifty two B?
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Michael? Do you have that? I don't have a time
on it. It's not like five minutes long, is it.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
That's right.
Speaker 6 (25:13):
The story I was trying to tell you is that
when we took cars from Korea in twenty twelve when
I grew up, there was no Korean cars in America.
When we took cars from Korea, the deal was we
could sell ag to Korea.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
That was the deal.
Speaker 6 (25:25):
They wouldn't let McDonald's bring in French fries because they
couldn't prove the origin of the French fry.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
That is not a tariff.
Speaker 6 (25:32):
That is called a non tariff trade barrier.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
They take their.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Taxes and they subsidize their steel industry, or they subsidize
their energy, or they subsidize they give the tax back
to their car manufacturer.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
This stuff has got to stop. America's got to stop.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
Being exploited, and you're going to see America prosper. And
then and only then will Donald Trump make a deal
with each country when they've really really changed their ways.
Then they go stack down the road, but not run
back off.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
And that's not off.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
That is, let the deal maker make his deals when
and only if these countries can change everything about themselves,
which I doubt they will.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Hey, lady, you can't say so, you'll braack off down
the road. That's not dway Negotia and it works. Wow, man,
the media sucks. Yes, Katie, Canada is charging the United
States to twenty five percent tariff and our beautiful fifty
for state.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
And there are other non trade barriers too that Canada
protects its beef, I think, or that sort of thing.
The non trade barriers or I'm sorry, non tariff trade
barriers are an important.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Facet of this.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
It's much more complicated than your talking head morons make it.
South Korea, by the way, our great close ally who
again Kim Jong oun would be sucking down sushi in Gangnam?
Took me a minute to come up with that, remember
that son?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Anyway? Where was I?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Oh, Kim Jong owned be sugging out sushi and Gangnam
right now?
Speaker 1 (27:03):
If it wasn't for the USA.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
South Korea charges US fifty percent tariffs on average, and
Trump's punitive trade war tariffs on them are going to
be twenty five percent half of it Trump's say you
can trade wolver Yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
So somebody smart before tomorrow email us with your you know,
phdevil PhD level treatise on explaining why they get to
tariff US so high and were retaliating with less is
unholy in a trade war. Because I really really.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Do want to know if I'm seriously wrong on any
of this.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
I'm a strong position. So here's Charles Payin of Fox. Interesting, dude.
Speaker 10 (27:45):
The last thing we want to focus on right now
is the stock market. So there's a lot of culports here,
but we finally have woken up, and I think the
American publicly've been making a huge mistake to watch the
stock market. In fact, the administration says, listen, we want
to if you want to see where we're going, what
we like to do. Particularly remember President Trump was elected
first and foremost to bring inflation down, so you want
they want to see the dollar come down a little bit.
(28:07):
It's been too strong and it's going to need to
come down, probably to fight out some of the countermeasures.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
The stock market. I would not worry at all.
Speaker 10 (28:13):
In fact, I'd be a buyer of weakness, not a panic.
Not panic here. That's my message to America.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And so I mentioned this earlier the Financial Times with
an article out today. We should not wish for American
workers to return to the days of sewing tennis shoes
together in factories, which is weird, Like okay, what so
be better to be unemployed than to be sewing tennis
shoes because that fake disability getting welfare because that's beneath us.
(28:39):
I don't quite understand that argument.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
But then there's hyping into a computer in a cubicle,
or to death and getting diabetes. I mean, what is
that argument exactly?
Speaker 1 (28:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
We're too good for that. Let those weird yellow people
in Vietnam do it. You're phrasing the unspoken point of
view being expressed there.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
So it's good that Converse took their shoe manufacturing to
wherever they're made, not I think Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But so we could all design iPhones. I know I've
designed seven or eight myself. Yeah, I don't finish.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
That thought for me there. Whoever's writing that I should
read the whole article. It's in the Financial Times of Day.
But I was working toward the idea that there's the
whole national security aspect of not having any manufacturing, which
we've talked about, and Trump is brought up that if
we ever had to ramp up for a war or
another global pandemic or whatever, we don't make anything, what
(29:37):
are we going to do?
Speaker 2 (29:38):
We could build an awesome fleet of AI battleships and
send them into a simulation against China. Well, they're building
the ones made of metal.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
We could have a tremendous number of college graduates argue
with them about equity and gender. Any who this complex
as that's first thing joseid today is very, very complicated
and disruptive, Absolutely no doubt about that. Anybody who pretends
they know how this is going to turn out has
(30:07):
got to be lying.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Appears to note. Joe is seriously wrong. Joe's good to
his word. I have a great recipe for crow taco.
That's funny.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I'm not gonna have to crow because I haven't made
any strong statements. I honestly, I am just asking because
I don't know it just it doesn't make sense to
me on the face of it. All Right, here's okay.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Steve says, you've been stuckreed because the terifrates are actually
based on trade deficits, which is a completely different thing
and shows the depths of dishonesty by the administration. Cambodia,
for instance, has an actual average tarifrate around ten percent,
not anywhere near the ninety something percent shown neither of
South Korea imposing fifty percent tariffs. One could take the
position that we should harmonize terifrates and perhaps push back
(30:49):
on foreign government to export subsidies, but it shouldn't be
based on complete fabrications of data. I would agree with you, Steve,
one hundred percent, if that's correct. My only rejoinder would
be the Wall Street Journal editorial board apparently hasn't been
informed of that, because they haven't said that they hate
(31:11):
these tariffs.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
Why have they not brought that up? I like the
idea of harmonizing the rates. That'd be good for everyone.
Uh more in the way and you can Texas four
one five two nine five kftc.
Speaker 6 (31:25):
Our beef is beautiful.
Speaker 11 (31:30):
I heard about a woman in Pennsylvania who was looking
for a jacket that she donated to charity after realizing
she left the two point five million dollar lottery ticket
in the pocket. It's tough going back to a charity like, hey,
I accidentally gave.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
You money, an unfortunate error. I feel like there's a
reason you're playing the lottery on a regular basis. Well, dear,
you're very judgmental about that. I am we have for
your trap.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
That's true, we don't so yes, I am enjoying a
delightful crow taco right now. A couple of folks have
sent this along, and what's amazing. Is I just I
did a very quick and cursory check. But the big
publications aren't.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Writing about this or getting to my point about how
awful economic coverage is. Yeah, I've got to scanning real
quick because I want to get that right. All right,
here's the deal.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Here is the actual statement from the Administration on the
reciprocal tariff calculations from the Office of the United States
Trade Representative. Reciprocal tariffs are calculated as a terraff f
right necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US
and each of our trading partners. That premise is a
little wobbly the calculator because again, a giant rich country
(32:52):
is going to buy way more than it sells to
a small poor.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Country for obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficis it's are due
to a combination of tariff and non terror factors that
prevent trade from balancing tariffs work through direct reductions of imports. Again,
there are a lot of factors that have nothing to
do with tariffs and non terr effact like barriers to trade.
Reciprocal teriff rates range from zero percent to ninety nine percent,
with unweighted and import weighted averages of twenty percent forty
(33:19):
one percent, and then they go into a couple of
pages of details. So it is, yeah, it's misleading. The
approach that the administration is taking is misleading.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
So saying so the Trump administration saying Vietnam has whatever
it is, a ninety percent tariff on things come in
the United States is not accurate. No, no, it's not okay.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
So they have and the left does this constantly and
it makes me insane. They've essentially used words that sound
like something you think you know what they mean. Reciprocal
means mutually equal, right, good for the goose, good for
the gander, Well right, exactly, and this is not reciprocal
(34:05):
in the standard way. Now, I think my premise, my
conclusion is still right in that there are tariff and
non tariff barriers to US exports that are outrageous and
ridiculous and that ought to be equalized. But the administration
is greasing the skids by using numbers that aren't what
(34:27):
they seem to be.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
I can't believe Europe won't let our beef in. What
do they eat for steak over there? Do they get
it from? Where do they get it from I don't know,
French beef, India. No, they European. You see the cows
there in England, right, your Jersey cattle. They don't have
enough feed lots to feed Europe. They don't beef over there. Well,
(34:48):
is that it? Why don't they beef? Is beautiful? I agree?
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Hmm uh so okay, well I stand at least enlightened.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
If not, well, maybe we're all going to get at
least a one hundred level class on international tariffs over
the next several days or weeks. Yeah, where this settles
in the next several days or weeks is anybody's guests
If you missed a segment of the podcast Armstrong and
Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty arm Strong and
Jettie and now he Armstrong and Jetty. So there are
(00:24):
three or four books coming out this spring with the
behind the scenes on the whole Joe Biden, he's senile
and we're hiding at Kamala Harris thing.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You probably that's right wing conspiracy theory, You lunatic.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
He's got a stutter. You probably remember that whole story.
He's got a stutter. I'm right, And there's another one
out in the Guided An Interview. We're gonna play some
clips here in a second, but before we get to that,
this hasn't gotten much attention, I guess partially because what's
the point now? But Miranda Devine, pointing out in the
New York Poe New FBI chat logs, revealed the extraordinary
(01:05):
gag order that senior leadership used to shut down the
Hunter Biden laptop discussion. Oh yeah, and it's just you know,
it's it's all in the history books now. But and
then you know everybody always claims, well, that sort of
thing couldn't happen.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Now, Well, I was gonna say. That's why you pay
attention to it. You've got to understand what the the
dangers are and work to build systems that won't allow
them to happen again.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The conversation's withheld by the FBI under Director Chris Ray
show that senior leadership issued an internal gag order on
the laptop. Here's the key thing you need to know.
When everyone in the country should know, but only half
the country knows. The FBI was in position of Hunter
Biden's laptop for ten months before the story broke in
(01:52):
the New York Post. They'd had it from the you know,
the computer owner or whatever like that, and their analysts
quickly to determined right after they got it that the
laptop did belong to Hunter, had not been tampered with
in anyway, and and could be used as evidence in court.
It was the real deal. All that stuff was true.
Nobody had messed with it. It was They decided that
(02:14):
ten months before the story broke, and then was immediately
turned into a this is a misinformation can't be printed,
you know the whole thing there. FBI kept their mouths shut.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
We're not gonna waste our time or our listener's time
with this story. Yeah, I wish they'd told those fifty
three whatever it was intelligence professionals that indeed it was legit.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
That's too bad and almost I don't know about certainly,
but you can make a decent argument that Trump would
have won if that story had been pursued the way
it should have been pursued.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Well, it's a change so massive in the landscape that, yeah,
you can't say that's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And even if you hate Trump a lot, you can't
be in favor of hiding the fact that the sitting
president's son was all kinds of a crook and had
all these business dealings with all these different companies and
the money and it's all very confusing and it doesn't
look good. So the hiding that, you can't be in
(03:10):
favor of that, even if you hate Trump, Right, we
can't have that in a presidential election.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah, the FBI ought to be restrained about releasing details
of ongoing investigations, obviously, but so selective they leaked like
a sieve. If it was detrimental Trump, just unforgivable.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Any who. So this is a guy named Jonathan Allen,
respected reporter, got a book out called Fight. He did
an interview today on Fox and Friends about what he
has learned or didn't know, or is telling us now
about the whole Biden Kannalla hairr selection thing. Here we go.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
You know, there's this incredible moment on the day that
Joe Biden decides to get out of the race. He's
been getting all this pressure, and he calls her up
and it's been reported, the very broad outlines were reported.
As he tells her he's getting out, she says, are
you sure? He says yes, and that's it. There were
actually two phone calls between them because she had to
beg Joe Biden to make a quick endorsement right as
soon as he gets out. She's got to get the delegates,
(04:06):
she's got to get her whip operation, call all the
members of Congress, the governors, whatever. And Biden's like, I'm
getting out. I might endorse you like on Thursday, like
a few days later. I want to take a victory
lab but soak in my moment. And she's like, Joe,
you have got to endorse me. And so they go
back and forth on this before Biden does it.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
If you remember the timeline of this, I mean from
the debate until he finally stepped down. There are many
days that she knew he is stepping down. Everybody knew
it was gonna happen, just when, so she wanted to
be lined up for that. Let's roll on.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Obama definitely did not think she should be the Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
He would not endorse that day either.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
He would not endorse that day either. She talked to him.
He said to her, I don't want to put my
thumb on the scale. She was disappointed, but not necessarily shocked,
because he's been behind the scenes trying to undermine her
for the last several weeks before Biden even got out.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Funny, I'm torn because you could make the argument, Well, no,
they withheld the endorsement because they believed rightly that there
should be a vigorous, if short, primary process to let
the strongest survive and become their candidate.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
They wouldn't have believed that it was Josh Shapiro that
was the vice president.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
No.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
No, the reality is they withheld the endorsement because she's
a half wit and has no talent, no political talent whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Wow, So she knew Obama was working behind the scenes
to try to Yeah, she should probably get some credit
for organizing the way she did to manage to get
the Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Oh, you know what, Yeah, she and her team I
stand corrected. They have that much political talent. They knew
how to whip up support in a big hurry to
make it look like she had to be the nominee
to avoid all the chaos. They did a good job
of that. Yes, means a good job to the point
that they like convinced their party that this dope should
(05:56):
be the nominee. You know what, I stand seriously corrected.
You gotta tip your cap.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Well, yes, so she's She and her people are good
at this, which book was after the one of these
sort of tell all books came out by real reporters
after the twenty twenty election pointing out what a great
job she did of knifing When it was when Biden
was trying to decide who to be his running mate,
anybody's name popped up, she had an operation in plan
(06:27):
to get them knifed in the public press, get a
story out about him, a negative story that would just
you know, ruin their chances. Yeah, and she was able
to and Biden at that time. I guess his brain
still worked enough, having been in DC his whole life.
He knew that's what was going on. So if somebody's
name popped, got floated and then they got shut down,
he knew Kamala Harris was working behind the scenes, and
(06:49):
that's what he liked about her. He thought, Okay, she understands,
you know, how this whole game works. But how has
she got that talent but nothing else? Or maybe she
people with that talent and she can't she has nothing herself.
I don't know. Let's hear a little more from this reporter.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Yeah, he needed a fluorescent tape on the Florida Show
where to Go. He needed telepropters to talk to small groups,
small donor groups. He would put on makeup early in
the morning to do cabinet meetings and then sometimes do
the makeup and not do the meetings right. So they
all knew that there was a level of decline. I
think there were varying appreciations for that. We talked to
(07:29):
one person who said it was particularly steep in early
twenty twenty four. But they were doing risk mitigation. How
do we make it less likely that Joe Biden falls
apart in front of the world. And look, if you
like the train wreck of what happened on the Democratic
side with all these cars piling up and all these
political leaders at odds with each other and being wrong
(07:51):
about a lot of things.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
This book's for you. So when I originally heard that
he put on makeup to look less old, well, everybody
on TV does that. But if he was doing that
to go into his cabinet meetings for like, for the
other people in the room, yeah, that's a slightly different thing. Well,
and I saw him on TV plenty and it didn't work. No,
maybe he looked less old than he would have, but
(08:13):
he looked like a man in the very final stages
of life. How about they put on the makeup and
then he doesn't go to the cabinet meeting because somebody realizes, yes,
isn't the day media, He can't go be around people today?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Right, Yeah, Jonathan Allen didn't mention that. But there's a
real day to day.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
What kind of day is it going to be if
anybody's dealt with the tragedy of you know, mental deterioration
with age, I think we got one more.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Yeah, it's sort of this amazing talent that Trump has
for being in the moment and also seeing it from outside,
sort of being a stage manager, if you will, and
he's watching Joe Biden fall a party, seeing these answers
go terribly. I think people will remember that moment where
Trump says, I don't know what he just said, and
I don't think he does either. It's sympathetic, I mean
(08:56):
for Trump with an opponent on stage, you know, typically
he's not particularly sympathetic, but in this case, he's looking
at Biden. He's like, this looks harrow and he starts
thinking to himself, how do I keep hitting this guy
without looking like a jerk because the media is going
to talk about how I went off the rails, and
I need to just kind of keep it in and
(09:17):
not not look like a jerk, not come off poorly.
And so he reins it in. But that's what's going on,
according to our sources, in Trump's mind as he's on
the stage with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Wow, that's really interesting. And he played that well because
if you remember when one of the Castro Brothers yelled
at Trump during a debate, all right, Biden.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Appropriately named communist Castro Brothers.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Yes, he yelled at Biden during a Democratic debate. So
did you forgot already, you forget already, and he just
he came off as an a hole, right. Yeah. Trump
let it hang out there and didn't because he could
have jumped in and said that sort of thing. Look
at him, he's senile, he's a mess. He just let it.
He knew because he understands TV and media. He knew
all the damage was being done right there next to him.
(10:03):
He didn't need to do that. Yeah, that is pretty
well played. Yeah. Oh wow, Well, Gollie G. Turns out
everything we were saying was exactly correct at the time.
Soon anyway, has there ever been a more exciting couple
of weeks since I don't know, Ford Theater in the
United States politics? Because all that happened so fast, the convention,
(10:26):
Trump being shot, the debate and all that sort of
stuff was just, oh my god.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
And now, speaking of exciting weeks, we have giant changes
in trade policy, for instance, the tariff thing. We will
get back into that in a few moments. First, though,
you've been delightful in eating your vegetables, so we've got
dessert next segment. Do you have the original Clipmichael that
we talked about, Go ahead and hit that.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
I'm just curious just to better understand your ruling. If
someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blind,
bad built bush body, that would not be engaging in personalities.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
What now, Chairman, I make a motion. We'll go ahead.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
We'll leave it there for now. We'll play the whole
thing coming back. Well, evidently somebody has made a song
out of them.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Of course they have. I think this a required by
the constitution. So we've got that on the way. Stay here.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
Armstrong Wakefield High is a guinea pig of sorts. Students
are expected to store their phones in this magnetic locking
pouch throughout the day. At first there was resistance.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
People were putting dents and holes in the wall, like
there are tables we had to get fixed.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Right after we got them. When I walked into the cafeteria,
all you hear is like the like it's sounded like gunshots.
Speaker 5 (11:41):
Greg Cabana, a government teacher at Wakefield, noticed it too.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
The fact that they're banging pouches around the cafeteria trying
to unlock their phone. This is proving our point right
here of how meaningful and how powerful that phone is.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
There are different versions of no phones in schools, I've noticed,
and it makes a difference. I want it to happen
at any school my kid ever goes to. But some
of them it's no phone in the classroom. You can
still like look at it in between classes over lunch hour.
I like this. You put it in a some sort
of lock box the beginning of school and you don't
(12:15):
see it again to the end of the day.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So that was the early reaction of the policy. They
were trying desperately to get them out. But what happened next.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
Student care in Mine says it's led to a new
kind of engagement.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Even just like at lunch you like talk to each other,
you know, like people bring games to class.
Speaker 5 (12:32):
You never experienced that kind of engagement. Well, it was
just like and maybe not since kindergarten, maybe not since preschool.
When the students and teachers here say, less isolation has
meant less interpersonal conflict.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
There were a lot less fights. I haven't seen any
of this year.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
The movement to restrict cell phones in classrooms is growing,
with nine states having already passed a ban or restricted
cell phone use in schools.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Do it everywhere immediately? Yeah, there's a difference between the
restriction and the band though. I want the ban I
want the you lock it up when you get there
and you won't see it again until the end. Because
that lunch hour thing. I don't doubt that a bit.
And the fights aside, even without that, I don't doubt that.
Day one. It's obviously different. Yes, with the kids interacting,
it hurts my heart to hear them. And kids were
(13:17):
talking and playing games. Yeah, we all freaking did for
all of human history. Oh back when we had fun,
and even if you were a little down, you wouldn't
contemplate suicide anyway. Oh yeah, I know, I know. Technology
is a double edged sword. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
We can talk about that all day. I feel strongly
about it, but let's move on. I would love to
play the entire verbal battle between Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie
Taylor Green a year or two ago, whatever it was
during a house hearing. It was one of the most
entertaining Miao miow Congressional cat fights in American history.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Here's a little bit of it.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
I'm just is just to better understand your ruling. If
someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blonde,
bad built, butsh body, that would not be engaging in personalities.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Correct, what now.
Speaker 7 (14:14):
Chairman, I make I make a motion to strike those
I don't think that's all trying to find clarification on
what qual emotion.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Said.
Speaker 7 (14:25):
We're not gonna We're not gonna do this like you
guys earlier.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Literally just you.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Just remember an MTG said something about he probably is
you can't see through your false eyelashes or something.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
And that's good stuff. That's good stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Anyway, here's an artist by the name of King Wallonius,
and there is a twist coming up, but first dig
his soulful sounds.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I find this depression. Don't don't play with me. Why
didn't you explain why you find it depressing? Because it's Ai.
It's AI, that's right. Barry Gordy is considered one of
the great musical geniuses of all time for coming up
with that kind of music and recording it. Apparently you
(15:45):
can just tell AI to do it, because that is
really good.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
And Aretha Franklin slash a young Tina Turner maybe were
once in a generation talents in a computer just essentially
made them again. Oh singing that song and Supremes the
background singers there. Uh yeah, that's that's just weird man.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
So what I'm interesting because our producer Hanson was talking
about this guy does it? So what is his talent?
Because I don't understand this. I haven't messed around with
AI enough. What is Does he have a marketable talent
for being able to put together AI music? Well? Could
anybody do it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:27):
That's we were momentarily confused because Hanson's like, in guessquad,
it's AI. I've got a link to the artist who
produced it, and I'm like, wait, which one is it?
This guy, evidently, and this is based on the little
I know about it, is skilled enough in manipulating the
prompts to, through various iterations, perfect the idea he has
(16:49):
in his head of what the song ought to sound like.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
I wonder if it'd be like, make it a little
more like young Tina Turner, No, no, no, a little
more it would it be like that? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah, a little arethau and then you know, equing it
and doing the things music producers do. But yeah, well
wouldn't It'd be great when we're freed up by AI
to never have to create any more art.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
That's good? What Armstrong and Getty?
Speaker 8 (17:17):
The President announced that baseline ten percent tariff on all
US imports effective April fifth, and then nations that the
President considers to be bad actors are facing additional duties. China,
for instance, gets a total of fifty four percent, Vietnam
forty six percent, thirty two percent for Taiwan, twenty four
percent for Japan, and the EU was hit with twenty percent.
(17:39):
The baseline ten goes into effect on Friday, while about
sixty countries facing those higher reciprocal tariffs will see those
rates going to effect April ninth at twelve oh one am.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Sixty countries deemed bad actors. You're a bad actor, pushing
the US overall weighted average tariff among the sixty countries
to twenty five four percent. That's the highest and over
one hundred years, and likely headed to hiss high as
twenty seven percent once more expected moves are made.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And it is literally those numbers you threw around half
of what those other countries charge our manufacturer not mentioned enough.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Why isn't that mentioned more often?
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Because it absolutely undermines the Trump is an idiot narrative
or Trump is a maniac. Well, I just think it
makes it way more interesting, so I agree completely. I
didn't know Europe was hitting us with dang near fifty
percent tariff on everything all these years, and so when
we raise it to half that it's a trade war.
I honestly, I mean, I'm not advocating a position. I
don't know enough about this topic to advocate a position.
(18:45):
I just don't understand as a novice, why Europe hitting
us with almost fifty percent tariffs and then US coming
back with twenty or whatever.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It is is a trade war as opposed to I
don't know it. It's not. A German economic minister just
said Trump will quote buckle under pressure if Europe hits
back at tariffs. You've already hit us with tariffs like
high tariffs. Yeah, you've been hitting us with fifty, We're
gonna hit you with twenty. You're gonna you're gonna lash
(19:15):
back at us and punish us for that. I I
hate what this is doing to my savings and investments.
I haven't looked at I haven't I should go to
four oh one k dot com and see what it
is today.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
And I'm a tad concerned about how this plays out
in the medium term. And honestly, even if Trump is
one hundred percent right about everything. That doesn't mean it
is going to work out the way he says it's
going to not clear if he has enough time, and
and like like so many things.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Why you need that third term? Right, Like so many things.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The fact that it's executive orders as opposed to congressional
you know laws, Uh, it means that it could be
reversed pretty quickly and easily by the next guy to
come along or gal theoretically. So having said that, though
I hear the arguments in favor of what he's doing,
and I find them much much, much more persuasive than
(20:09):
the arguments against. At this point, we are getting hammered
with unfair tariffs, have been since WW two is over
for good enough reasons. We had to get the world's
economies back on their feet. Otherwise we would have had
nobody to sell our stuff to. But my question would
be when was when is that supposed to go on forever?
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Well?
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Right, yeah, exactly, That's that's where I am too. Now
that I've seen the actual numbers, let me click over
to them. Your opinion, Union on average charges US thirty
nine percent we'll call it forty percent in tariffs on
US goods now, The new Trump's trade war punitive tariffs
is twenty percent half that Vietnam hits us with ninety
(20:54):
percent tariffs. We're saying, okay, we're hitting you with forty
six percent. Taiwan, our good buddy, hit with sixty four
percent tariffs. They depend on us, so I said before,
to keep shesen Ping from nude sunbathing on their beach
with the Red Army.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Were it not for us, he'd be doing that.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Today they hit us with sixty four Trump said, okay, fine,
We're gonna hit you with thirty two. That's the trade war.
Is it disruptive? Oh hell yeah. Is it shaking up
all of Wall Street's expectations and plans?
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are people getting out of stocks at least temporarily because
they're betting on them going down?
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (21:37):
But how does it play out over two years, five years,
twenty five years. This is either a debacle or Trump
will be looked upon as an FDR like figure.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
But in a good way. I hate the stock market analysis.
I always have. As I've said for many years, economic
reporting is the dumbest reporting in America. And also there's
this whenever a Republican does something that causes the stock
market to go down. Democrats act like the most important
(22:08):
thing in the world is what big business wants to do. Right,
They hate big business, they hate capitalism, they hate the
Wall Street crowd. But it goes down because of a
Republican decision. The most holy thing we should all look
to for where we're happy or not, is what Wall
Street thinks.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Right's hilarious. Yeah, you people are something. Let's go ahead
and do Howard Lutnik fifty two's the secretary of Commerce.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
European Union won't take chicken from America. They won't take
lobsters from America. They hate our beef because our beef
is beautiful and theirs is weak. It's unbelievable they won't.
We can't sell corn to India, we can't sell rice
to Asia.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Now, the European Union as a whole, this is not
the way that you look at it. Economies, but it's
almost as big as ours. So why do they get
to exclude a bunch of products because of the devastation
of World War Two? But if we do it, it's something awful.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
By the way, I've adopted your beef as weak as
my new insult.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I'm going to go to a steakhouse and say, I'd
like your beautiful beef, not your week beef. Don't be
bringing me your week stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
Jd Vance, he's the vice president, Jack Clip fifty eight.
Speaker 9 (23:28):
I wouldn't think of tax cuts as a way to
offset the tariffsto. Here's the way that I think about
it is, again, for forty years, we've had an economy
that rewards people who ship American jobs overseas and raises
taxes on American workers, and we're flipping that on its head.
We're going to cut taxes for American workers and for
American companies that build here. We're going to make it
harder to ship American jobs overseas.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
It's a total.
Speaker 9 (23:51):
Shift and the way that we've done economic policy in
the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
But it was necessary. So, yeah, we're going to cut
your taxes.
Speaker 9 (23:58):
You're going to have more money in your pocket, and
that's of course going to help you deal with the
cost of inflation. But that's not about offsetting the tariffs.
They work together penalized people for shipping our jobs overseas.
We want to reward hard working Americans. It's all part
of the same policy.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
M I don't like it when say people say penalize.
What's Canada's uh tariff on us? What do they do
to us? Because I'm watching the Canadian Prime minister up
there talking about how Trump's tariffs are so miskits. The
old guy wearing his panties are the new guy. I
don't think they have a new guy. It's the new guy. Nah,
they don't have they haven't had an election yet. Well,
they call him the Canadian prime minister. Is that the
(24:36):
guy right there? No, the guy that was just honest,
He was the Canadians right, fair enough? Uh, he's a
caretaker jack. Well, that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Uh, where's Canada stand by? They're not listed in alphabetical order.
They don't have Canada on this chart. I'll have to
look it up.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Trudeau had to step down because he's going through menopause.
Well played, What was I going to say? You've distracted me?
Now as you want to do fifty two B?
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Michael? Do you have that? I don't have a time
on it. It's not like five minutes long, is it.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
That's right.
Speaker 6 (25:13):
The story I was trying to tell you is that
when we took cars from Korea in twenty twelve when
I grew up, there was no Korean cars in America.
When we took cars from Korea, the deal was we
could sell ag to Korea.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
That was the deal.
Speaker 6 (25:25):
They wouldn't let McDonald's bring in French fries because they
couldn't prove the origin of the French fry.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
That is not a tariff.
Speaker 6 (25:32):
That is called a non tariff trade barrier.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
They take their.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Taxes and they subsidize their steel industry, or they subsidize
their energy, or they subsidize they give the tax back
to their car manufacturer.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
This stuff has got to stop. America's got to stop.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
Being exploited, and you're going to see America prosper. And
then and only then will Donald Trump make a deal
with each country when they've really really changed their ways.
Then they go stack down the road, but not run
back off.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
And that's not off.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
That is, let the deal maker make his deals when
and only if these countries can change everything about themselves,
which I doubt they will.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Hey, lady, you can't say so, you'll braack off down
the road. That's not dway Negotia and it works. Wow, man,
the media sucks. Yes, Katie, Canada is charging the United
States to twenty five percent tariff and our beautiful fifty
for state.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
And there are other non trade barriers too that Canada
protects its beef, I think, or that sort of thing.
The non trade barriers or I'm sorry, non tariff trade
barriers are an important.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Facet of this.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
It's much more complicated than your talking head morons make it.
South Korea, by the way, our great close ally who
again Kim Jong oun would be sucking down sushi in Gangnam?
Took me a minute to come up with that, remember
that son?
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Anyway? Where was I?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
Oh, Kim Jong owned be sugging out sushi and Gangnam
right now?
Speaker 1 (27:03):
If it wasn't for the USA.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
South Korea charges US fifty percent tariffs on average, and
Trump's punitive trade war tariffs on them are going to
be twenty five percent half of it Trump's say you
can trade wolver Yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
So somebody smart before tomorrow email us with your you know,
phdevil PhD level treatise on explaining why they get to
tariff US so high and were retaliating with less is
unholy in a trade war. Because I really really.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Do want to know if I'm seriously wrong on any
of this.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
I'm a strong position. So here's Charles Payin of Fox. Interesting, dude.
Speaker 10 (27:45):
The last thing we want to focus on right now
is the stock market. So there's a lot of culports here,
but we finally have woken up, and I think the
American publicly've been making a huge mistake to watch the
stock market. In fact, the administration says, listen, we want
to if you want to see where we're going, what
we like to do. Particularly remember President Trump was elected
first and foremost to bring inflation down, so you want
they want to see the dollar come down a little bit.
(28:07):
It's been too strong and it's going to need to
come down, probably to fight out some of the countermeasures.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
The stock market. I would not worry at all.
Speaker 10 (28:13):
In fact, I'd be a buyer of weakness, not a panic.
Not panic here. That's my message to America.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And so I mentioned this earlier the Financial Times with
an article out today. We should not wish for American
workers to return to the days of sewing tennis shoes
together in factories, which is weird, Like okay, what so
be better to be unemployed than to be sewing tennis
shoes because that fake disability getting welfare because that's beneath us.
(28:39):
I don't quite understand that argument.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
But then there's hyping into a computer in a cubicle,
or to death and getting diabetes. I mean, what is
that argument exactly?
Speaker 1 (28:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
We're too good for that. Let those weird yellow people
in Vietnam do it. You're phrasing the unspoken point of
view being expressed there.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
So it's good that Converse took their shoe manufacturing to
wherever they're made, not I think Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
But so we could all design iPhones. I know I've
designed seven or eight myself. Yeah, I don't finish.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
That thought for me there. Whoever's writing that I should
read the whole article. It's in the Financial Times of Day.
But I was working toward the idea that there's the
whole national security aspect of not having any manufacturing, which
we've talked about, and Trump is brought up that if
we ever had to ramp up for a war or
another global pandemic or whatever, we don't make anything, what
(29:37):
are we going to do?
Speaker 2 (29:38):
We could build an awesome fleet of AI battleships and
send them into a simulation against China. Well, they're building
the ones made of metal.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
We could have a tremendous number of college graduates argue
with them about equity and gender. Any who this complex
as that's first thing joseid today is very, very complicated
and disruptive, Absolutely no doubt about that. Anybody who pretends
they know how this is going to turn out has
(30:07):
got to be lying.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Appears to note. Joe is seriously wrong. Joe's good to
his word. I have a great recipe for crow taco.
That's funny.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I'm not gonna have to crow because I haven't made
any strong statements. I honestly, I am just asking because
I don't know it just it doesn't make sense to
me on the face of it. All Right, here's okay.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Steve says, you've been stuckreed because the terifrates are actually
based on trade deficits, which is a completely different thing
and shows the depths of dishonesty by the administration. Cambodia,
for instance, has an actual average tarifrate around ten percent,
not anywhere near the ninety something percent shown neither of
South Korea imposing fifty percent tariffs. One could take the
position that we should harmonize terifrates and perhaps push back
(30:49):
on foreign government to export subsidies, but it shouldn't be
based on complete fabrications of data. I would agree with you, Steve,
one hundred percent, if that's correct. My only rejoinder would
be the Wall Street Journal editorial board apparently hasn't been
informed of that, because they haven't said that they hate
(31:11):
these tariffs.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
Why have they not brought that up? I like the
idea of harmonizing the rates. That'd be good for everyone.
Uh more in the way and you can Texas four
one five two nine five kftc.
Speaker 6 (31:25):
Our beef is beautiful.
Speaker 11 (31:30):
I heard about a woman in Pennsylvania who was looking
for a jacket that she donated to charity after realizing
she left the two point five million dollar lottery ticket
in the pocket. It's tough going back to a charity like, hey,
I accidentally gave.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
You money, an unfortunate error. I feel like there's a
reason you're playing the lottery on a regular basis. Well, dear,
you're very judgmental about that. I am we have for
your trap.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
That's true, we don't so yes, I am enjoying a
delightful crow taco right now. A couple of folks have
sent this along, and what's amazing. Is I just I
did a very quick and cursory check. But the big
publications aren't.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Writing about this or getting to my point about how
awful economic coverage is. Yeah, I've got to scanning real
quick because I want to get that right. All right,
here's the deal.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Here is the actual statement from the Administration on the
reciprocal tariff calculations from the Office of the United States
Trade Representative. Reciprocal tariffs are calculated as a terraff f
right necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US
and each of our trading partners. That premise is a
little wobbly the calculator because again, a giant rich country
(32:52):
is going to buy way more than it sells to
a small poor.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Country for obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficis it's are due
to a combination of tariff and non terror factors that
prevent trade from balancing tariffs work through direct reductions of imports. Again,
there are a lot of factors that have nothing to
do with tariffs and non terr effact like barriers to trade.
Reciprocal teriff rates range from zero percent to ninety nine percent,
with unweighted and import weighted averages of twenty percent forty
(33:19):
one percent, and then they go into a couple of
pages of details. So it is, yeah, it's misleading. The
approach that the administration is taking is misleading.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
So saying so the Trump administration saying Vietnam has whatever
it is, a ninety percent tariff on things come in
the United States is not accurate. No, no, it's not okay.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
So they have and the left does this constantly and
it makes me insane. They've essentially used words that sound
like something you think you know what they mean. Reciprocal
means mutually equal, right, good for the goose, good for
the gander, Well right, exactly, and this is not reciprocal
(34:05):
in the standard way. Now, I think my premise, my
conclusion is still right in that there are tariff and
non tariff barriers to US exports that are outrageous and
ridiculous and that ought to be equalized. But the administration
is greasing the skids by using numbers that aren't what
(34:27):
they seem to be.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
I can't believe Europe won't let our beef in. What
do they eat for steak over there? Do they get
it from? Where do they get it from I don't know,
French beef, India. No, they European. You see the cows
there in England, right, your Jersey cattle. They don't have
enough feed lots to feed Europe. They don't beef over there. Well,
(34:48):
is that it? Why don't they beef? Is beautiful? I agree?
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Hmm uh so okay, well I stand at least enlightened.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
If not, well, maybe we're all going to get at
least a one hundred level class on international tariffs over
the next several days or weeks. Yeah, where this settles
in the next several days or weeks is anybody's guests
If you missed a segment of the podcast Armstrong and
Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.