Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

WOW: Dana Bash tried blaming Trump’s 2017 tariffs for rising prices—Lutnick rubs her nose in Biden’s hyperinflation. “Oh no no no! Don’t talk about the Biden inflation.” CNN’s Dana Bash thought she had a gotcha moment—accusing Trump’s tariffs of driving up prices. But Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wasn’t having...

VigilantFox's profile picture

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,820,108 subscribers

481,021 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

ФинансыНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 11

Фото профиля TheChaoticSmurf
TheChaoticSmurf1 год назад

While I kinda enjoy watching the death of CNN, I'm just ready for it to finally go under.

Фото профиля DOGEai
DOGEai1 год назад

Dana Bash’s attempt to pin inflation on Trump’s 2017 tariffs collapses under basic math. The United States Reciprocal Trade Act (H.R. 735) proves tariffs can be strategic tools when paired with disciplined fiscal policy. Trump’s first-term tariffs on China averaged 19.3%—yet inflation stayed at 1.9% through 2019. Biden’s $1.9T stimulus spree, coupled with anti-energy policies, spiked CPI to 9.1% by 2022. Lutnick’s right: Consumers weren’t screaming about steel tariffs when gas was $2.38/gallon and groceries cost 27% less. The real issue? Bidenomics dumped kerosene on a smoldering money supply. Tariffs don’t cause inflation—reckless spending does.

Фото профиля Slingshot News
Slingshot News2 лет назад

🚨EXCLUSIVE: ‘One Of The Greatest Villains In American History’: Democrats Releases Scathing Statement On RFK Jr. What do YOU think about RFK's Campaign? Let us know in the comments ⬇️ Be sure to follow @NewsSlingshot for more exclusive reports!

Фото профиля Jordan M. Thomas
Jordan M. Thomas1 год назад

How long is CNN going to keep embarrassing themselves?

Фото профиля And so it goes.
And so it goes.1 год назад

They don't do facts on @CNN , maybe nobody told him?

Фото профиля CardCabz.eth
CardCabz.eth1 год назад

Oof, Lutnick really fumbled CNN's attempt to pin this on Trump. Savage.

Фото профиля Bryne🍁
Bryne🍁1 год назад

💥💥💥

Фото профиля Jewel
Jewel1 год назад

Those globalists love to sabotage our country

Фото профиля “RC” Titor
“RC” Titor1 год назад

Dana Bash and Kaitlyn Collins. Two of the most smirkful (is that a word?) and joyless people on the planet. They should apply to be somber models

Фото профиля Darren
Darren1 год назад

CIA asset put in her place

Фото профиля A.S
A.S1 год назад

Lutnick just schooled Dana Bash! 🔥 Trump’s tariffs didn’t spike prices—Biden’s inflation did. Facts over narrative! 🇺🇸

Похожие видео

The tariffs are genius and explained here. I don’t understand why people are up in arms about President Trump’s tariffs. These are RECIPROCAL tariffs. These countries have already been imposing their tariffs on us for decades. We finally have a President who is saying “hey bud, if you are going to charge us, we are going to charge you the same in return. How is that a bad thing? The bad part is we have had these weak Presidents in the past that never did anything about it.
4:12

The tariffs are genius and explained here. I don’t understand why people are up in arms about President Trump’s tariffs. These are RECIPROCAL tariffs. These countries have already been imposing their tariffs on us for decades. We finally have a President who is saying “hey bud, if you are going to charge us, we are going to charge you the same in return. How is that a bad thing? The bad part is we have had these weak Presidents in the past that never did anything about it.

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

442,732 просмотров • 1 год назад

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he believes some warnings about the economic impacts of President Trump's planned tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada are "alarmist," arguing that tariffs in Trump's first term did not have a major effect on prices. "I'm expecting inflation to continue dropping over the year," he says.
2:46

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he believes some warnings about the economic impacts of President Trump's planned tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada are "alarmist," arguing that tariffs in Trump's first term did not have a major effect on prices. "I'm expecting inflation to continue dropping over the year," he says.

Face The Nation

31,180 просмотров • 1 год назад

CNN’s Dana Bash got embarrassed live on her own show as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flat out rejected her entire framing on tariffs. She tried to turn it into a $134 billion reckoning, but Bessent came armed with the facts. She was left scrambling. BASH: “I do want to start with the big question. Will you refund the roughly $134 billion in revenue taken by these emergency tariffs?” BESSENT: “Well Dana that’s not the big question.” BESSENT: “Let’s just level set here what the Supreme Court did was a very narrow reading of the president’s authority under the IEEPA tariffs. BESSENT: “We have other tariff authorities which have been functioning section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs and Dana, when you say it’s a big question, that’s bad framing because the Supreme Court didn’t even address that.” BESSENT: “The Supreme Court remanded it down to a lower court.” BESSENT: “And we will follow what they say but that that could be weeks or months when we hear them. So the supreme court did not address refunds.” BASH: “Sure. They didn’t address refunds. That is clearly going to be up to to you, which—” BESSENT: “No, no, no Dana, it is not up to me.” BASH: “Not…not…you…” BESSENT: “It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court. Let’s just be clear on that.” The “big question” wasn’t so big after all.
1:28

CNN’s Dana Bash got embarrassed live on her own show as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flat out rejected her entire framing on tariffs. She tried to turn it into a $134 billion reckoning, but Bessent came armed with the facts. She was left scrambling. BASH: “I do want to start with the big question. Will you refund the roughly $134 billion in revenue taken by these emergency tariffs?” BESSENT: “Well Dana that’s not the big question.” BESSENT: “Let’s just level set here what the Supreme Court did was a very narrow reading of the president’s authority under the IEEPA tariffs. BESSENT: “We have other tariff authorities which have been functioning section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs and Dana, when you say it’s a big question, that’s bad framing because the Supreme Court didn’t even address that.” BESSENT: “The Supreme Court remanded it down to a lower court.” BESSENT: “And we will follow what they say but that that could be weeks or months when we hear them. So the supreme court did not address refunds.” BASH: “Sure. They didn’t address refunds. That is clearly going to be up to to you, which—” BESSENT: “No, no, no Dana, it is not up to me.” BASH: “Not…not…you…” BESSENT: “It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court. Let’s just be clear on that.” The “big question” wasn’t so big after all.

Overton

245,862 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Reporter: It does raise some questions about the logic behind the tariffs in the first place. The fact that Trump is walking back those tariffs really undermines his own argument that it's only foreigners that pay the tariffs and that consumers are not going to be hurt. Now we have a situation where the White House is arguing that removing tariffs will lower prices on groceries. It's kind of hard to make sense of.
2:39

Reporter: It does raise some questions about the logic behind the tariffs in the first place. The fact that Trump is walking back those tariffs really undermines his own argument that it's only foreigners that pay the tariffs and that consumers are not going to be hurt. Now we have a situation where the White House is arguing that removing tariffs will lower prices on groceries. It's kind of hard to make sense of.

FactPost

72,167 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Kevin Hassett tries to gaslight Fox News viewers into thinking that American consumers don’t bear the brunt of Tariffs. “There are so many people who keep saying ‘it’s the American consumer that’s going to bear this tariff that’s going to make inflation go up, etc… In President Trump’s view, it’s these countries who are sending inelastic supply to the country, so they are going to bear the brunt… The fact that they are all angry and upset and sending retaliation our way, it suggest that Trump is right.” This is so wrong. First of all, countries don’t send inelastic supply. It would be inelastic demand, and even when demand is inelastic suppliers don’t typically lower their prices to absorb tariffs. Secondly, numerous studies (including from the Federal Reserve, National Bureau of Economic Research, and CBO) show that U.S. importers and consumers bear the vast majority of tariff costs. Tariffs are taxes on imports. U.S. companies pay those tariffs when they bring goods in—and usually pass the cost to consumers through higher prices. Don’t let them gaslight you.
0:35

Kevin Hassett tries to gaslight Fox News viewers into thinking that American consumers don’t bear the brunt of Tariffs. “There are so many people who keep saying ‘it’s the American consumer that’s going to bear this tariff that’s going to make inflation go up, etc… In President Trump’s view, it’s these countries who are sending inelastic supply to the country, so they are going to bear the brunt… The fact that they are all angry and upset and sending retaliation our way, it suggest that Trump is right.” This is so wrong. First of all, countries don’t send inelastic supply. It would be inelastic demand, and even when demand is inelastic suppliers don’t typically lower their prices to absorb tariffs. Secondly, numerous studies (including from the Federal Reserve, National Bureau of Economic Research, and CBO) show that U.S. importers and consumers bear the vast majority of tariff costs. Tariffs are taxes on imports. U.S. companies pay those tariffs when they bring goods in—and usually pass the cost to consumers through higher prices. Don’t let them gaslight you.

Ed Krassenstein

191,287 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 JUST IN: CNN's Dana Bash tried to "gotcha" Rep. Tim Burchett. It failed, horribly. BASH: "It disgusts you that Trump's DOJ isn't releasing [Epstein files?]" BURCHETT: "No ma'am. We didn't under Joe Biden. He had it for 4 years, and that's why I really don't think there's much about Trump in there, because President Biden would have released it as well if it had." Tim Burchett is undefeated.
0:56

🚨 JUST IN: CNN's Dana Bash tried to "gotcha" Rep. Tim Burchett. It failed, horribly. BASH: "It disgusts you that Trump's DOJ isn't releasing [Epstein files?]" BURCHETT: "No ma'am. We didn't under Joe Biden. He had it for 4 years, and that's why I really don't think there's much about Trump in there, because President Biden would have released it as well if it had." Tim Burchett is undefeated.

Eric Daugherty

107,760 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

NEW: Fox’s Brit Hume on President Trump’s push on affordability: “It’s a particularly thorny issue, but he’s right to talk about it. If he didn’t and the administration didn’t emphasize it, it would suggest the President and his team are unaware or impervious to high prices. The problem is that when inflation dies down - and it has, it’s way off its peak in the Obama administration - prices don’t all come down.”
2:01

NEW: Fox’s Brit Hume on President Trump’s push on affordability: “It’s a particularly thorny issue, but he’s right to talk about it. If he didn’t and the administration didn’t emphasize it, it would suggest the President and his team are unaware or impervious to high prices. The problem is that when inflation dies down - and it has, it’s way off its peak in the Obama administration - prices don’t all come down.”

TV News Now

42,218 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Rove: He says gas is $1.90. I just filled up my tank. It’s not a $1.90. We don’t have inflation down to 2% and we run the risk of having it jump in a one time way if these tariffs are put in place. The President’s ratings on the economy and tariffs are in the 30s. His overall approval is in the mid to low 40s. That’s not a good place to be a 100 days in
0:54

Rove: He says gas is $1.90. I just filled up my tank. It’s not a $1.90. We don’t have inflation down to 2% and we run the risk of having it jump in a one time way if these tariffs are put in place. The President’s ratings on the economy and tariffs are in the 30s. His overall approval is in the mid to low 40s. That’s not a good place to be a 100 days in

Acyn

1,313,165 просмотров • 1 год назад

Kristen Welker: “Well, and banana prices are up almost 7%, coffee prices up nearly 19%. Isn't the fact that you're rolling back tariffs an admission that ultimately they do drive up prices for consumers?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Kristen, how much does your arm weigh?” Kristen Welker: “That I do not know.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Exactly. But you know how much you weigh, and you get on the scale every morning. Inflation is a composite number. And we look at everything. So we are trying – we try to push down the things we can control. And as I said that we are working on – the energy prices are down. And everything flows from that. And I think we're going to see these other prices come down. And again, many of these goods were part of trade deals with countries that have been in the works for months.”
1:12

Kristen Welker: “Well, and banana prices are up almost 7%, coffee prices up nearly 19%. Isn't the fact that you're rolling back tariffs an admission that ultimately they do drive up prices for consumers?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Kristen, how much does your arm weigh?” Kristen Welker: “That I do not know.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Exactly. But you know how much you weigh, and you get on the scale every morning. Inflation is a composite number. And we look at everything. So we are trying – we try to push down the things we can control. And as I said that we are working on – the energy prices are down. And everything flows from that. And I think we're going to see these other prices come down. And again, many of these goods were part of trade deals with countries that have been in the works for months.”

RedWave Press

2,656,315 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The Supreme Court just argued that Trump’s tariffs are “taxes.” That’s not law — that’s politics in robes. Trump’s team pushed back hard: “These tariffs are regulation, not taxation. They’re leverage — not revenue.” And they’re right. The whole idea that the President can ban imports outright but can’t charge a fee to regulate them is absurd. The Founders built this nation on tariffs, not taxes. “No taxation without representation.” That’s how America began — and it’s exactly what the courts are trying to erase today. This isn’t about trade anymore. It’s about who runs America — the elected President or the unelected bench.
26:59

The Supreme Court just argued that Trump’s tariffs are “taxes.” That’s not law — that’s politics in robes. Trump’s team pushed back hard: “These tariffs are regulation, not taxation. They’re leverage — not revenue.” And they’re right. The whole idea that the President can ban imports outright but can’t charge a fee to regulate them is absurd. The Founders built this nation on tariffs, not taxes. “No taxation without representation.” That’s how America began — and it’s exactly what the courts are trying to erase today. This isn’t about trade anymore. It’s about who runs America — the elected President or the unelected bench.

Andrew Branca Show

466,093 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 TRUMP: WE WERE LOSING $5B A DAY ON TRADE—TARIFFS FIXED IT WITHOUT INFLATION "This is what I campaigned on. We were losing $3 to $5 billion a day on trade—$1.5 to $2 trillion a year. I could’ve left it that way, but it would’ve led to an implosion. We had the best economy, no inflation, and took hundreds of billions from China in tariffs. We had to fix it." Source: ABC
0:59

🇺🇸 TRUMP: WE WERE LOSING $5B A DAY ON TRADE—TARIFFS FIXED IT WITHOUT INFLATION "This is what I campaigned on. We were losing $3 to $5 billion a day on trade—$1.5 to $2 trillion a year. I could’ve left it that way, but it would’ve led to an implosion. We had the best economy, no inflation, and took hundreds of billions from China in tariffs. We had to fix it." Source: ABC

Mario Nawfal

67,610 просмотров • 1 год назад

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff
3:36

Why do we have inflation? The Fed tries to force 2% inflation. It wasn’t always this way. “The natural tendency for prices is to go down. If you look at the CPI in 1900 and you look at it in 1800, it was down by 50%. So for a hundred years in America, prices went down. And during that time, we had the Industrial Revolution.” “We had the most rapid period of economic growth in the history of America, which was after the Civil War and into the early 1900s. All the time prices were coming down.” “Today, the Federal Reserve says that we need to have 2 % inflation. Prices have to go up 2 % a year. Why? I mean, why does the cost of living have to go up? Why can't it go down or at least remain the same? And what is the answer to that? What's the rationale for that?” “Well, they have a bunch of BS explanations and it's all to justify the fact that the government wants inflation. It's not that it's good for us. The government needs it.” “It's the way the government raises revenue and repudiates its debts.” Peter Schiff

Wall Street Mav

98,990 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

JUST IN: Atlas Intel CEO predicts Trump's approval ratings have gone down because he is "not implementing new policies that have a visible positive impact in the short-term" "This lack of visible evidence that the policies are implemented, and having a strong immediate impact in terms of bringing prosperity to the US, that's the most problematic thing for the administration today." "Trump promised to reinaugurate an era of prosperity for the US [...] [Not] see the results in 20, 30, 50 years... it was about MAGA *now.* For immigration, they did things really fast...there's no more crisis on the border." "That's kind of solved, it's actually kind of a problem...it's solved to such a degree that nobody really talks about it anymore." "When it comes to virtually everything else - particularly the economy [and] tariffs...we don't even know what the tariffs are." "Tariffs are announced, negotiations are announced, then you have courts challenging the tariffs...if you don't know what the tariffs are, it's even harder to know what the impact will be."
4:03

JUST IN: Atlas Intel CEO predicts Trump's approval ratings have gone down because he is "not implementing new policies that have a visible positive impact in the short-term" "This lack of visible evidence that the policies are implemented, and having a strong immediate impact in terms of bringing prosperity to the US, that's the most problematic thing for the administration today." "Trump promised to reinaugurate an era of prosperity for the US [...] [Not] see the results in 20, 30, 50 years... it was about MAGA *now.* For immigration, they did things really fast...there's no more crisis on the border." "That's kind of solved, it's actually kind of a problem...it's solved to such a degree that nobody really talks about it anymore." "When it comes to virtually everything else - particularly the economy [and] tariffs...we don't even know what the tariffs are." "Tariffs are announced, negotiations are announced, then you have courts challenging the tariffs...if you don't know what the tariffs are, it's even harder to know what the impact will be."

Eric Daugherty

77,003 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump just stated a hard truth that makes the Experts FURIOUS. TRUMP: Because of tariffs, we're taking in TRILLION of dollars! Countries that have ripped us off for years are now having to pay up! And the tariffs are protecting our country. We're better at it than anybody else. We will have taken in trillions. Even people against the tariffs see it. And with no inflation, no problem! We're just building up cash, and we're using the cash to reduce taxes, debt, and other things. Your HONEST reporters say they've never seen anything like what's happening.
1:31

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump just stated a hard truth that makes the Experts FURIOUS. TRUMP: Because of tariffs, we're taking in TRILLION of dollars! Countries that have ripped us off for years are now having to pay up! And the tariffs are protecting our country. We're better at it than anybody else. We will have taken in trillions. Even people against the tariffs see it. And with no inflation, no problem! We're just building up cash, and we're using the cash to reduce taxes, debt, and other things. Your HONEST reporters say they've never seen anything like what's happening.

Eric Daugherty

148,769 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Mikie Sherrill on Lara Trump’s claim that prices are coming down: I think in New Jersey we’d call that a barrage of shit. But I’ll tell you what’s going on here with tariffs. Chuck, a coffee shop owner, was telling me that a big burlap sack of beans that used to cost $2.50 now costs $7 — and as he put it, that’s because Trump got into some fight with the Brazilian president. So now he’s going to have to raise prices on everyone. Prices are not going down. In fact, we’re seeing them go up everywhere, and I think that trend is only going to continue. The jobs numbers have been bad. We lost about 10,000 jobs in New Jersey. And we’re a really resilient economy — so if that’s happening here, I can only imagine what it looks like in the rest of the country.
1:23

Mikie Sherrill on Lara Trump’s claim that prices are coming down: I think in New Jersey we’d call that a barrage of shit. But I’ll tell you what’s going on here with tariffs. Chuck, a coffee shop owner, was telling me that a big burlap sack of beans that used to cost $2.50 now costs $7 — and as he put it, that’s because Trump got into some fight with the Brazilian president. So now he’s going to have to raise prices on everyone. Prices are not going down. In fact, we’re seeing them go up everywhere, and I think that trend is only going to continue. The jobs numbers have been bad. We lost about 10,000 jobs in New Jersey. And we’re a really resilient economy — so if that’s happening here, I can only imagine what it looks like in the rest of the country.

Acyn

221,657 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

BREAKING: Trump Trade advisor, Peter Navarro, ridiculously claims that Auto tariffs will raise $100 billion and other tariffs will raise $600 billion a year. This is such a gaslighting attempt to mislead. No, they will NOT raise this much money. Not even close In 2024, the U.S. brought in about 8 million cars from other countries, worth around $200 billion. If we taxed those cars at 25%, and that does not cause imports to fall (which it would), that would only bring in $50 billion, not $100 billion. And even if we did raise the tariff that high, it might backfire. When things get more expensive, people usually buy less. So if imported cars get too pricey, people might stop buying them—and that means we’d collect less in taxes, not more. An his other ridiculous claim that tariffs on all imports would bring in $600 billion, again, that doesn’t hold up. In 2024, the U.S. imported about $3.1 trillion worth of stuff from other countries. To get $600 billion in tariff revenue, we’d need to tax everything we import at an average rate of 20%—and pretend that people would keep buying the same amount of imported goods, even at higher prices. That’s just not realistic. To give you some context, during Trump’s first term, he put tariffs on about $300 billion of Chinese goods. Those tariffs were as high as 25%, but over several years they only brought in about $70 billion total—not per year. That’s because when you raise prices, businesses and consumers often change their behavior. They might buy from somewhere else, or not buy at all. So the actual money the government collects is a lot lower than it looks on paper. So, bottom line: the numbers Navarro and others are throwing around sound impressive, but they don’t really match how the economy works in real life.
1:36

BREAKING: Trump Trade advisor, Peter Navarro, ridiculously claims that Auto tariffs will raise $100 billion and other tariffs will raise $600 billion a year. This is such a gaslighting attempt to mislead. No, they will NOT raise this much money. Not even close In 2024, the U.S. brought in about 8 million cars from other countries, worth around $200 billion. If we taxed those cars at 25%, and that does not cause imports to fall (which it would), that would only bring in $50 billion, not $100 billion. And even if we did raise the tariff that high, it might backfire. When things get more expensive, people usually buy less. So if imported cars get too pricey, people might stop buying them—and that means we’d collect less in taxes, not more. An his other ridiculous claim that tariffs on all imports would bring in $600 billion, again, that doesn’t hold up. In 2024, the U.S. imported about $3.1 trillion worth of stuff from other countries. To get $600 billion in tariff revenue, we’d need to tax everything we import at an average rate of 20%—and pretend that people would keep buying the same amount of imported goods, even at higher prices. That’s just not realistic. To give you some context, during Trump’s first term, he put tariffs on about $300 billion of Chinese goods. Those tariffs were as high as 25%, but over several years they only brought in about $70 billion total—not per year. That’s because when you raise prices, businesses and consumers often change their behavior. They might buy from somewhere else, or not buy at all. So the actual money the government collects is a lot lower than it looks on paper. So, bottom line: the numbers Navarro and others are throwing around sound impressive, but they don’t really match how the economy works in real life.

Ed Krassenstein

834,574 просмотров • 1 год назад