Happy Friday, everybody. I was lamenting yesterday when we were trying to put the show together that there's just too damn much news to try to cover. So we've got a bunch of stuff that's interesting in the show today. Ryan and Emiley, how are you guys doing.

Happy Friday, everybody. I was lamenting yesterday when we were trying to put the show together that there's just too damn much news to try to cover. So we've got a bunch of stuff that's interesting in the show today. Ryan and Emiley, how are you guys doing.

Hey, good to see you, Lovely, great to see it.

Hey, good to see you, Lovely, great to see it.

Lots of Elon updates, some Laura Lomer updates, we got some Gavin Newsom, some the latest with the tariffs. Are they on or off? What does it all mean? Nobody really knows. Some interesting stuff from the Democrats as well, as they continue to find themselves a little bit lost in the wilderness. More than a little bit lost in the wilderness, I'd say, so, lots to get through. Let me go ahead and start with this image to set the stage for today. We had another starship that you know from Elon's company, SpaceX, that blew up upon launch yesterday. This is a somebody who was a passenger on a commercial flight that took this video. You can see all the debris in the air there, and we were talking beforehand. So this is the second blow up that Starts has had this year. The FA was previously investigating the last one, you know, at least before SpaceX guys basically came in and did like a hostile takeover the FAA. This is out of eight starship launches, four of them have failed, so not a great success rate, especially since NASA is effectively pinning the future of the Space Shuttle program on Elon and SpaceX at this point. So any reflections on this, guys so beautiful.

Lots of Elon updates, some Laura Lomer updates, we got some Gavin Newsom, some the latest with the tariffs. Are they on or off? What does it all mean? Nobody really knows. Some interesting stuff from the Democrats as well, as they continue to find themselves a little bit lost in the wilderness. More than a little bit lost in the wilderness, I'd say, so, lots to get through. Let me go ahead and start with this image to set the stage for today. We had another starship that you know from Elon's company, SpaceX, that blew up upon launch yesterday. This is a somebody who was a passenger on a commercial flight that took this video. You can see all the debris in the air there, and we were talking beforehand. So this is the second blow up that Starts has had this year. The FA was previously investigating the last one, you know, at least before SpaceX guys basically came in and did like a hostile takeover the FAA. This is out of eight starship launches, four of them have failed, so not a great success rate, especially since NASA is effectively pinning the future of the Space Shuttle program on Elon and SpaceX at this point. So any reflections on this, guys so beautiful.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean after the last one, right, they launched investigation and then you know, Doge has been able to shut that investigation down.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean after the last one, right, they launched investigation and then you know, Doge has been able to shut that investigation down.

As producer Mac was pointing out before this show.

As producer Mac was pointing out before this show.

Started, the last one had you know, you know, real repercussions for people who were.

Started, the last one had you know, you know, real repercussions for people who were.

In the.

In the.

Blast zone, the radius of that debris, you know, collapsing back down to Earth. And I think it's an awkward time because if you're looking at doing cuts to federal spendings such as closing security offices, such as firing eighty thousand VA workers, which we'll talk about later in the show, to have that paired with sending all this money to SpaceX, and then to have it just blow up in the sky, it's not a great image, not a great look.

Blast zone, the radius of that debris, you know, collapsing back down to Earth. And I think it's an awkward time because if you're looking at doing cuts to federal spendings such as closing security offices, such as firing eighty thousand VA workers, which we'll talk about later in the show, to have that paired with sending all this money to SpaceX, and then to have it just blow up in the sky, it's not a great image, not a great look.

Yeah, and the investigations of SpaceX have been not just from the FAA, they've also been environmental issues with them not you know, following compliance and causing damage to the you know, the area where they're testing these rockets and the surrounding communities. This one caused multiple commercial flights to have to be diverted. The last one also caused I think around a dozen commercial flights to have to be diverted. Obviously it's the FA that's doing all that work. So again Elon's involvement at the FA becomes directly, you know, direct conflict there. And you had a couple of Florida airports that had to shut down completely for at least a couple hours while this debris was falling from the sky to avoid any you know, further incidents. So yeah, said Ryan, not a great look. There's a bunch of other Elon news here to get to. This is probably the most significant from yesterday, which is Trump gathered the cabinet together to let them know Elon Musk is not in charge of hiring and firing.

Yeah, and the investigations of SpaceX have been not just from the FAA, they've also been environmental issues with them not you know, following compliance and causing damage to the you know, the area where they're testing these rockets and the surrounding communities. This one caused multiple commercial flights to have to be diverted. The last one also caused I think around a dozen commercial flights to have to be diverted. Obviously it's the FA that's doing all that work. So again Elon's involvement at the FA becomes directly, you know, direct conflict there. And you had a couple of Florida airports that had to shut down completely for at least a couple hours while this debris was falling from the sky to avoid any you know, further incidents. So yeah, said Ryan, not a great look. There's a bunch of other Elon news here to get to. This is probably the most significant from yesterday, which is Trump gathered the cabinet together to let them know Elon Musk is not in charge of hiring and firing.

They are.

They are.

Kyle Cheney here, who's a great follow in terms of just like the legal ins and outs. In particular, she says it was an abrupt admonition that appeared aimed at the mounting legal scrutiny of Musk's power over the government. And what he's pointing to there, Emily, I think is the fact that, you know, there have been these all these court cases. One of them is focused on whether the Office of Personal Management has the ability to just blanket fire federal employees across the government, not just obviously within their own agency, you know, as part of that, like obviously DOGE does not technically have the power to just blanket fire whoever they want across the entire federal government. So one way to read this that some people are is, Okay, this is Trump actually.

Kyle Cheney here, who's a great follow in terms of just like the legal ins and outs. In particular, she says it was an abrupt admonition that appeared aimed at the mounting legal scrutiny of Musk's power over the government. And what he's pointing to there, Emily, I think is the fact that, you know, there have been these all these court cases. One of them is focused on whether the Office of Personal Management has the ability to just blanket fire federal employees across the government, not just obviously within their own agency, you know, as part of that, like obviously DOGE does not technically have the power to just blanket fire whoever they want across the entire federal government. So one way to read this that some people are is, Okay, this is Trump actually.

Reigning in elon.

Reigning in elon.

Another way to read it is this is the Trump administration trying to position themselves in a stronger way legally without really changing the dynamics of what they're doing here.

Another way to read it is this is the Trump administration trying to position themselves in a stronger way legally without really changing the dynamics of what they're doing here.

Well, yeah, I mean I think that's absolutely true. I actually think in a weird way, both are true. But this was always an easier I don't want to call it a loophole, but this was always an easier way to approach the situation. And I think maybe part of it is now they have the whole cabinet in place. Basically I think maybe tchaves Derrimer, who'll get a vote soon. They're a couple outstanding people. But now most of the cabinet is in place, so you have people who can make those decisions who aren't big balls, and it's like it's it always just made more sense to have that. It's like legally easier. And Trump the only other interesting thing in that I think was Trump saying now according to Politico, that these cuts will be done with the scalpel and not the hatchet. So that makes me think it's a little bit of both that he actually has realized that there's been and a lot of like sledge hammer like rehirings and maybe like not not the most efficient way of going towards efficiency. And so he's like just saying, we've got the cabinet at place now, like you guys are actually in charge of this, just know that we want cuts. Because the other thing he says, according to the political story, is if you don't do the cuts, Elon will do the cuts. So now he's just like using Elon Musk as the sort of damaclets like hovering over anyone who's out of compliance with the spirit of DOGE, and Elon Musk is not, I guess in charge of DOGE. I mean he's the head of DOGE, but he's not the administrator of DOGE. It's hard to keep up, right up.

Well, yeah, I mean I think that's absolutely true. I actually think in a weird way, both are true. But this was always an easier I don't want to call it a loophole, but this was always an easier way to approach the situation. And I think maybe part of it is now they have the whole cabinet in place. Basically I think maybe tchaves Derrimer, who'll get a vote soon. They're a couple outstanding people. But now most of the cabinet is in place, so you have people who can make those decisions who aren't big balls, and it's like it's it always just made more sense to have that. It's like legally easier. And Trump the only other interesting thing in that I think was Trump saying now according to Politico, that these cuts will be done with the scalpel and not the hatchet. So that makes me think it's a little bit of both that he actually has realized that there's been and a lot of like sledge hammer like rehirings and maybe like not not the most efficient way of going towards efficiency. And so he's like just saying, we've got the cabinet at place now, like you guys are actually in charge of this, just know that we want cuts. Because the other thing he says, according to the political story, is if you don't do the cuts, Elon will do the cuts. So now he's just like using Elon Musk as the sort of damaclets like hovering over anyone who's out of compliance with the spirit of DOGE, and Elon Musk is not, I guess in charge of DOGE. I mean he's the head of DOGE, but he's not the administrator of DOGE. It's hard to keep up, right up.

According to the speech, Yeah, Doge or something.

According to the speech, Yeah, Doge or something.

Everyone is Doge in their hearts.

Everyone is Doge in their hearts.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And from that, from the outside, it looks like chaos. It looks like wait a minute. You know, you told us that you've spent the last four years putting together this. You know this, this detailed, sophisticated play. Talking to people who know what they're doing. You got former own B director Russ Votis back at OH and B.

And from that, from the outside, it looks like chaos. It looks like wait a minute. You know, you told us that you've spent the last four years putting together this. You know this, this detailed, sophisticated play. Talking to people who know what they're doing. You got former own B director Russ Votis back at OH and B.

He did his project twenty twenty five.

He did his project twenty twenty five.

They're gonna come in, they're gonna do exactly exactly what they've wanted to do. And then they do that thing and then they're like, actually, never mind, We're going to do it a completely different way. And they're talking about, you know, re hiring thousands of USDA employees. I noticed, and they're a bunch of others are in limbo. We're on administrative leave, but we can't get in touch with anybody.

They're gonna come in, they're gonna do exactly exactly what they've wanted to do. And then they do that thing and then they're like, actually, never mind, We're going to do it a completely different way. And they're talking about, you know, re hiring thousands of USDA employees. I noticed, and they're a bunch of others are in limbo. We're on administrative leave, but we can't get in touch with anybody.

Are we fired?

Are we fired?

Are we still going to get our paychecks? Are are we coming back because you're now acknowledging that what this judge said about our firings that they were illegal, they are illegal. So am I rehired? Or am I still fired? How's this all gonna work? Or or is it just going to be like the tariffs where we talk about it a lot, do a little bit, and there's a lot of pain for some in a micro level for some people, but then it all gets flipped and we kind of move on and pretend like it never happened.

Are we still going to get our paychecks? Are are we coming back because you're now acknowledging that what this judge said about our firings that they were illegal, they are illegal. So am I rehired? Or am I still fired? How's this all gonna work? Or or is it just going to be like the tariffs where we talk about it a lot, do a little bit, and there's a lot of pain for some in a micro level for some people, but then it all gets flipped and we kind of move on and pretend like it never happened.

I don't know.

I don't know.

Yeah, that is a great point. I mean, for what it's worth. My personal read of this is that the real message was sent in that public cabinet meeting where Trump says to all of them like, if you don't like it, get the hell out. So the message is sent you better do what Elon wants you to do. But you know, technically, of course it's up to you. You're in charge, and use the scalpel, not the hatchet. But if you don't do what we want, then get the hell out of here. I mean, that's the way I read it, until I see a different posture. To me, some of his language is more about recognition that this is profoundly unpopular. You know, if you look at the polling of you know, oh, we're slashing the Social Security Administration, and like Ryan said, is just like chaos everywhere, and why are we firing all these veterans and people showing up to town hall saying like, what the hell is going on? This is an attempt to be like, oh, no, no, no, everything's normal. We're doing this in the way that you would want. Because if you poll just like hey, should the government be cut and should it be more efficient?

Yeah, that is a great point. I mean, for what it's worth. My personal read of this is that the real message was sent in that public cabinet meeting where Trump says to all of them like, if you don't like it, get the hell out. So the message is sent you better do what Elon wants you to do. But you know, technically, of course it's up to you. You're in charge, and use the scalpel, not the hatchet. But if you don't do what we want, then get the hell out of here. I mean, that's the way I read it, until I see a different posture. To me, some of his language is more about recognition that this is profoundly unpopular. You know, if you look at the polling of you know, oh, we're slashing the Social Security Administration, and like Ryan said, is just like chaos everywhere, and why are we firing all these veterans and people showing up to town hall saying like, what the hell is going on? This is an attempt to be like, oh, no, no, no, everything's normal. We're doing this in the way that you would want. Because if you poll just like hey, should the government be cut and should it be more efficient?

People are like, yeah, sure.

People are like, yeah, sure.

Of course.

Of course.

But when the rubber hits the road and you see like, oh, the people who are tracking bird flu are gone, and planes are crashing into each other and I no longer can you know, reach someone when I'm trying to get something resolved of my Social Security check, or like in Maine, where now because they cut the link between the Social Security Administration and the health services, you now have to go in person to a Social Security office to like register your new baby. As if when you have a newborn you don't have enough on your mind to deal with they're adding that to the burden as well. So when you see all that chaos and the reality of those cuts, the feel and the political ramification becomes much different than if you just ask people like, hey, should the government be more efficient, to which most people, you know, overwhelming would be like, yeah, sure, of course.

But when the rubber hits the road and you see like, oh, the people who are tracking bird flu are gone, and planes are crashing into each other and I no longer can you know, reach someone when I'm trying to get something resolved of my Social Security check, or like in Maine, where now because they cut the link between the Social Security Administration and the health services, you now have to go in person to a Social Security office to like register your new baby. As if when you have a newborn you don't have enough on your mind to deal with they're adding that to the burden as well. So when you see all that chaos and the reality of those cuts, the feel and the political ramification becomes much different than if you just ask people like, hey, should the government be more efficient, to which most people, you know, overwhelming would be like, yeah, sure, of course.

Yeah, that should be an easily winnable fight, right emily, like from the right to you know, the public thinks that there's waste in government and the public it's not particularly sympathetic.

Yeah, that should be an easily winnable fight, right emily, like from the right to you know, the public thinks that there's waste in government and the public it's not particularly sympathetic.

To federal workers in general.

To federal workers in general.

To fire federal workers and still wind up on the wrong end of public opinion takes a massive level of incompetence.

To fire federal workers and still wind up on the wrong end of public opinion takes a massive level of incompetence.

Really well, I mean, the scalpel versus hatchet diconomy is interesting because a lot of people on the right were using that the reverse from Donald Trump, like the reverse of what he said to justify Doge's chaos. This is like the callous like you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet maxium, like this is always it's necessary, like you will never ever scale down the size of the federal government if you don't do it with the hatchet first. And so I guess in a sense, I'm curious and I should probably talk to some people to day and ask around if they see this now as like phase two of Doge, Like they came in with the hatchet, and now they can afford to be like more precise and targeted. But if it's not true that they got through like some type of first phase, which I think most people until yesterday would have said they didn't, then that defeats what everyone thought the purpose of DOGE was, which was to be this generational opportunity to actually use the hatchet, because if you use the scalpel, people say you will never ever scale back the size of the size of the federal government because it's too It gives everybody time to fight back, it gives everybody time to sort of come up with a strategy, and you end up just kind of back where you started and trimming around the edges. But DOGE was supposed to be like the generational chainsaw opportunity to borrow from Elon's imagery at Seapack.

Really well, I mean, the scalpel versus hatchet diconomy is interesting because a lot of people on the right were using that the reverse from Donald Trump, like the reverse of what he said to justify Doge's chaos. This is like the callous like you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet maxium, like this is always it's necessary, like you will never ever scale down the size of the federal government if you don't do it with the hatchet first. And so I guess in a sense, I'm curious and I should probably talk to some people to day and ask around if they see this now as like phase two of Doge, Like they came in with the hatchet, and now they can afford to be like more precise and targeted. But if it's not true that they got through like some type of first phase, which I think most people until yesterday would have said they didn't, then that defeats what everyone thought the purpose of DOGE was, which was to be this generational opportunity to actually use the hatchet, because if you use the scalpel, people say you will never ever scale back the size of the size of the federal government because it's too It gives everybody time to fight back, it gives everybody time to sort of come up with a strategy, and you end up just kind of back where you started and trimming around the edges. But DOGE was supposed to be like the generational chainsaw opportunity to borrow from Elon's imagery at Seapack.

Yeah, And instead, as always happens, a bunch of Republicans went out on a limb that Trump asked them to go out on. Then Trump grabbed their chainsaw and chop the limb off. Yeah, And now there they are explaining how they actually always meant to be at the bottom of the tree with broken legs.

Yeah, And instead, as always happens, a bunch of Republicans went out on a limb that Trump asked them to go out on. Then Trump grabbed their chainsaw and chop the limb off. Yeah, And now there they are explaining how they actually always meant to be at the bottom of the tree with broken legs.

Yeah, that's very relevant to the terror of conversation as well, where you know, the whiplash of that leaves his defenders, you know, defending every single policy under the sun in an attempt to curry favor with him and to you know, curry favor with a base that's very committed to him. Let's say, Ryan, let me have you explain this one, because you've been all over this D banking vote that occurred in the Senate.

Yeah, that's very relevant to the terror of conversation as well, where you know, the whiplash of that leaves his defenders, you know, defending every single policy under the sun in an attempt to curry favor with him and to you know, curry favor with a base that's very committed to him. Let's say, Ryan, let me have you explain this one, because you've been all over this D banking vote that occurred in the Senate.

So Laura Lumer.

So Laura Lumer.

Here upset because she says, every Senate republic with the exception of Centaer.

Here upset because she says, every Senate republic with the exception of Centaer.

Josh Holly, just voted to legalize D banking.

Josh Holly, just voted to legalize D banking.

Now apps like PayPal can get away with banning you for your political views thanks to Senate Republicans who just voted to repeal a rule that made that illegal in December of twenty twenty four. And Elon Musk replies, really question, Laura says, yes, really, hopefully.

Now apps like PayPal can get away with banning you for your political views thanks to Senate Republicans who just voted to repeal a rule that made that illegal in December of twenty twenty four. And Elon Musk replies, really question, Laura says, yes, really, hopefully.

You can put an end to this.

You can put an end to this.

Elon GOP does not like CFPB, and so they are now just opposing everything CFPP has done, including the good things like implementing a law on twenty twenty four that ban payment platforms like PayPal, Stripe and Venmo from banning people based off their political affiliation. Senate Gop just voted to legalize D banking. They should kill the companion bill off in the House, Ryan, What is going on here?

Elon GOP does not like CFPB, and so they are now just opposing everything CFPP has done, including the good things like implementing a law on twenty twenty four that ban payment platforms like PayPal, Stripe and Venmo from banning people based off their political affiliation. Senate Gop just voted to legalize D banking. They should kill the companion bill off in the House, Ryan, What is going on here?

Yeah, you think that this has contrasting perspectives? How about Laura Lumer and I teaming up to try to save this cfbb D banking rule, like the whole, the whole.

Yeah, you think that this has contrasting perspectives? How about Laura Lumer and I teaming up to try to save this cfbb D banking rule, like the whole, the whole.

It's not even horseshoes.

It's not even horseshoes.

It's like just looping in like a Nascar trek, you know, on itself. So yeah, so so Laura Lumer, you know, shared our reporting over at drop side and we covered it here at Counterpoints. I had reached out to her because she has herself been de banked in twenty nineteen. I don't know, you know what her you know, far right particular offense was, but PayPal stopped working with her, Venmo canceled her accounts. She can't use like uber eats, like basically shut off from all of kind of contemporary app activity. There were even some like comical ones that like the apps don't even exist anymore. What was that one where all the tech bros were on audio talking to each clubhouse? Yeah from clubhouse? Yeah, big thing, Yes, is clubhouse even still a thing?

It's like just looping in like a Nascar trek, you know, on itself. So yeah, so so Laura Lumer, you know, shared our reporting over at drop side and we covered it here at Counterpoints. I had reached out to her because she has herself been de banked in twenty nineteen. I don't know, you know what her you know, far right particular offense was, but PayPal stopped working with her, Venmo canceled her accounts. She can't use like uber eats, like basically shut off from all of kind of contemporary app activity. There were even some like comical ones that like the apps don't even exist anymore. What was that one where all the tech bros were on audio talking to each clubhouse? Yeah from clubhouse? Yeah, big thing, Yes, is clubhouse even still a thing?

I forgot I don't think so, I guess maybe. Yeah.

I forgot I don't think so, I guess maybe. Yeah.

Anyway, so and she and she confirmed, yeah, yeah, and she's still actually, uh can't use PayPal in some others.

Anyway, so and she and she confirmed, yeah, yeah, and she's still actually, uh can't use PayPal in some others.

And so.

And so.

The CFPB passed a rule under Biden an under row hit Tropra that says banks cannot dbank over political reasons, for ideological reasons. And he said, and and what And I'm including in that anybody that does more than fifty million transactions a year, so that that lumps in PayPal, Zell who will pay Apple pay.

The CFPB passed a rule under Biden an under row hit Tropra that says banks cannot dbank over political reasons, for ideological reasons. And he said, and and what And I'm including in that anybody that does more than fifty million transactions a year, so that that lumps in PayPal, Zell who will pay Apple pay.

All all of these apps.

All all of these apps.

And they all fought this, you know, relentlessly because they don't want it's they don't want to be regulated, period. And so uh Elon Musk and WhatsApp Zuckerberg both have been talking about getting a payment app, you know, getting you know, allowing payments on you to move money through What's app or through your d MS on Twitter or whatever.

And they all fought this, you know, relentlessly because they don't want it's they don't want to be regulated, period. And so uh Elon Musk and WhatsApp Zuckerberg both have been talking about getting a payment app, you know, getting you know, allowing payments on you to move money through What's app or through your d MS on Twitter or whatever.

They that's one of his most important ambitions for Twitter. It's one of the reasons he bought it. He wants it to be x and in everything.

They that's one of his most important ambitions for Twitter. It's one of the reasons he bought it. He wants it to be x and in everything.

Yeah, he's been very clear about that and that they would instantly then be covered under this under this new regulation, and it would just mean they can't debank people for political reasons and they'd have to have serious, uh fraud prevention efforts, just like banks are supposed to have and fraud dispute mechanisms. So you get you get scammed, you can you can there's a process that you can dispute it. Scams on Twitter now like there's just you're you're absolutely screwed, Like you get you get scammed, you get shut out, you you better know somebody who can who can like get your case in front of Elon. Otherwise you know, you're shut out of your account and you're the account is going to be controlled by whatever crypto scammers you know took it from you and rupar got got caught by that recently. So they don't want that regulation, and so they persuaded the Senate to pass this resolution getting rid of this CFPB rule, and so Josh Hawley voted against it. I've seen Steve Bannon is now engaged on this question. It still has to go over to the House.

Yeah, he's been very clear about that and that they would instantly then be covered under this under this new regulation, and it would just mean they can't debank people for political reasons and they'd have to have serious, uh fraud prevention efforts, just like banks are supposed to have and fraud dispute mechanisms. So you get you get scammed, you can you can there's a process that you can dispute it. Scams on Twitter now like there's just you're you're absolutely screwed, Like you get you get scammed, you get shut out, you you better know somebody who can who can like get your case in front of Elon. Otherwise you know, you're shut out of your account and you're the account is going to be controlled by whatever crypto scammers you know took it from you and rupar got got caught by that recently. So they don't want that regulation, and so they persuaded the Senate to pass this resolution getting rid of this CFPB rule, and so Josh Hawley voted against it. I've seen Steve Bannon is now engaged on this question. It still has to go over to the House.

And so.

And so.

Now Democrats just had another one of their members die who so that they're what needed four seat majority now, so maybe five seeds at this point Democrats, you know, if everybody shows up, they'll all vote no. Republicans only need to find a handful of people single digits low single digits to say no. Sorry Musk like sorry, PayPal, like we're going to regulate you here, and then the regulation is going to say you can't dbank people for political reasons. Elon Musk saying really, like, as this is, as if this is like coming as news to him, is it's kind of hilarious.

Now Democrats just had another one of their members die who so that they're what needed four seat majority now, so maybe five seeds at this point Democrats, you know, if everybody shows up, they'll all vote no. Republicans only need to find a handful of people single digits low single digits to say no. Sorry Musk like sorry, PayPal, like we're going to regulate you here, and then the regulation is going to say you can't dbank people for political reasons. Elon Musk saying really, like, as this is, as if this is like coming as news to him, is it's kind of hilarious.

But I think when Zuckerberg was on with Rogan pretendingly he didn't know what the CFP I've never even heard of.

But I think when Zuckerberg was on with Rogan pretendingly he didn't know what the CFP I've never even heard of.

Why are they even going after me?

Why are they even going after me?

You're telling me this for the first time. It's very sad.

You're telling me this for the first time. It's very sad.

So I think if you're Elon Musk, curious Emily for your take on this. If you're Elon Musk, you take the l here and you tell the House do not repeal this rule. This is outrageous because it shows then you're you can you can be performatively non conflicted because they're look, Okay, yes this would hurt me, but I am willing to let this go through because it's so obvious that conservatives should not be, you know, kicked off of you know, banking apps just for being conservative. So I'm going to stand up for I'm going to stand up for this, and then he can figure out down the road how he can get there destroying far about for his little coin.

So I think if you're Elon Musk, curious Emily for your take on this. If you're Elon Musk, you take the l here and you tell the House do not repeal this rule. This is outrageous because it shows then you're you can you can be performatively non conflicted because they're look, Okay, yes this would hurt me, but I am willing to let this go through because it's so obvious that conservatives should not be, you know, kicked off of you know, banking apps just for being conservative. So I'm going to stand up for I'm going to stand up for this, and then he can figure out down the road how he can get there destroying far about for his little coin.

They're destroying the CFP B so exactly he doesn't need this in place.

They're destroying the CFP B so exactly he doesn't need this in place.

They already like ifower him, I would cynically just get behind this and say, yeah, don't don't do this.

They already like ifower him, I would cynically just get behind this and say, yeah, don't don't do this.

This is terrible.

This is terrible.

I mean, if it hadn't been elevated, then he wouldn't have even had to make the choice.

I mean, if it hadn't been elevated, then he wouldn't have even had to make the choice.

I think the cynical calculation is absolutely smart. But I don't know that they're actually going to even bob.

I think the cynical calculation is absolutely smart. But I don't know that they're actually going to even bob.

They're going for everything.

They're going for everything.

They might just they might just repeal the rule and be like, you know, what, what are you gonna do?

They might just they might just repeal the rule and be like, you know, what, what are you gonna do?

Well, And they also have a fairly arcane argument about how how the rule actually is. It's like the opposite. You've probably seen this, Like they flip it on its head and they say the rule is what allows for the debate. They say that what they're doing is fighting debanking, like that's their argument. They have this like arcane like lobbyist crafted clearly like tech lobbyist crafted argument.

Well, And they also have a fairly arcane argument about how how the rule actually is. It's like the opposite. You've probably seen this, Like they flip it on its head and they say the rule is what allows for the debate. They say that what they're doing is fighting debanking, like that's their argument. They have this like arcane like lobbyist crafted clearly like tech lobbyist crafted argument.

And Tim Scott is out saying well, I've got a bill that's going to ban de banking.

And Tim Scott is out saying well, I've got a bill that's going to ban de banking.

But it's like that's.

But it's like that's.

That's treating people like like they don't have any.

That's treating people like like they don't have any.

Idea what they're talking about.

Idea what they're talking about.

It's like there's already there are laws on the books that are interpreted to mean that you can't discriminate against people on their viewpoints. The CFPB's rule is just implementing that law. So Tim Scott coming and saying he's going to pass a new law means that somebody then has to implement a rule to enforce it. Laws that aren't enforced don't matter. And so what these what Tim Scott and these other republics would want to do is say well, we're going to pass a law, but we're not going to enforce it, So that way they get to tell their audience that they're with them. But the bank lobbyists are comfortable that the law will never be enforced.

It's like there's already there are laws on the books that are interpreted to mean that you can't discriminate against people on their viewpoints. The CFPB's rule is just implementing that law. So Tim Scott coming and saying he's going to pass a new law means that somebody then has to implement a rule to enforce it. Laws that aren't enforced don't matter. And so what these what Tim Scott and these other republics would want to do is say well, we're going to pass a law, but we're not going to enforce it, So that way they get to tell their audience that they're with them. But the bank lobbyists are comfortable that the law will never be enforced.

Yeah, because all the agencies that would enforce it are being destroyed.

Yeah, because all the agencies that would enforce it are being destroyed.

I'm threatened that you're going to replace me with Laura Lumer.

I'm threatened that you're going to replace me with Laura Lumer.

Right, we got to get we got to get on the show.

Right, we got to get we got to get on the show.

That we would we is she allowed on YouTube like like, she's like every we could just.

That we would we is she allowed on YouTube like like, she's like every we could just.

Post that one on Rumble only they could be a Rumbel exclusive Ryan Ryan and Laura Lumer to team up. That's like I wanted to talk to Steve Bannon for similar reasons.

Post that one on Rumble only they could be a Rumbel exclusive Ryan Ryan and Laura Lumer to team up. That's like I wanted to talk to Steve Bannon for similar reasons.

It is. It is.

It is. It is.

Whatever she said, I'm sure I disagree with it. She should not be banned from Uber eats ridiculous.

Whatever she said, I'm sure I disagree with it. She should not be banned from Uber eats ridiculous.

Yep, yeah, well too far.

Yep, yeah, well too far.

I mean you also, like, there's few people who are.

I mean you also, like, there's few people who are.

Actually willing to really stand up to, you know, on any sort of principle.

Actually willing to really stand up to, you know, on any sort of principle.

Most of them are busy being.

Most of them are busy being.

Like terifts are great, You're so brilliant for taking the tariff's off. Tarif's are great. You're so brilliant for taking the tariff's off. So to see someone who will like stand on any principle, as you know, you gotta.

Like terifts are great, You're so brilliant for taking the tariff's off. Tarif's are great. You're so brilliant for taking the tariff's off. So to see someone who will like stand on any principle, as you know, you gotta.

She's got her views and sticking with it.

She's got her views and sticking with it.

All right, Let's go to some of the latest Doge cuts here that are really significant washing posts with a good piece on what's already happening at Social Security, as Jeff Stein puts it here. So you know, they've slashed a lot of the workforce, They're closing a bunch of offices, and people are already feeling that the impact of that. And Ryan, I think you pointed out this is like, this is a way to social security effectively without actually cutting social security. So this article says wait times for basic phone service have grown, in some cases to hours. Coordinate employees, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity. Delays and reviews of disability claims and hearings before administrative law judges are already starting. Employees at a field office in Indiana have been forced to pick up calls for other offices. When employees said and are feeling phone inquiries for an area covering two thirds of the state, the phone quote never stops ringing. Now, the employee said, phone backups have prevented the staff from processing retirement claims. So you know, how good is a program? How good is a program for you? Like how much does it actually exist when you cannot actually get in touch with a human being in order to avail yourself of said program. Like if you can't get your claims processed, then it's like the program doesn't exist for you effectively.

All right, Let's go to some of the latest Doge cuts here that are really significant washing posts with a good piece on what's already happening at Social Security, as Jeff Stein puts it here. So you know, they've slashed a lot of the workforce, They're closing a bunch of offices, and people are already feeling that the impact of that. And Ryan, I think you pointed out this is like, this is a way to social security effectively without actually cutting social security. So this article says wait times for basic phone service have grown, in some cases to hours. Coordinate employees, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity. Delays and reviews of disability claims and hearings before administrative law judges are already starting. Employees at a field office in Indiana have been forced to pick up calls for other offices. When employees said and are feeling phone inquiries for an area covering two thirds of the state, the phone quote never stops ringing. Now, the employee said, phone backups have prevented the staff from processing retirement claims. So you know, how good is a program? How good is a program for you? Like how much does it actually exist when you cannot actually get in touch with a human being in order to avail yourself of said program. Like if you can't get your claims processed, then it's like the program doesn't exist for you effectively.

Right, it's a way to kill the program, the program through attrition, because obviously social security itself something like ten thousand plus people a day are dying who or on SOLI security, so you're moving them out. Then you know ten it's fairly automatic to get in to just straight up self security. But SSI and SSDI, which are huge components of the program, are implemented by the states through these Disability Determination Services offices and they're kind of run by SSA, and those are the places where it takes a long time to get your claims approved, and once you're on, they're kind of always looking for ways to kick you off, like, oh, your bank account went over two thousand dollars this month, You're you're out. Then you have to appeal and you try to get back in. And if you can shut those offices down, then you can slow the process of getting new people in or just completely block it and then through attrition, you know, get people out through paperwork violations or death and gradually take this program that is the most popular and has reduced poverty by by more than any other program in world history.

Right, it's a way to kill the program, the program through attrition, because obviously social security itself something like ten thousand plus people a day are dying who or on SOLI security, so you're moving them out. Then you know ten it's fairly automatic to get in to just straight up self security. But SSI and SSDI, which are huge components of the program, are implemented by the states through these Disability Determination Services offices and they're kind of run by SSA, and those are the places where it takes a long time to get your claims approved, and once you're on, they're kind of always looking for ways to kick you off, like, oh, your bank account went over two thousand dollars this month, You're you're out. Then you have to appeal and you try to get back in. And if you can shut those offices down, then you can slow the process of getting new people in or just completely block it and then through attrition, you know, get people out through paperwork violations or death and gradually take this program that is the most popular and has reduced poverty by by more than any other program in world history.

And I say this as a.

And I say this as a.

Huge fan of some communist governments and they're anti poverty programs, but nobody.

Huge fan of some communist governments and they're anti poverty programs, but nobody.

Has like reduced.

Has like reduced.

Poverty like Social Security did, like taking it from ninety like a huge, huge, like a ninety percent drop in elderly poverty from the from pre sol Security to post Social Security. Not even Stalin not even installing this can claim credit for that.

Poverty like Social Security did, like taking it from ninety like a huge, huge, like a ninety percent drop in elderly poverty from the from pre sol Security to post Social Security. Not even Stalin not even installing this can claim credit for that.

Yeah, So.

Yeah, So.

That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to reverse it by through attrition.

That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to reverse it by through attrition.

I don't think that's wrong. I mean, I think that's probably well. So I think it's there's Ryan and Crissel, you were both talking about this the other night when we were discussing how much austerity like featured in Donald Trump's joined addressed to Congress. Yeah, I think they're like real ideological and Trump may not even be aware of this ideological goals from people like Russ bo or people in that orbit, as it pertains to these programs that are baked into the massive reforms that they want to do. So like, for example, when Trump says we're not cutting Medicaid, we're reforming the waste fraud in abuse, or like we're rooting out waste broad in abuse. You can make all of these cuts to Medicaid and it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term. So they think it with Social Security, like you can get fraud out of Social Security. It doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the program's long term, but it does sort of handicap them. So I think some of that is baked into these broader conservative movement policy designs. I agree with that. I just don't know if Trump. I don't know if it's like on Trump's radar.

I don't think that's wrong. I mean, I think that's probably well. So I think it's there's Ryan and Crissel, you were both talking about this the other night when we were discussing how much austerity like featured in Donald Trump's joined addressed to Congress. Yeah, I think they're like real ideological and Trump may not even be aware of this ideological goals from people like Russ bo or people in that orbit, as it pertains to these programs that are baked into the massive reforms that they want to do. So like, for example, when Trump says we're not cutting Medicaid, we're reforming the waste fraud in abuse, or like we're rooting out waste broad in abuse. You can make all of these cuts to Medicaid and it doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the programs long term. So they think it with Social Security, like you can get fraud out of Social Security. It doesn't have anything to do with the solvency of the program's long term, but it does sort of handicap them. So I think some of that is baked into these broader conservative movement policy designs. I agree with that. I just don't know if Trump. I don't know if it's like on Trump's radar.

Sure it's not.

Sure it's not.

And I was talking to it as somebody who works in a state dds office yesterday, and they said that this censorship that they've been bizarrely carrying out at SSA offices, and you saw this report that like you can't you already couldn't, you know, go to YouTube on your work computer in a lot of places, public schools, lots of places, but they expanded that to like all almost all news sites. And the THEDS employee I talked to you said that that also caught up their contractor, you know, because there's so much corporate kind of conglomerization and concentration of corporate power that you hit one company, you might hit seventy five companies.

And I was talking to it as somebody who works in a state dds office yesterday, and they said that this censorship that they've been bizarrely carrying out at SSA offices, and you saw this report that like you can't you already couldn't, you know, go to YouTube on your work computer in a lot of places, public schools, lots of places, but they expanded that to like all almost all news sites. And the THEDS employee I talked to you said that that also caught up their contractor, you know, because there's so much corporate kind of conglomerization and concentration of corporate power that you hit one company, you might hit seventy five companies.

You didn't know we're like connected to it.

You didn't know we're like connected to it.

So like these these state workers now can't get into their contractor portals to do just the basic work that they have to do to implement the program. And it's like that's kind of on purpose, like that's the goal, Like they want they want these workers not to be able to do their work because the work that they're doing is they don't support gradually bringing more people into the program.

So like these these state workers now can't get into their contractor portals to do just the basic work that they have to do to implement the program. And it's like that's kind of on purpose, like that's the goal, Like they want they want these workers not to be able to do their work because the work that they're doing is they don't support gradually bringing more people into the program.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and I also think, I mean the you know, the State of the Union where he was talking, he was spreading this total lie about the number of people over two hundred or whatever who are Social Security tecks. I mean that to me is also a way to argue, like we're cutting this program because of all the fraud, to avoid violating his or avoid the appearance of violating his pledge that he wasn't going to cut touch Social Security. So, you know, again, this is one of these areas where you see the tug of war between what Trump has positioned himself as politically and what Elon's ideology is, and certainly Russfod's ideology as well, and the Elon ideology seems to be consistently winning out. I mean, this is kind of a somewhat similar You've got they're firing eighty thousand Veterans Affairs workers as part of Trump cuts. They say, this is sparking a backlash. I mean, many of these people are veterans themselves that work at the Veterans Affairs Administration and certainly critical to you know, delivering for the promises that we have made to people who have served the country, and only I think politically these have been some of the more difficult for Republicans to be able to answer when you have people who stand up like, how could you be firing all of these tens of thousands of veterans who serve the country. How could you be firing all of these military spouses who are sort of disproportionately on probationary status because the nature of having to move around the country and you know, depending on where your your spouse is being stationed and deployed. And so I think politically this has been some of the stuff that's been more difficult for Republicans and as part of why Elon had to meet with them this week and assuage some of the Republican Caucus concerns about what they're hearing from constituents in their district with regard to Doge.

Well, and I also think, I mean the you know, the State of the Union where he was talking, he was spreading this total lie about the number of people over two hundred or whatever who are Social Security tecks. I mean that to me is also a way to argue, like we're cutting this program because of all the fraud, to avoid violating his or avoid the appearance of violating his pledge that he wasn't going to cut touch Social Security. So, you know, again, this is one of these areas where you see the tug of war between what Trump has positioned himself as politically and what Elon's ideology is, and certainly Russfod's ideology as well, and the Elon ideology seems to be consistently winning out. I mean, this is kind of a somewhat similar You've got they're firing eighty thousand Veterans Affairs workers as part of Trump cuts. They say, this is sparking a backlash. I mean, many of these people are veterans themselves that work at the Veterans Affairs Administration and certainly critical to you know, delivering for the promises that we have made to people who have served the country, and only I think politically these have been some of the more difficult for Republicans to be able to answer when you have people who stand up like, how could you be firing all of these tens of thousands of veterans who serve the country. How could you be firing all of these military spouses who are sort of disproportionately on probationary status because the nature of having to move around the country and you know, depending on where your your spouse is being stationed and deployed. And so I think politically this has been some of the stuff that's been more difficult for Republicans and as part of why Elon had to meet with them this week and assuage some of the Republican Caucus concerns about what they're hearing from constituents in their district with regard to Doge.

Well, my favorite part of that report was at the meeting, Elon Musk handed out his phone number to senators but not House members, which is especially pretty finely. It reminds me of the veepline where she can't get something through the Senate. She says, Okay, then lift the sewer grade to the House and we'll go over there. So funny. So what's really interesting to me? And I was very surprised to find out by this that that actually pairs it back down to twenty nineteen levels. So in the last several years, the growth of the VA was eighty thousand people, which is very like the last six years, the growth of the VA was eighty thousand people, which is interesting because it's about a four hundred thousand person department and they're going to get it back down to around three hundred thousand. But even if that, even if that on paper you look at it, the politics of it, Krystaler, are going to be I mean, we played that video earlier, but what was a few days ago from Roger Wicker. I want to say it was Roger Wicker at a town hall where he was getting specifically confronted on veterans. I was listening to an NPR segment about their local va outside of Seattle getting hit by this, and you're just like, when you localize this, it's going to I don't know that we've actually fully seen the bleeding politically shown show up and polling it because I don't know that it's been fully like people haven't reckoned with it. They don't realize they're still uncertainty as to whether this stuff is permanent or whether it's going to get real. First, people are gonna get rehired, because we have seen people get rehired, so I don't I mean, if if some of the stuff is permanent, the politics of that are going to be extremely difficult for Republicans.

Well, my favorite part of that report was at the meeting, Elon Musk handed out his phone number to senators but not House members, which is especially pretty finely. It reminds me of the veepline where she can't get something through the Senate. She says, Okay, then lift the sewer grade to the House and we'll go over there. So funny. So what's really interesting to me? And I was very surprised to find out by this that that actually pairs it back down to twenty nineteen levels. So in the last several years, the growth of the VA was eighty thousand people, which is very like the last six years, the growth of the VA was eighty thousand people, which is interesting because it's about a four hundred thousand person department and they're going to get it back down to around three hundred thousand. But even if that, even if that on paper you look at it, the politics of it, Krystaler, are going to be I mean, we played that video earlier, but what was a few days ago from Roger Wicker. I want to say it was Roger Wicker at a town hall where he was getting specifically confronted on veterans. I was listening to an NPR segment about their local va outside of Seattle getting hit by this, and you're just like, when you localize this, it's going to I don't know that we've actually fully seen the bleeding politically shown show up and polling it because I don't know that it's been fully like people haven't reckoned with it. They don't realize they're still uncertainty as to whether this stuff is permanent or whether it's going to get real. First, people are gonna get rehired, because we have seen people get rehired, so I don't I mean, if if some of the stuff is permanent, the politics of that are going to be extremely difficult for Republicans.

Yeah, and also, you know we're already seeing and this is a good transition to the next piece about tariffs, we're seeing some real economic warning signs and making massive cuts to the federal government that is going to have an impact not just on those workers, but obviously we're verberates around communities, you know, different industries that were federal government funding is important. They just sort of everything is frozen in place. And when you couple that with the tariffs and what's going on there and general sense that there's you know, a slow down coming. It can have devastating economic impacts outside of just the direct buyings and what that means for individual people's lives. So here's the latest on the tariffs. As of yesterday, we have Trump delaying some tariffs on Mexico and Canada at least for a month, So we get to do this all again in April. Guys, don't worry. But basically anything that falls under any products that follow fall under the USMCA. They're saying the terrafts are not going to apply. And have a note here about what percentage. So about fifty percent of Mexican imports thirty eight percent of Canadian imports are covered by that trade agreement.

Yeah, and also, you know we're already seeing and this is a good transition to the next piece about tariffs, we're seeing some real economic warning signs and making massive cuts to the federal government that is going to have an impact not just on those workers, but obviously we're verberates around communities, you know, different industries that were federal government funding is important. They just sort of everything is frozen in place. And when you couple that with the tariffs and what's going on there and general sense that there's you know, a slow down coming. It can have devastating economic impacts outside of just the direct buyings and what that means for individual people's lives. So here's the latest on the tariffs. As of yesterday, we have Trump delaying some tariffs on Mexico and Canada at least for a month, So we get to do this all again in April. Guys, don't worry. But basically anything that falls under any products that follow fall under the USMCA. They're saying the terrafts are not going to apply. And have a note here about what percentage. So about fifty percent of Mexican imports thirty eight percent of Canadian imports are covered by that trade agreement.

It does create a lot of.

It does create a lot of.

I mean, so you still have a significant portion of goods that will be tariffed. And also I was reading about this as well, it's like a little bit complex to even figure out which goods are covered by the teriffs. Some things will be straightforward, but some things, you know, where you have different component parts coming from different places, etc. It's actually complicated to figure out which falls under this agreement and which doesn't. So you know, I saw I think the markets were reacting pretty positively this morning, but yesterday was a total bloodbath in the market. So, you know, Emily, what do you think about where we are with all of this.

I mean, so you still have a significant portion of goods that will be tariffed. And also I was reading about this as well, it's like a little bit complex to even figure out which goods are covered by the teriffs. Some things will be straightforward, but some things, you know, where you have different component parts coming from different places, etc. It's actually complicated to figure out which falls under this agreement and which doesn't. So you know, I saw I think the markets were reacting pretty positively this morning, but yesterday was a total bloodbath in the market. So, you know, Emily, what do you think about where we are with all of this.

It's hard to know where we are because it's like you don't know if you're in the middle of something until you have some clear idea of what the end would look like. And I don't know what Drum's end is. It's I fail two because yeah, I mean, we talked about this at length the other night. But he has this conflation of his economic goals and his immigration fentanyl goals, and it's really obviously confusing for Mexico and Canada. At this point, I think he's just like straight up mad at Canada and wants to mess with Canada. But like, I don't know, I think it's really hard to say what he does going forward because he has gotten some things like, for example, the Honda Civics being made in Indiana rather than Mexico. Like, he's seen some of this stuff start to happen. So does that mean that he sticks with a more targeted version of some of these that's my best guess. I would say that he ultimately lands on targeted tariffs and can claim a win on the blunt force tariffs by getting Mexico to cooperate with immigration stuff and getting Canada to cooperate with fentanyl and that sort of thing. So I have no idea where it's going, but that's my best guess right now. Ryan.

It's hard to know where we are because it's like you don't know if you're in the middle of something until you have some clear idea of what the end would look like. And I don't know what Drum's end is. It's I fail two because yeah, I mean, we talked about this at length the other night. But he has this conflation of his economic goals and his immigration fentanyl goals, and it's really obviously confusing for Mexico and Canada. At this point, I think he's just like straight up mad at Canada and wants to mess with Canada. But like, I don't know, I think it's really hard to say what he does going forward because he has gotten some things like, for example, the Honda Civics being made in Indiana rather than Mexico. Like, he's seen some of this stuff start to happen. So does that mean that he sticks with a more targeted version of some of these that's my best guess. I would say that he ultimately lands on targeted tariffs and can claim a win on the blunt force tariffs by getting Mexico to cooperate with immigration stuff and getting Canada to cooperate with fentanyl and that sort of thing. So I have no idea where it's going, but that's my best guess right now. Ryan.

One of what the Canadians think is that he's using this economic warfare against them to try to weaken them so that he can take them over as the fifty first state. I mean, that's what they that's what they believe. Some Trump officials have even effectively said that that is the goal. I mean, do you put much stock in that as that's what's going on here because it's so hard to figure out what is actually going on here.

One of what the Canadians think is that he's using this economic warfare against them to try to weaken them so that he can take them over as the fifty first state. I mean, that's what they that's what they believe. Some Trump officials have even effectively said that that is the goal. I mean, do you put much stock in that as that's what's going on here because it's so hard to figure out what is actually going on here.

Yes, I do think that that's that needs to be taken seriously because the United States economy definitely has the power to, you know, shrink the Canadian economy by an absolute extraordinary amount.

Yes, I do think that that's that needs to be taken seriously because the United States economy definitely has the power to, you know, shrink the Canadian economy by an absolute extraordinary amount.

Which is already not good by the way.

Which is already not good by the way.

Yeah, and it's it's crushing. You know, we're already crushing the economy now, you know, we we benefit from trade with Canada, Like there's an enormous number of raw materials and resources that would the paper you know, energy that come in from Canada to the United States. But our economy is so huge, you know, obviously we can withstand a trade war with Canada. We would you know, we can outlast them. And so now the question is like, is there a Trump in power long enough to like execute on that long term strategy and does he have the the ability to kind of see it through. There were people in the eighteen nineties when McKinley was doing this that thought that that was the plan, that they were gonna, you know, weaken Canada to the point that we would be able to annex it.

Yeah, and it's it's crushing. You know, we're already crushing the economy now, you know, we we benefit from trade with Canada, Like there's an enormous number of raw materials and resources that would the paper you know, energy that come in from Canada to the United States. But our economy is so huge, you know, obviously we can withstand a trade war with Canada. We would you know, we can outlast them. And so now the question is like, is there a Trump in power long enough to like execute on that long term strategy and does he have the the ability to kind of see it through. There were people in the eighteen nineties when McKinley was doing this that thought that that was the plan, that they were gonna, you know, weaken Canada to the point that we would be able to annex it.

So I didn't realize that, Yeah.

So I didn't realize that, Yeah.

That was that was part of the thinking. It collapsed really quickly because even in the you know, in the eighteen nineties, people were like didn't like paying more price, you know, higher prices, and we had that giant crisis in eighteen ninety three that kind.

That was that was part of the thinking. It collapsed really quickly because even in the you know, in the eighteen nineties, people were like didn't like paying more price, you know, higher prices, and we had that giant crisis in eighteen ninety three that kind.

Of ended that.

Of ended that.

So, yeah, what like it wouldn't be new, But I don't think, you know, just like then, I don't know if we.

So, yeah, what like it wouldn't be new, But I don't think, you know, just like then, I don't know if we.

Have the follow through.

Have the follow through.

This comes as Secretary Besant yesterday, as the Treasury Secretary said that cheap goods are not the essence of the American dream. Which actually there's I mean, we could do an hour just talking about the reflecting on those comments and what the reality is and what a different version of the American dream, because certainly, in the neoliberal era, what has been sold to the citizens in lieu of like high wages, unionization, a manufacturing base, like you know, intact communities, we have been sold that actually, chief goods are the thing that we're giving you in exchange for the way we're going to run the economic system. And so in certain sense I'm sympathetic to Yeah, I agree, I don't think that should be, but that is the value that we've been sold. And if you're going to effectively intentionally raise prices, which is what these tariffs will almost certainly do, then you better have some other things in place to raise wages and you know, restore some other allow people to be able to buy houses, for example, afford college education, afford healthcare, or be given you know, universal healthcare. If you are going to completely reorient things on the contrary, what they have seemed to be pushing towards is if not outright generating a recession, generating a massive slow down intentionally in consumer spending and in wage growth, so that in using that as the way to curb inflation. And so let me just put this pull up on the screen on and get you guys to reflect on all of that. But you've got nearly two and three Americans now saying they think tariffs are going to drive their costs up. That includes a majority of Republicans. Those members have moved substantially in just a month period of time. So you can see here even among Republicans, you've got fifty one percent saying yeah, they're going to cause costs to go up, only nineteen percent saying they'll go down, eighteen percent saying no impact. And overall, sixty seven percent of people say yeah, this is going to cause prices to go up, and you know, only twelve percent say they will cause them to go down, in twelve percent saying no impact. Here, so very lopsided in terms of how people help people expect these tariffs to affect their lives at a time when obviously emily inflation has been you know, a core part of the political story and political upset during the Biden administration that helps usher Trump into power. Trump promises very much like we're going to get prices under control, et cetera. And right now people feel like, well, actually, your policy is pushing in the exact opposite direction also.

This comes as Secretary Besant yesterday, as the Treasury Secretary said that cheap goods are not the essence of the American dream. Which actually there's I mean, we could do an hour just talking about the reflecting on those comments and what the reality is and what a different version of the American dream, because certainly, in the neoliberal era, what has been sold to the citizens in lieu of like high wages, unionization, a manufacturing base, like you know, intact communities, we have been sold that actually, chief goods are the thing that we're giving you in exchange for the way we're going to run the economic system. And so in certain sense I'm sympathetic to Yeah, I agree, I don't think that should be, but that is the value that we've been sold. And if you're going to effectively intentionally raise prices, which is what these tariffs will almost certainly do, then you better have some other things in place to raise wages and you know, restore some other allow people to be able to buy houses, for example, afford college education, afford healthcare, or be given you know, universal healthcare. If you are going to completely reorient things on the contrary, what they have seemed to be pushing towards is if not outright generating a recession, generating a massive slow down intentionally in consumer spending and in wage growth, so that in using that as the way to curb inflation. And so let me just put this pull up on the screen on and get you guys to reflect on all of that. But you've got nearly two and three Americans now saying they think tariffs are going to drive their costs up. That includes a majority of Republicans. Those members have moved substantially in just a month period of time. So you can see here even among Republicans, you've got fifty one percent saying yeah, they're going to cause costs to go up, only nineteen percent saying they'll go down, eighteen percent saying no impact. And overall, sixty seven percent of people say yeah, this is going to cause prices to go up, and you know, only twelve percent say they will cause them to go down, in twelve percent saying no impact. Here, so very lopsided in terms of how people help people expect these tariffs to affect their lives at a time when obviously emily inflation has been you know, a core part of the political story and political upset during the Biden administration that helps usher Trump into power. Trump promises very much like we're going to get prices under control, et cetera. And right now people feel like, well, actually, your policy is pushing in the exact opposite direction also.

And I think, Emily, while you think on that, let me clean up my McKinley comment real quick, because it actually fits in this. It wasn't that McKinley's tariffs led into and were upended by the eighteen ninety three crisis.

And I think, Emily, while you think on that, let me clean up my McKinley comment real quick, because it actually fits in this. It wasn't that McKinley's tariffs led into and were upended by the eighteen ninety three crisis.

It was the reverse.

It was the reverse.

There was the eighteen ninety three crisis that created this depression, that created this like demand among the American people that you do something about it.

There was the eighteen ninety three crisis that created this depression, that created this like demand among the American people that you do something about it.

And McKinley ran then.

And McKinley ran then.

In eighteen ninety six saying I'm going to do something about this, and the thing I'm going to do is is tariffs. And so he's elected then and people were like, oh, this actually didn't solve the problem.

In eighteen ninety six saying I'm going to do something about this, and the thing I'm going to do is is tariffs. And so he's elected then and people were like, oh, this actually didn't solve the problem.

Like you were right that there.

Like you were right that there.

Was something wrong, but this didn't fix it. So let's get rid of let's get rid of these tariffs. So before people dragged jump on your flipping the timeline there.

Was something wrong, but this didn't fix it. So let's get rid of let's get rid of these tariffs. So before people dragged jump on your flipping the timeline there.

Actually his speech that he gave before the before an assassin you know, came and took him out, was about how he was rolling back a lot of the tariffs because basically like, yeah, we you know, that served its purpose for its time, but we're we're moving forward in a different direction now.

Actually his speech that he gave before the before an assassin you know, came and took him out, was about how he was rolling back a lot of the tariffs because basically like, yeah, we you know, that served its purpose for its time, but we're we're moving forward in a different direction now.

And Trump We've talked about this before too, But I think he actually just thrives on the sense of confusion. And I think the reason that even people who follow his moves, his every move when it comes to tariffs don't have a good idea of what's coming next is completely intentional on his behalf, because he legitimately doesn't want Trudeau and shine Bomb to know either, or China for that matter. But the bestent speech, I pulled it up in front of me. I just wanted to read a little bit more from where he says. He starts to talk about the United States finds itself subsidizing the rest of the world's underspending in defense. This is not just a security issue. The United States also provides reserve assets, serves as a consumer of first and last resort, and absorbs excess supply in the face of insufficient demand in other countries domestic models. The system is not sustainable. Then, he says, access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream. The American dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this. And so what I thought was particularly interesting about that is it doesn't help you sell higher prices. And what Donald Trump talked about, like most Americans are going to like that to them sounds like airy in the clouds bs. I really like it because it's not how the conservative movement has talked about these things ever, and it's true, and I think it's sort of interesting. He didn't include families in that calculation and didn't talk about neighborhoods and communities. He just talked about economic mobility and all that sort of thing, which is great, but you know, we could go into a different rabbit hole in that. But most Americans like, sure, yeah, but these eggs are ten dollars right. Oh man. So Trump pivoted to Biden when he was talking about eggs in the joint address, and you can only coast off of that for so long. I think he's probably fine right now, still blaming Biden. But I don't think that lasts much longer politically. I think that is it only is going to last for a little bit longer for them.