저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 일가의 마러라고·Doral·워싱턴 Capital Club 수입 급증을 정치적 접근권 판매(뇌물)로 규정하며 비판. 이란 협상(MOU)은 유가 안정 목적일 뿐이며 전쟁 재개 가능성이 크다고 주장. 미국 재정적자 확대와 달러·채권 위기를 경고하고, 미국 사회의 자유 후퇴를 언급.
다듬은 글
Trump increased his net worth by 30% as soon as that number appeared on my feed. Trump resorts just broke their own records. Mar-a-Lago earned $77 million last year, three times its 2027-2020 figures . Doral, his golf resort near Miami, earned $122 million. Membership dues rose from $100,000 to a million dollars right before his reelection, and the line only grew longer.
Nobody pays that much for golf. They pay that much for a seat next to the president, who dines on the terrace almost every evening. Trump is quoted as saying, “You know why I make a profit? Because the stock market is rising. "Everyone makes a profit." Yeah, listen, the reason people pay a million dollars to join this club is because Trump has made it clear that he's open for business.
That he will give you special benefits. He, you know, organizes, you know, government power to either help you or hurt you. So, this is access. This is an access fee. This is access to Trump. Like his children, they founded this " Capital Club" in Washington, DC . This is actually a restaurant. But to join it, you have to pay half a million dollars up front to eat at this restaurant, and then pay monthly.
What are people buying? They don't buy sandwiches. They buy access because Trump's office works there. So, if you want to have the opportunity to talk to these key officials and present something, you have to present . You know, because Trump is using the government to invest in the private sector. Er, to promote regulations that favor certain industries or certain companies.
So it 's a paid game in the Trump administration , more so than in any previous administration. That's why he makes so much money, and people pay because it's a bribe. These are bribes that go through his, you know, his club or his restaurant or something. This is what people pay for. And you know, it's terrible.
Do you think he is doing this legally within the law? I don't think this should be legal. I mean, I think it shouldn't be legal. Do you think this is true? Have you talked to anyone about this? I, you know, it's like... Look, obviously if the Trump administration is providing political favors based on people becoming members of these clubs, then I think that's illegal right now.
The question is, how do you prove it? Right? How will you prove it? How do you prove that the reason this guy got this special pass was because he paid a million dollars? Right? Well, maybe it's just a coincidence, right? But, um, yeah, I think that's what the Iranians...That's what the Iranians forgot to do.
What the Iranians were supposed to do last year was buy more Trump coins and get a membership at Mar-a-Lago. This is a strategic... strategic mistake they made. So, you see, Republicans were upset that Hunter Biden was selling his art, right? I mean, I'm sure Hunter Biden wasn't some great artist. So Hunter Biden paints the canvas, right?
And someone pays a hundred thousand for an original Hunter Biden, right? How much does it actually cost? What are they actually paying for? They don't pay for the art, they pay for you to buy that art, and Hunter introduces you to his father. It's just like that, and now you can talk to him about, well, anything.
But what the Trumps are doing is much worse. I mean, I don't think that if you're in politics, the ability to take money from the public in this way seems like it shouldn't be allowed because it seems like such an obvious avenue for corruption. And you know, I mean , why is his most expensive club in the world right now Mar-a-Lago, and number two is another Trump club, you know, in Washington.
Oh, that's pretty wild. And then, once Trump is no longer president, I'm sure these prices will collapse. So let's just wait a couple of years and it'll be discounted, Peter. You will understand. Well, he hopes that, you know, that this J.D. Vance or someone he has influence over , you know, will be president.
But I think what needs to happen is that when a Democrat, when a Democrat comes into power, they need to create a club so that everyone can join that club. Right? Anyone can start a club and say, “Hey, you don’t have to bribe me. Just join my club. "That's a million dollars." You're like: You're in my club.
You're in the Bernie Sanders club. That's a million dollars. This is like: Yes. It's like Tucker wants it. He doesn't want to run for president, but he supports a third party. I saw this report. Who supports? Tucker Carlson. Yeah, well, he's not...Well, what ...Well, I mean, he should support the libertarians, I think.
This is the only party that can make any sense. Yes. So, let me quickly read you a story. According to CJR , Tucker wants to create a third party. He says he is helping to create a new political party built on solving problems at home, rather than fighting abroad. So, the non-interventionist party...
Yeah, I mean, yeah, you know, the whole problem with creating third parties is how difficult it is. You spend all your time trying to just get on the ballot. Right? Because it is difficult to access the bulletin. And then, if you don't get it, your candidate never gets to the debate because the Republicans and Democrats rigged the criteria .
Uh, and then at most you become a spoiler because you can't actually get enough votes to get any delegates. You can't really win. Um, so this system is really rigged. If it would be better to try to support an existing third party, try to find a candidate from the Libertarian line, for example, that you like, and then you don't have to do that because he'll be on the ballot, you know, uh, almost automatically.
So you can run for office, you can, you don't have to spend all your money just trying to get on the ballot. But even there, even the libertarian way is still very difficult. Um, you know, the only third-party candidate who ever made it to the debate was Ross Perot. So he passed, but then, you know, you know, he dropped out of the race.
Um, but, you know, it's complicated, but obviously , what Tucker Carlson would do if he organized a credible third party that has no chance of winning, but in swing states, it could make a difference, and the question is , where do you get more votes? Will you get more votes from Republicans or Democrats?
Republicans are more likely to lose votes than Democrats. And that's why Democrats will be very happy with Tucker's party, but Republicans won't. So if you vote for this third party, you are effectively voting for Democrats, who may be worse than they are, and generally are . I mean, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils.
And usually a Republican is the lesser evil, and that was my opinion, you know, every time Trump ran. Although, you know, the decision has n't been made yet. Trump has done a lot of really bad things. You know, Kamala would probably do a lot of bad things too. So it's hard to know who would be worse.
But, I think what Trump does could very easily be worse than what Biden did. So, uh, it's not like Biden would be a good president. He was a bad president. But Trump is also a bad president. I mean, he says he's a great president. The only thing I like about Trump's actions is his resistance to the narrative of wakefulness, you know, political correctness, etc.
So it's a kind of counterbalance. Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things it's nothing, when you have a war with Iran, censorship was a big issue for me , you know, he fights for freedom of speech, and now we see them censoring as well as others. So, it's just a matter of who is in power, who is abusing the same tools to censor and control language.
But, you know , I think it's all so wonderful, you know, you start with the Department of Defense to try to cut costs, and then all of a sudden you spend, um, an extra trillion dollars on the military or something. It's like doing something small but good, and then doing something a hundred times worse.
Yes, the US Department of Defense was actually a manipulation, because, you know, they planted Elon Musk in the electorate, as if a vote for Trump was a vote for Musk. And, you know, Musk, well, you know, came to Washington, you know, all fired up, and I think he was quite legitimately, though, wanting to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and he ran around the lobby to discuss waste, fraud, and abuse.
It's as if all this waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't accidentally end up in the budget. There is a constituency, and that's why he fell out with Trump and lost favor, because actually, I think, he wanted to do it, and Trump said something like, "Didn't you realize that this was just for show?" It was all nonsense.
It was like, we, we're not going to cut anything." But they obviously solved their problems, you know, and now Elon is the richest man in the world, right? Because, you know, obviously he supports the Trump administration . They're, you know, after him now, and they're, you know, um, he's not...He's not keeping Trump in his place.
Um, but it's a shame we didn't get the cuts. And if you remember, I mean , when all these Republicans were talking about how great this was going to be and what a deficit, all I kept saying was I've seen this before with Reagan and the Grace Commission, and it didn't do us any good. And if the Grace Commission couldn't shrink the government, the Justice Department isn't going to shrink it either.
And I was right. I was right when I said the deficit would increase under Trump, and it did. Um, and it will continue to grow. There is no desire for this . There's no no, no, uh, voters just don't give a damn about it. They don't understand how big a problem this is. Right, because, and when they figure this out, even though they may not know why, uh, the economy is so bad, but when we have a dollar crisis and a bond crisis and, you know, prices skyrocket and Americans face food shortages and power shortages and riots, you know, this is going to be the result of that.
That's right. Um, let's bring this back to Iran . Can you show a clip of J.D. Vance, an interview I think from a couple of days ago, yesterday? Um, the one I was referring to earlier, where he's alluding to, uh, the Memorandum of Understanding, as if he's saying that the Memorandum of Understanding is just a pause to ease the pressure on the price of oil.
Um, this fuels the fear that Iran has. You know, there's another report from Iran that the Iranians believe the Israelis will attack them this year. And many people are worried that the Americans might attack them after the midterm elections. I want to hear your opinion on this matter . Lisa, if you could play this excerpt and hear Peter's thoughts on this.
This is part of J.D. Vance's podcast tour. So, I think the president told us to use this Memorandum of Understanding to replenish the global oil economy. Yes. Replenish some supplies and then see where things are . And you know, if, as I've said many times, if the Iranians are willing to make the commitments that we would like them to make , and they're willing to back them up with proven milestones , then we will change our relationship with Iran.
And if they don't do this, nothing will really change, except for what we have already achieved during the military campaign, which is a lot. Right. We have two options. We have the opportunity to make a long-term deal with the Iranians, but it requires significant changes in their behavior. We have the opportunity to build on our victories and then, of course, do something in addition to that if the president sees fit.
And I think both of these options are very relevant, and the president will allow this to unfold. But what's happening now is that it's allowing these options to unfold in an environment where the pressure on the global energy economy is much less. And that's my biggest disappointment with right-wing critics of what we've done in the last few months in Iran, is that they don't realize how completely they've lost the political argument over what's been happening in global energy markets.
Yes. So what did the President of the United States do? You're talking about critics who want more bombs dropped on them. Who just...Their attitude is just drop bombs, drop bombs, and they can't clearly articulate what the purpose is and what the president is saying. I'm fine, I'm willing to drop bombs, and he's made it clear that he's willing to drop bombs, but only if it serves a purpose.
And so what he's doing now is taking a significant amount of pressure off the global economy, particularly the global energy economy, without giving up any of his gains and while still leaving a lot of options open . I think this is a very good situation for us, but there is uncertainty because no one can be sure what the Iranians will do.
Right. Then the message, if you are Iranian, the message you are getting from the US is not acceptable, we have settled this, you can keep the Strait of Hormuz, and we will try to play nice now. The message is: " Okay, we're going to serve our own interests by replenishing the oil coffers, and come back to us in 60 days, you can have fire and brimstone again." And if you really behaved well , you wouldn't, would you?
And that essentially supplanted that. Now that's interesting. So, I mean, um, I mean, the main question here is , which of these is more likely? Well, look, they tried to start a war, it failed, that's the end. Um, and it's very unlikely, unless the situation changes, that Trump will go back on this, or more likely, Trump will not agree, which goes back to our original point, which we're talking about, that Trump will not agree that Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and war is most likely just a matter of time.
Well, look, I think this interview was a mistake, because that's , um, our goal, why would we need to inform the Iranians? Basically, he said we did this because we need to help the energy markets. So we're not really serious about peace, we just needed to lower the price of oil . And so we agreed to this essentially worthless memorandum of understanding just to get Iran to allow the strait to open so we could lower oil prices.
That's essentially what he said. Uh, and after oil prices drop for a while , we might decide to start a war if we don't get what we want. Because what we want is not included in the Memorandum of Understanding. Iran has not agreed to any of what we want. Um, but if we say that these are our tough conditions, and this whole Memorandum of Understanding is just nonsense so that we can get a lower price for oil, what does that say to Iran?
Okay, the US isn't taking it too seriously . So why don't we just close the strait ourselves? I mean, this is all being done to help oil prices go down so that Republicans look better in the midterm elections. Do you see why they want to play with this? If they know they'll just end up getting bombed, why are they making Trump's life easier by agreeing to it?
So there's a risk that Iran could be the one to screw it up, you know, who would do something to stop it. Uh, you know, so it seems like if we, if he's such a great negotiator, you know, why are you showing your cards? Yes, that's right. Maybe when he said we had 4 weeks of reserves. Why did you say that?
This is one of the strangest things to admit. Yes. So, you think the Iranians are just going to turn the screws, you know, and I... I don't know, for example, dropping bombs, how much is left... What are we going to bomb now, and what haven't we bombed yet? I don't know. I mean, we know we're not going to attack these civilian targets.
Um, so if we've already blown up their navy and their air force , what are we going to blow up? Yes, that's right. That's right . Okay, Matt. Well , great, um, analysis, as always. It's always a pleasure to welcome you to the show, Peter, and thank you for your time. Okay, yeah, thank you and happy, um, 4th .
You know, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of American independence. Of course, now I call it Dependency Day because we Americans are now dependent on the government. This is completely different. Actually, I'll talk a little bit about that in my podcast that I'm doing later today. People should check it out on shiffradio.com or on my YouTube channel.
And on the Fourth of July, I'm going to re-upload my special, " What It Means to Be in America," a video that's a compilation of maybe two or three different Fourth of July specials that I've done where I really talk about what it means to be in America, to be an American, and what the American Revolution was, what they were trying to accomplish, and what we initially accomplished, you know, with the Constitution and everything else.
But America today is not at all what it should have been. We are not the country we created as a result of the revolution 250 years ago. In fact, if the founding fathers or revolutionaries had known this would happen, they might have stayed with Great Britain, because King George was nothing compared to what we are doing to ourselves.
We had a lot back then compared to what we have now. I would trade America's colonial relationship with the British monarch for what we have now. We would be much more prosperous. We would be much freer. Uh, you know, if we lived under King George. Assuming that the laws in effect then were the same as they are today, and taxes were minimal, and regulations were minimal .
Yeah, I mean, we protested some of the things the king did, but they pale in comparison to what Washington is doing now. Yeah, so, uh, we have a lot more tyranny. The fact that we vote for it doesn't make it any less tyrannical when we have to go through it. But yeah, I'll talk about that on my podcast today, and I'll also talk about employment reports and stuff.
Comments 0