May 22, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:45
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
If and when this bill passes, I'm assuming it will pass at some point, what growth rate can we expect for the economy in the second half of the year? | |
| I hear talk of 3% growth, maybe more. | ||
| What say you? | ||
| Right. | ||
| I say that if you look at the Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Steve Myron's modeling of what happens if we pass this tax bill, then conservatively you're looking at very steady 3% growth going forward. | ||
| If you add 3% to the 1.8% that's in the Congressional Budget Office forecast, then that means that over 10 years you get $4 trillion more revenue from 3% growth than the current CBO forecast. | ||
| And so what that means is that this tax bill basically pays for itself if we get 3% growth. | ||
| I think we're going to get more than 3% growth because something you've covered a lot, Stu, is that the AI productivity revolution is underway. | ||
| Firms are getting more and more productive because AI is helping their workers be more productive. | ||
| And there's a scholar at Stanford, Eric Bridgelson, who has a study out that suggests that that could increase productivity growth by one and a half, even to 2% a year. | ||
| If we get that, then you're looking at 4% growth, which I think is an upside that's completely possible. | ||
| And so, yeah, I think that the 1.8% CBO score It's very, very conservative, and so fiscal hawks should be ambitious because they understand that, look, last time we said we'd get 3% growth, and we did. | ||
| This time we're saying it, and we've got, like, some extra juice because of AI. | ||
| So I'm very comfortable with 3%. | ||
| Is this the argument that Speaker Johnson is applying to the deficit hawks? | ||
| Look, the deficit will be taken care of by 3%, 4% growth just down the road. | ||
| That's Speaker Johnson's argument, right? | ||
| Well, I think that he's got different arguments for different people. | ||
| You know, there are a lot of strong opinions on all sides, a lot of respected friends who disagree. | ||
| And the thing that I'm just amazed at is that Speaker Johnson has been able to get all those cats in a room and herd them together to a very, very likely big victory for the big, beautiful bill. | ||
| Probably could even start tonight. | ||
| Oh, that would be good. | ||
| Stand here and tell the American people, we can cut your taxes and we can increase spending and everything's going to be just fine. | ||
| But I can't do that because I'm here to deliver. | ||
| A dose of reality. | ||
| This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. | ||
| Where have we heard that before? | ||
| How do you bind a future Congress to these promises? | ||
| This bill is a debt bomb ticking. | ||
| Congress can do funny math, fantasy math, if it wants, but bond investors don't. | ||
| And this week, they sent us a message. | ||
| Moody's downgraded our credit rating, and the bond investors who buy our debt and finance our debt demanded higher interest rates on the 10-year note, the 20-year note, and the 30-year note. | ||
| What does this mean? | ||
| We'll be paying $16,000 of interest, interest alone per U.S. family. | ||
| And what are we telling them? | ||
| Instead of taking care of that problem, we're going to give you a $1,600 tax break. | ||
| Under the taxing and spending levels in this bill, we're going to rack up, the authors say, $20 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years. | ||
| I'm telling you, it's closer to $30 trillion of new debt in the next 10 years. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, we're not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic tonight. | ||
| We're putting coal in the boiler and setting a course for the iceberg. | ||
| If something is... | ||
| If something is beautiful... | ||
| If something is beautiful, you don't do it after midnight. | ||
| I oppose this bill. | ||
| On this vote, the yeas are 215, the nays are 214, with one answering present. | ||
| The bill is passed. | ||
| Yes, sir. | ||
| There are no bills perfect. | ||
| But this one is big and beautiful, and I'll tell you why it's beautiful to me. | ||
| It's beautiful to me because House Republicans, under the leadership of Mike Johnson and Donald Trump, showed the American people that we will do what we promised. | ||
| And we showed the world that the borders of the United States of America are sovereign and secure. | ||
| Our team, my Committee of Homeland Security, It has been pouring over this for a year on how best to do this. | ||
| My staff, some of whom are here, thank you for your hard work. | ||
| We're going to construct and add to the border wall with technology, cameras, lights, access. | ||
| We're going to invest in the people who put their ass on the line to keep us safe every day. | ||
| More training, more equipment, modernized equipment, better facilities. | ||
| It's the right thing to do. | ||
| And we're going to end the threats to the people of this country, from the cartels, from the gangs that have poured across our southern border and the fentanyl, and who knows what else with the terrorists. | ||
| Patriots, as Washington, D.C. happily crashes America's economic car into the debt ditch, let's consider the economic reality, by the numbers, And the consequences for all of us, for real Americans on Main Street, not lobbyists on K Street. | ||
| Now, three years ago, almost to the day, America hit its worst inflation in four decades as Bidenomics plunged the country into an economic quagmire. | ||
| Inflation hit 9.1% three years ago. | ||
| Let's compare that time three years ago versus now on other key metrics. | ||
| 10-year treasury yield, it was then below 3%, well below 3. We're now way above 4 and marching our way toward 5% on 10-year yield. | ||
| 30-year mortgages, accordingly, they were 5% then, they're 7% now. | ||
| Consumer confidence then, it was plunging, but it was still at 82. It is now at 50. So here's the reality and here's the takeaway. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Washington, D.C. either doesn't know these numbers, or frankly, they just don't give a s***. | |
| And I'm not sure which one is worse. | ||
| But we the people, we the citizens of the United States, must compel them to urgency and action. | ||
| And we do that by making them politically fear us and making them respect us. | ||
| It is time to right the economic ship of the United States right now. | ||
| You know, there were a number of pivotal moments. | ||
| We have 220 Republicans in the House Republican Conference. | ||
| Lots of different opinions that represent very different districts around the country with very different interests. | ||
| But the principle and the philosophy is always the same. | ||
| Everybody's conservative. | ||
| We believe in limited government and we believe in individual freedom and the rule of law and peace through strength and fiscal responsibility and free markets and human dignity, the things that are all wrapped into this bill. | ||
| And so I would say there was a lot of pivotal moments. | ||
| One day I might actually write a book about the last year of my life and trying to get this thing over the line. | ||
| But I'll say, look, I'm just going to say. | ||
| I give glory to God. | ||
| I mean, there's a lot of prayer that brought this together. | ||
| I'm just going to be very blunt about it. | ||
| There was a few moments over the last week when it looked like the thing might fall apart, and I went to the little chapel over here and got on my knees. | ||
| I'm afraid that these guys would have wisdom and stamina and discernment. | ||
| And that's the secret here. | ||
| And teamwork. | ||
| And mutual respect that everybody has for one another. | ||
| And I think that's what defines the Republican Party. | ||
| It's a great day to be an American. | ||
| It's a great day to be a Republican. | ||
| Yeah, go ahead. | ||
| For you, when it's still going to go with the Senate, they're likely going to change it a lot. | ||
| It's fair to do this again. | ||
| No, all the senators, every one of them have promised me they're not going to change anything in our bill. | ||
| Thursday, May, year of our Lord, 2025. | ||
| There you have it, 6.30 in the morning, 2.15 to 2.14. | ||
| One present, that would be Andy Harris of the Freedom Caucus. | ||
| Tom Massey voted against it. | ||
| I think Warren Davidson, I've got to check that, Warren Davidson voted against it in Ohio, I think, in my count, passed by one vote. | ||
| We've got Chip Roy here. | ||
| Wisdom and discernment. | ||
| Congressman Roy, Yesterday, Andy Harris and the Freedom Caucus yourself said it would take 10 days to get this thing worked out. | ||
| President Trump actually took an active role in negotiating this. | ||
| A couple hours you guys spent up in the White House. | ||
| Give us your assessment of the big, beautiful bill. | ||
| Well, first of all, you played a great speech by my friend Thomas Massey, and sometimes people take issue with him, but he was right on this in terms of his concerns. | ||
| I share those concerns. | ||
| You share those concerns. | ||
| We have to balance all of this. | ||
| To try to figure out how to move it forward. | ||
| Here were the interests that we had to balance. | ||
| We were working really hard, as you recall, last weekend. | ||
| I voted, along with three of my colleagues, to kill this bill in the budget committee. | ||
| Then we fought over the weekend, and then we voted president to move it along. | ||
| Then fast forward yesterday, we meet with the president, we're over at the White House, and we work to get this bill done over the course of the night with reservations. | ||
| But the things that moved it forward that we thought were important, one, We firmly solidified killing all of the projects going forward under the Green New Scam. | ||
| Not existing projects. | ||
| I'm still pissed off about that, but we'll deal with that separately. | ||
| But we firmly locked in that the current under construction and future projects, we will be killing virtually all of those with a handful of grandfathered. | ||
| We also had the Medicaid work requirements shoved up, which we had to personally negotiate in order to get that done. | ||
| And yesterday, we worked something out. | ||
| To help the non-expansion states under Obamacare be able to stay non-expanded so we can work this balance that I know you care about, too, where we're trying to manage the Medicaid scam problem that needs to be reformed while also making sure working-class Americans are still dealing with health care who have been kind of stuck because we've got such a broken health care system. | ||
| So we've got 12 levers we're pulling. | ||
| I do not like the final result in terms of the overall deficit numbers. | ||
| Too much deficit in the first five years, too much savings in the second five years. | ||
| We technically honored the deficit neutral over 10, but that's bull crap if all your savings are in the second five. | ||
| So my point to you, Steve, is I felt compelled to work with the president to achieve the objectives of the border funding necessary for the icepads, the defense stuff that we're working with Russ on at the Office of Management Budget. | ||
| To try to hold the hawks in town down and stop them from using all of the discretionary spending to mess things up. | ||
| So the border and the defense money, plus what we got on the Inflation Reduction Act and the Medicaid work requirements, plus some of the other good spending cuts we already had in there on Medicaid. | ||
| I want to make sure the Warren Posse understands this because they're the tip of the spear and the guys can move. | ||
| And that's why I played Hassett's Stuart Varney. | ||
| piece yesterday. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| They're talking about a minimum of that. | ||
| The supply side nature of this is going to. | ||
| And they're talking about because remember, one of the reasons these numbers suck is that the CBO scoring has a growth rate of one point eight percent. | ||
| And the White House is saying and has it in and Moran, the the CEA chair, because Hassett's at NEC now is that the growth rate's really three percent of what's going to happen. | ||
| So in the first couple. | ||
| So two things. | ||
| Russ Vogt is a close friend of yours and mine, a colleague and a very smart guy. | ||
| We got the right guy. | ||
| His theory of the case that we have a one-time shot to make structural changes on mandatory spending in the fifth year and beyond, and that's worth not fighting to the knife, not going to the knife. | ||
| On the first couple of years on the deficits, is that essentially the bet that OMB is making and really the administration is saying that we have a chance to do something that's never been done before, that we can actually change structurally mandatory spending? | ||
| And unfortunately, those changes come in the fifth through the tenth year, sir? | ||
| Yes, that is correct. | ||
| And I think that is a fair characterization. | ||
| Partially trying to get at with respect to what we're working on together on the defense issue, which also touches discretionary spending, that we're trying to restructure the town. | ||
| We're trying to get our arms around the way things have been broken and break it back so that we can have something that the people control. | ||
| To answer your question, I am still concerned about the front-year deficits, okay? | ||
| Maybe a little more than my good friend Ross. | ||
| I do think we need to hold those down. | ||
| But to get the trajectory right, we are putting it on the right path. | ||
| Those reforms on Medicaid are a pretty big deal. | ||
| What we got yesterday on some other executive order actions you will see coming out in the next two weeks are a pretty big deal. | ||
| What we got with respect to the work requirements, the Inflation Reduction Act, pretty big deal. | ||
| That will all be a good trajectory. | ||
| We still have more work to do, though. | ||
| I think that there are things we could do that would fundamentally end some of those Medicaid scams that would help in the long-term trajectory like Russ is talking about. | ||
| But yes, the growth side is the other thing I want to address. | ||
| Because I respect Hassett, and I respect that conversation with Stuart Barney. | ||
| But look, I'm all about three. | ||
| 4% growth. | ||
| We need that, like we did in the 80s. | ||
| And I think a lot of the Trump policies can do that. | ||
| But let's be very clear. | ||
| We got a lot of work to do to get there. | ||
| We assumed 2.6% growth in our model, which I think is a fair place to land for budget purposes if you want to get deficits down. | ||
| So I didn't want to accept 3% and 4%. | ||
| That's gravy. | ||
| Because we got to go pay the debt down. | ||
| But we should budget at 2.6, and we should hope the gravy comes in between tariffs and economic growth to get our damn debt down. | ||
| Russ, Chip, can you stay just for the congressman break? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| We've got a short commercial break on the other side, because this is very important. | ||
| So, the big, beautiful bill is passed in the House, really, literally 48 hours, virtually nonstop, including a historic... | ||
| visit by the president of the United States yesterday to the conference, and then he called them all over, the leaders in the Freedom Caucus, the deficit hawks, to the White House for a couple of hour meeting. | ||
| This is why he was dipping in and out of the Florida Gators in their commemoration ceremony yesterday in the East Room. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| I think Congressman Chip, we're going to Russ vote later in the show. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vance. | |
| Okay, so we know now that the House plugged in 2.6% growth. | ||
| Also, because CBO doesn't score it, there's not, and when we talk about deficit reduction in the first couple of years, they're not including tariffs. | ||
| My understanding is the number of the White House looking at is $300 billion to $600 billion cash money coming from tariffs. | ||
| I'll talk about that later as I break all this down. | ||
| Congressman Roy, thanks for the time. | ||
| Real quickly, This goes to the Senate, and you've got a couple of hawks over there, right? | ||
| You got Mike Lee, you got Ron Johnson, you got Rand Paul. | ||
| You know, we're very aligned with Josh Hawley. | ||
| I know he's had some issues already with some of the Medicaid stuff. | ||
| But generally, the Republican Senate are the people that really work with Biden. | ||
| Nineteen of them worked with Biden when McConnell ran the deal that got us in this jam in the first place. | ||
| Do you anticipate? | ||
| And what is the Freedom Caucus? | ||
| My point is, they're not going to pass what you gave them. | ||
| I actually think it'll come back worse unless we do a big fight with the Senate. | ||
| We're going to get in that. | ||
| So when you conference, where's the Freedom Caucus coming out? | ||
| Because this bill is still a long way from getting done, sir. | ||
| Yeah, well, number one, I think, as you noted, the bond markets today are going to say that we didn't do a good enough job. | ||
| And you know what? | ||
| The bond markets are right. | ||
| We needed to do a better job. | ||
| I'm proud of the things I fought for, but at some point, you know, you drag, you drag, you drag, and then you move it forward. | ||
| The White House wanted us to move this forward. | ||
| We're collaborating with them. | ||
| Now that's the important part. | ||
| The White House is the key variable here, putting pressure on the Senate. | ||
| And then those key patriots that you mentioned, Ron John, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Rick Scott, there's a few others that can get together and say, guys, we're going to do better. | ||
| We're not going to make it worse. | ||
| We actually need, Steve, we need the Senate to make it better. | ||
| We need them to hold on to what we did with the Inflation Reduction Act and really good Medicaid reforms to protect the vulnerable instead of, you know, funding the able-bodied, the work requirements, ending the scams, you know, waste, fraud, and abuse, like the president says. | ||
| They can do that. | ||
| Josh can get on board with that, and he should. | ||
| And we can do what is right for the American people, constrain spending, create growth, and then give the runway for the tariffs and other things and really be cooking with peanut oil. | ||
| I believe we can do that. | ||
| But the Senate has got to do their job. | ||
| And frankly, then it bounces back to the House. | ||
| Either they pass it and it comes back to us or we go to conference. | ||
| And we're going to draw red lines in the sand as the Freedom Caucus and conservatives that it can't get worse and it needs to get better. | ||
| We need to see the right reforms. | ||
| The bond markets are going to expect nothing less. | ||
| We have to deliver. | ||
| I'm telling you, the bond markets are still throwing up on us because we're not doing a good enough job. | ||
| But I don't have 218 votes. | ||
| I only have one vote. | ||
| So we're working and we're moving the needle thanks to you, thanks to the war and posse. | ||
| We're able to move the needle, but we've got to keep pushing hard through the finish line through the Senate. | ||
| When are you coming out? | ||
| This is going to be important. | ||
| When is the Freedom Caucus going to come out with your red lines to inform the Senate of, hey, here's what we're looking for, guys? | ||
| Yeah, next week. | ||
| We're going to be putting those together. | ||
| We want to think about it, work with some of our colleagues over there, be smart about it, right? | ||
| You can't just throw everything down and say, I need, you know, my way or the highway on 48 issues. | ||
| But we're going to draw a couple, three really important lines. | ||
| Okay, perfect. | ||
| And we'll see that next week? | ||
| Yep. | ||
| Any closing comments? | ||
| I mean, clearly, we got this thing rolling. | ||
| Historic 48 hours. | ||
| President got involved in a way. | ||
| I mean, President closed the deal, but also whipped the votes, as you know. | ||
| Any closing observations? | ||
| Yeah, well, we made some good headway yesterday, meeting with the President. | ||
| You know, they're always exciting meetings. | ||
| As you might have noted, the University of Florida was coming in right after. | ||
| We had a productive meeting. | ||
| The White House is going to take some executive action based on our recommendations that I think is going to be very good in working with Russ. | ||
| We got a really good improvement to help states like Texas, non-expansion state, where they're going to get a little higher funding for something that's important to protect their interests. | ||
| And we got some other good things done, and we're looking ahead to be able to work with the Senate. | ||
| So I think we can do this. | ||
| But it's going to take the posse getting engaged and the American people demanding it. | ||
| There's no room for failure here. | ||
| The Senate needs to make it better, not worse. | ||
| And we need to draw the red lines to fight for America. | ||
| Better, not worse. | ||
| And you're right. | ||
| The bond market, whether you like it or not, they're getting a vote. | ||
| And right now, they're throwing up all over the thing, although it's eased up a little bit since. | ||
| And I think the more it's explained, what we need is more explanations. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And I think the White House has got to get on the lead of it. | ||
| They believe it's 3%. | ||
| If Moran and Hassett, you've got to get out. | ||
| You've got to start talking about the tariffs. | ||
| They've got to make a whole package here. | ||
| And this thing's got to be sold. | ||
| You want the bond market to understand it. | ||
| You've got to go sell it. | ||
| Congressman Roy, on your social media, where do people go? | ||
| You come in a little hot every now and again. | ||
| ChipRoyTX, C-H-I-P-R-O-Y-T-X, or at Roy.House.gov is my website, or RepChipRoy is my official Twitter, or X, whatever you call it these days. | ||
| But thanks for what you do, Steve. | ||
| God bless you. | ||
| Have a happy Memorial Day to all the families out there who lost loved ones fighting for this country. | ||
| Thank you for your service to the country, both what you do now and wearing the uniform. | ||
| And God bless the great patriots across this country. | ||
| Our honored dad. | ||
| Thank you very much, Congressman. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Just as a note, we're going to have wall-to-wall coverage this Memorial Day weekend with our partners at Real America's Voice. | ||
| Saturday, President Trump, President of the United States, is going to the United States Military Academy at West Point. | ||
| He will be joined there by one of the new members of the Board of Visitors, Captain Maureen Bannon. | ||
| She'll be there. | ||
| We're going to be covering it live from 10 to noon. | ||
| The president will address, give the commencement address to the cadets, the Corps of Cadets, on graduation day. | ||
| And on Monday, we will cover it nonstop from the White House all the way to Arlington and back. | ||
| The president of the United States will go to Arlington National Cemetery to give appropriate remarks for our honored dead To make this get through. | ||
| So here's the problem that the Republicans have. | ||
| They want three things. | ||
| They want to balance the budget. | ||
| They want to cut taxes for the rich included. | ||
| And they want to be the party of the working class. | ||
| And the problem is you have to pick two of the three. | ||
| It just doesn't work. | ||
| As Senator Josh Hawley pointed out, if you just make those cuts and then you also have tax cuts for the rich, you're basically taking things away from working class and poor people and giving them to wealthy Americans. | ||
| I'm not saying there shouldn't be any cuts. | ||
| We absolutely need to do that. | ||
| There's evidence that about 2 million people who are on Medicaid rolls are actually able-bodied men with no dependents. | ||
| They should absolutely be working. | ||
| Both the salt, which makes absolutely no sense for the Republicans to be giving on this whatsoever. | ||
| Those are rich liberals. | ||
| Why are we giving them money? | ||
| But also, I think on the top tax bracket, you talk to the average American. | ||
| They're just not going to understand why going from 37% to 39%. | ||
| If you could take that money and use it to balance the budget, this is a working-class party. | ||
| That's not a slogan, guys. | ||
| That has to be policy. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So the big, beautiful bill is passed. | ||
| You're actually, I think you're a resident of Brooklyn. | ||
| Why are you whining about the salt? | ||
| Didn't that take care of the New York folks, ma 'am? | ||
| Thank you so much for having me. | ||
| Here's how I see it. | ||
| You know, we've been saying since Liberation Day that it is possible that there will be price hikes, but that as a nation, we should be willing to sacrifice on behalf of the hardest working Americans so that their children have a better shot at the future. | ||
| And in fact, Steve, I was talking to a truck driver, and here's how he put it. | ||
| He said to me, so you're telling me... | ||
| That if I sacrifice a little bit now, and I pay a little bit more for something here and there, my children will have a better future, and you think I'm going to turn that down? | ||
| I mean, sacrifice is what we do for our children. | ||
| This is how he put it to me, and I thought that was really powerful. | ||
| So we've been expecting everybody to sort of work together on this. | ||
| We've all understood that our relationship with China is unsustainable, and as a nation... | ||
| Under the guidance of President Trump, we have decided that we are going to do this together as an act of patriotism. | ||
| And now I turn around and they're trying to pass this bill where suddenly rich Democrats in New York are saying, wait a minute. | ||
| I don't want to sacrifice on behalf of this country. | ||
| I want more tax cuts. | ||
| I mean, it's utterly ludicrous. | ||
| And it really offends me because, again, we are asking the least of us to sacrifice the most. | ||
| And then when it comes to the wealthy, we're telling them, no, no, but you get a pass on this. | ||
| We're going to cater to your every need. | ||
| And of course, it's their fault that the taxes are so high in New York and these other liberal strongholds. | ||
| So I think from my point of view, I really agree with Senator Hawley on this. | ||
| The perception that the sacrifices are being asked to be made of the least of us, whereas the people who have the most are being coddled and catered to, that to me is unworthy of a party that has the great honor of representing America's working class. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Do you anticipate right now, you see, and we don't, and this is one of the things I think the White House is working on now, and I think you're going to see a much more fulsome package come forward because You know, Hassett and Moran have a, I think, justification. | ||
| They can back up a 3% growth rate, which really changes the equation here, although the House did have 2.6 in. | ||
| In addition, they're talking about a couple of hundred billion dollars minimum of external revenue coming from tariffs. | ||
| Do you think that the... | ||
| That we've done a good enough job of selling the—because I've got a big interview in Newsweek talking about a new golden age of manufacturing that's coming back to the United States because of President Trump's trade and tariff policies. | ||
| Do you think we've done a good enough job of selling that to the American people, of exactly what this program is, that these tariffs and these new trade relationships actually lead to something great for the American workers? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| And I think you can see it in the president's poll numbers, which are going back up, much to the chagrin of the people who have to report on this in the liberal media. | ||
| The American people, I think, are going to end up supporting this. | ||
| They're going to see the benefits of this. | ||
| And, you know, this idea of turning a ship around that had been going in a direction at the behest of both parties to sell out America's working class, the courage. | ||
| That it took. | ||
| The leadership that it took. | ||
| I really cannot think of another person on this planet who could have done that the way that President Trump did. | ||
| The way that he signaled to the entire country, and in fact the entire globe, I don't work for Wall Street. | ||
| I work for the average American. | ||
| I work for the middle class. | ||
| I work for the working class. | ||
| I work for the American electorate alone and not the international global elites and not the elites of this country. | ||
| I mean, the shock you saw from Wall Street at being told for the first time that the president does not work for them. | ||
| I really think that that is what people are going to remember from this period. | ||
| Bacia, hang on for a second. | ||
| We're holding through the break. | ||
| Also, Noor bin Laden from Geneva. | ||
| The World Health Organization, Chinese Communist Party, said they're going to step into the shoes of the Americans all next in the War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann. | ||
| Okay, I'll go through this a little later. | ||
| And by the way, Russ Vogt is going to join us. | ||
| So the Council of Economic Advisors was a Steve Maran. | ||
| He's got the job Hassett had in the first term. | ||
| That's kind of the economist, the econometrics group that works over at EOB for the president. | ||
| They've got their assessment. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| It's 100 pages long. | ||
| Excuse me. | ||
| The summary is 20-some pages long. | ||
| We're going to put it out a little later in the show. | ||
| It shows 3% north growth. | ||
| And here's the point. | ||
| That means another couple of trillion dollars of tax revenues on the structure that we just passed. | ||
| Don't want the math to get too complicated, but remember, if you've got real growth, and this is a supply-side tax, you're trying to get us out of the doldrums of the Biden years. | ||
| Remember, stagflation is when you've got growth under like 2%, 2% or less, and you've got inflation. | ||
| This is what, you know, the country's gone through in previous times. | ||
| President Reagan kind of had this, although it was really inflation was on fire. | ||
| He got through it. | ||
| President Trump got through it the first time in Obama with this type of tax. | ||
| Cut, right? | ||
| There was more supply sites, so we'll go through that. | ||
| Anyway, there's some arguments made around, and they're still not counting the tariff money. | ||
| So, and like I said, a lot of things got to come together here, but you're pushing the big, beautiful bill. | ||
| It passed this morning. | ||
| Baccia, you've been quite vocal about this, so give some guidance. | ||
| So people watching the show and listening, you got Rand Paul, you got Ron Johnson, you got Mike Lee, Rick Scott, Josh Hawley, you got people over in the Senate. | ||
| Then you've got Eric Schmidt. | ||
| You've got some people that are listening and paying attention and saying, okay, what do we got to do here? | ||
| How do they make this better for working class people in the middle class? | ||
| Boccia, give me two or three examples of what you would like to see. | ||
| So, for a decade, the left has attacked Donald Trump as basically being somebody who's only on the side of the rich. | ||
| They love to say, you know, the lie that his only signature accomplishment from the first administration was a tax cut for the rich. | ||
| That was nonsense. | ||
| In the first administration, President Trump became the first president in 60 years, under which the bottom 25% of wage earners saw a larger percent increase in wages than the top 25%, which is the real reason, by the way, that the Democrats hate him, because they're the party of... | ||
| What he's done in this administration so far is he has taken some unbelievably pro-worker policies, like controlling the border, which limits the supply of labor and gives workers higher wages, and tariffs, which of course reshures manufacturing and gives working-class Americans a fair shot at the American dream again, with some pro-business stuff that is very important. | ||
| Deregulation. | ||
| Cheap energy. | ||
| And of course, lowering the corporate tax rate. | ||
| This stuff is pro-business, so he's combining the pro-worker stuff with the pro-business stuff that's going to make a roaring economy. | ||
| The question is, where do tax cuts for the rich go? | ||
| Do they go in the pro-business side of things and they should give tax cuts for the rich? | ||
| Or should we think about that in terms of what is pro-worker here in terms of balancing the budget and raising taxes on the rich? | ||
| And from my point of view, it's very clear. | ||
| Can you imagine, Steve, depriving the Democrats of that talking point? | ||
| Can you imagine forcing every Democratic politician It would be such an epic troll. | ||
| In addition to signaling to the country and to the working class, the GOP is now the party of the working class. | ||
| Let me just read you a few statistics, OK? | ||
| In 2024, Bloomberg found that 69 percent of voters in swing states support raising taxes In 2024, another poll found that 51% of Republicans support it. | ||
| In 2025, Pew found that 63% of Americans support raising taxes on people making over $400,000 a year. | ||
| And here's the kicker, Stephen. | ||
| I'll just end with this. | ||
| When you gave voters a choice, how would you prefer to balance the budget? | ||
| Cut entitlements or raise taxes on people making over $400,000 a year. | ||
| Over 80% said raise taxes, including 74% of Republican voters. | ||
| This is a win-win-win issue. | ||
| Raise taxes on the top income bracket. | ||
| It is going to be a bonanza for the GOP. | ||
| Where's your social media, ma 'am? | ||
| Where do people follow you? | ||
| I'm at Bunger Sargon on Twitter. | ||
| I'm BatiaUS on Instagram. | ||
| Mr. Bannon, God bless you and the War Room Posse for everything that you do. | ||
| You're the greatest patriot in this country. | ||
| And I just, I don't know where we would be without you. | ||
| I really have to say that I don't know where we would be without you. | ||
| So God bless you and thank you for everything you do. | ||
| Let me tell my producer, I want to book her every day. | ||
| I'm just kidding. | ||
| My new agent. | ||
| Let me introduce you. | ||
| Thank you, ma 'am. | ||
| Thank you for the kind words, but I got the easiest job around. | ||
| I'm just yelling in a microphone and put on people like you to the greatest audience in the world. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| There you have it. | ||
| A lot of people ask in the chats, do we call sent? | ||
| I would hold off. | ||
| Let's hold off and get organized here because you guys, when you deliver a punch, you deliver a punch. | ||
| And I think let's go through, see what we actually passed. | ||
| Make sure we understand it. | ||
| I also want to make sure we have a fair accounting of what actually is the model, what's reality. | ||
| And talking to a lot of people and knowing that the House did put in 2.6% growth, the White House talking about a higher number, that's fine. | ||
| The CBO does not score the tariffs. | ||
| That's a real number, and it could be a significant number. | ||
| Also, I've been banging on the table for the... | ||
| For the doge, the waste, fraud, and abuse, particularly in Medicaid, we need to know that number. | ||
| And if it's being kind of worked on by people behind the scenes and they don't think the Senate will vote or the House will vote or Congress will vote on some rescissions, we ought to know that. | ||
| But that number ought to be calculated in here too. | ||
| And most importantly, it's not for the war room and the war room audience. | ||
| You need to explain this to the bond market. | ||
| The bond investors need to hear this. | ||
| That's why I think the White House needs, not the people in the House that voted on it, the White House, I think, needs to go on much more aggressive offense of what the model is. | ||
| I would say it can look pretty positive, and I think these things are sellable. | ||
| I think people would understand it. | ||
| I think you've got some good backup and some data. | ||
| And like I said, Baccia brought the big point in that all the criticism that was given when President Trump passed this the first time, the growth rate in the fourth quarter, I think, in 19 was 3 to 3.5 percent. | ||
| And wait for it. | ||
| That's with Janet Yellen, the head of the Federal Reserve, took a billion dollars off the balance sheet instead of expanding the balance sheet. | ||
| And that means quantitative easing. | ||
| Putting more liquidity into the market. | ||
| President Trump had a headwind of taking liquidity out of the market. | ||
| She went from... | ||
| President Trump inherited a Federal Reserve balance sheet of about $4.5 trillion. | ||
| Because that's how they basically used the Federal Reserve to bail out the system, and particularly the wealthy. | ||
| This is why Obama was not really a progressive that was all pro-wrestling down in the front on cable TV. | ||
| Behind the scenes, he did a very standard stock bailout of the wealthy. | ||
| Why? | ||
| By having the Federal Reserve flood the zone with cash money to bail out the real estate interest, to bail out the companies, to bail out AIG and Goldman Sachs and all of them. | ||
| And what President Trump, in his first year, the first two years, Yellen, who was head of the Federal Reserve, to deflate the asset bubble. | ||
| And on this one, I actually think she was smart. | ||
| I know people disagree, including President Trump. | ||
| It was a headwind. | ||
| So President Trump's plan had growth, and as Baccia just said, for working class and middle class, it was the best times you're ever going to have. | ||
| You had wage growth. | ||
| You had no inflation, virtually no inflation, and very low interest rates. | ||
| This is why what Steve Cortez was showing in the first, even from Biden, is now the increase in the interest rates. | ||
| And that's because, and I think the Federal Reserve, there's some reports out there now, I think they're doing quantitative easing. | ||
| I don't think there's a huge market right now for these securities at certain prices. | ||
| And to keep it from blowing up, I think the Fed is out to act in a pretty aggressive buying bonds. | ||
| Just saying. | ||
| So this thing's going to get complicated, but we're going to make it all clear for you. | ||
| The Senate's going to have to deal with some of these issues. | ||
| As Chip said, we want to make it better, not worse. | ||
| And there's a lot of people. | ||
| Remember, the 19 senators, Republican senators, were collaborators. | ||
| Mitch McConnell and that crowd were collaborators with Biden on all the madness that he passed. | ||
| And there's some of the ones that are fighting, particularly like the Green News scam. | ||
| If you think about just what's changed on this bill in the last week because of your efforts, last week you had all the green, you had 15 or 20% of the green new scam stuff still in there. | ||
| You had the worker requirements didn't start until 2029. | ||
| 2029, think about that. | ||
| There are all types of things in here that people just didn't fess up to. | ||
| And Boccia is right. | ||
| I think it's, and Chip said it, it's $350 billion. | ||
| $350 billion. | ||
| For, you know, the issues around these blue states, New York, California, Illinois, that really have spending out of control. | ||
| Okay, I've got a cold open, but I don't have time to play it. | ||
| Noor Bin Laden joins us. | ||
| There is a big article, if Denver could put this up. | ||
| So Noor, talking about put up or shut up. | ||
| I think it's Bloomberg, or Reuters, has a huge story this morning how the Chinese Communist Party is going to step into the shoes of the United States and fund the World Health Organization. | ||
| That the United States, and you outlined it yesterday, pulling out of WHO, that the CCP sees a way with all the pandemic stuff that's been approved over the last couple of days to basically encircle the United States and make sure the citizens of the United States still have this around their neck. | ||
| Why they control the deal in Geneva. | ||
| Can you give us an update, ma 'am? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| Listen, I alluded to it yesterday, but there are huge shakeups happening here in Geneva this week following the change in relationship between the United States of America and the WHO with this impending exit of the U.S. out of the WHO. | ||
| And that obviously is impacting the budget and the financing of the WHO. | ||
| One thing I'll start with, with regards to these developments with China, with the CCP. | ||
| Yesterday I mentioned that the U.S. government did not send a single delegate or official to attend this year's World Health Assembly, and that's a first since the inception of the WHO itself. | ||
| Meanwhile, it's been reported by Health Policy Watch that China has sent more than 180 delegates to attend this week here in Geneva. | ||
| And the list includes dozens of senior and mid-level officials, experts, Ministry of Health and Centers for Disease Control members, but also academics and experts from various universities and institutions. | ||
| So, you're absolutely right. | ||
| There is. | ||
| This takeover happening here in Geneva. | ||
| And at the same time, I'm quite sure that China is going to be increasing its funding, as all other member states. | ||
| You know, I mentioned also yesterday one of the biggest news this week alongside this adoption of the pandemic treaty is the fact that member states of the WHO have all agreed to an increase of 20 percent membership fees. | ||
| And that's on top of the additional money that Tedros Ghebreyesus is pleading and begging people to give his failing institution. | ||
| Hang on for one second because I want to come back and I want to talk about exactly what was passed and how that impacts American citizens, although generally, January of next year, we're out. | ||
| Nur bin Laden joins us from Geneva. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Take out your phone. | ||
| Text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N, 989898. | ||
| Get the ultimate guide. | ||
| The ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump. | ||
| It's turbulent out there. | ||
| Global bond markets are roiling this morning. | ||
| You have to understand why gold is a hedge. | ||
| And my gold is, I don't know, it's kind of the cynics. | ||
| The cynics hedge. | ||
| The people that think fiat currency is fiat currency. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
| In the War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vann. | |
| Okay, so Noor, just walk me through this. | ||
| Where, in fact, I don't think we send observers. | ||
| Correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| I think President Trump is pretty adamant. | ||
| Hey, we're out. | ||
| He considers we're out now. | ||
| Officially takes place in January. | ||
| But they have been there passing things. | ||
| The question the audience wants to know, how is that going to affect U.S. citizens? | ||
| We're not part of the World Health Organization. | ||
| We're acting like we're out already. | ||
| But in January, we're out. | ||
| And President Trump... | ||
| God bless him. | ||
| This is what I voted for. | ||
| He ain't sending the money for 24 and 25. He's saying no. | ||
| When I say out, we're out. | ||
| And they're having to scramble. | ||
| And by the way, all these guys talking about they're going to put this up and they're going to do this and Bill Gates, you watch. | ||
| If they're not living off U.S. taxpayers, nothing happens. | ||
| This thing will be crumbling. | ||
| But what did they actually pass? | ||
| And what impact does it have on citizens of these United States if we're not part of the World Health Organization, ma 'am? | ||
| I'll answer your question. | ||
| After that, I'd really like to come back to the question on the budget and how the fact that the US is leaving the WHO and won't be paying their membership fees is causing so many ripple effects here in Geneva. | ||
| But to answer your question, there is something that is very critical. | ||
| And the first thing I'd like to say is that the WHO makes it extremely convoluted and confusing on purpose. | ||
| They don't want the public to be informed. | ||
| They don't want the public to really know what's going on. | ||
| But I'll try my best to break it down. | ||
| In essence, on Monday, on the first day of the World Health Assembly, the WHA, they had an initial vote. | ||
| In order to bring the pandemic agreement to the floor on the Tuesday morning where it was officially adopted. | ||
| This is what we discussed yesterday and we saw the video of everybody clapping and the WHO leaders calling this a win for multilateralism. | ||
| But it was extremely deceiving because... | ||
| The pandemic agreement wasn't signed, Steve. | ||
| It cannot be signed because the annex hasn't been approved or even drafted yet. | ||
| And this annex... | ||
| Is the core of the agreement. | ||
| And this is what they're going to be working on for the next year. | ||
| The only problem is that from a PR standpoint, they couldn't come up this year and be like, oh, we're delaying it again, which is what they did last year. | ||
| They've been working on this thing for the past three years. | ||
| And so they had to mitigate this, you know, PR disaster, which is, you know, frankly, a total fiasco by claiming victory. | ||
| When in fact, there isn't a victory. | ||
| And so the next step is for them to continue negotiating the annex of the pandemic agreement towards a target of actually signing the document at next year's WHA at the 79th World Health Assembly. | ||
| And once that gets proposed and there are 60 ratifications, 60 signatures, then that will come in effect. | ||
| But by then, the United States of America won't be a part of the WHO. | ||
| So technically, the U.S. shouldn't be impacted by the pandemic agreement. | ||
| But if I go overseas, or if I work for an overseas company, or if I do anything overseas that's going to impact me... | ||
| Because isn't this passing all the stuff with the digital IDs and everything? | ||
| All the evil we try to get out of this, we walked away, which is smart. | ||
| But aren't they going to try to put a noose around the United States by doing this, ma 'am? | ||
| My point is we're going to have to get more aggressive. | ||
| Just walking away is one thing, but we're going to have to get more aggressive in combating what they're doing. | ||
| We just can't be passive. | ||
| Just by us being there doesn't mean that they're not going to try to roll up U.S. citizens. | ||
| We're just not a signatory, correct? | ||
| That's an absolute critical point you just made, Steve. | ||
| And this is why I mentioned it yesterday, but I'm going to reiterate this point because it's so important. | ||
| You guys in the United States of America need to ask President Trump and the Trump administration. | ||
| To reject the amendments to the international health regulations that were adopted at last year's World Health Assembly. | ||
| And you have until July 19 to reject those amendments, which are actually the legal, which is the legal instrument that the WHO is using to put that noose that you've described. | ||
| Okay, you just answered my question. | ||
| Okay, so here's what we need to do. | ||
| This is one of the things we're going to have to get up on the ramparts. | ||
| We're going to get you back. | ||
| And I want to take and maybe I do a six o 'clock show. | ||
| I got a little more time to go through this. | ||
| And maybe we do that for next week. | ||
| But I want to take like an hour and I want to go through exactly what it is. | ||
| And then we'll obviously weaponize the board and posse because we have to go on offense. | ||
| Step one, which President Trump has done with all the work and all the support of the board and everybody else, Michelle Bachman, is to tell these people, screw you. | ||
| We ain't paying for this. | ||
| This is absurd. | ||
| We're out. | ||
| And he's adamant, including not paying these last couple of years. | ||
| So he's throwing that hard. | ||
| However, we need to go on offense. | ||
| And going on offense, you're saying step one is to make sure that the United States comes out and says, we're not party to the amendments, right? | ||
| That not only that we're going to sign them, but they have no jurisdiction over the United States. | ||
| Is that what it is? | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| And I mean, there are so many resources. | ||
| And this is the job that my friend Nick and I did with the website WeHeardOthers.com to put all of these resources. | ||
| But specifically, when it comes to the question of these amendments and the importance to reject them by the deadline of July 19, there is one specific website that James Roguski has put together, which is RejectTheAmendments.com. | ||
| And that's the one website the posse needs to go to in order to educate and understand what is at stake here. | ||
| So we're going to put it all up. | ||
| Where do they go for you in social media? | ||
| I'm going to work with you over the weekend. | ||
| We're going to get you back next week. | ||
| We're going to get up and make sure that by July, no later than July 19th, the United States has rejected these. | ||
| And that's step one of going on offense. | ||
| You've got to go on offense against these people. | ||
| Otherwise, if you're a passer, they'll crush it. | ||
| Where do people go, Nor, to get you? | ||
| Norbinladen.subside.com. | ||
| Norbinladen on Twitter. | ||
| And once more, with regards to the WHO, weheardothers.com. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Perfect. | |
| Noor Bin Laden, an audience favorite, I might add. | ||
| Thank you so much, ma 'am. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I love the posse. | ||
| Always great to be with you guys. | ||
| Fantastic. | ||
| Boy, Bachia and Noor in two blocks. | ||
| How about that? | ||
| Who's giving you that? | ||
| Come on, man. | ||
| That's why the war room is the war room. | ||
| Bringing you fighters. | ||
| This WHO, its reign of terror over citizens of this republic is over. | ||
| And we're going to make sure it's over. | ||
| We're not only going to tear this thing apart, we're going to bury it. | ||
| And we're going to tell them how much dirt we're putting on top of it. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| On its grave. | ||
| Short commercial break. |
Export Selection