U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer appears on Face the Nation with the ever-dramatic Margaret Brennan. Video and Transcript Below:
The part about Canada is very interesting.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by United States Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer. Ambassador, good to have you here.
JAMIESON GREER: Great to be here. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the President signed this executive order on Thursday, raises tariff rates on about 70 countries. Should we expect those to be negotiated down in the coming days?
JAMIESON GREER: I don’t, I don’t think they will be in the coming days. I think a lot of these, well I know a lot of these, are set rates pursuant to deals. Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country. So, so these, these tariff rates are pretty much set. I expect I do have my phone blowing up. There are trade ministers who, who want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States, but I think that we have, we’re seeing truly the contours of the President’s tariff plan right now with these rates.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was reading some interviews you had given, and you said at some point the President’s view is maybe a tariff is better than a deal. Are you saying there are countries that just, they have no shot of avoiding a tariff?
JAMIESON GREER: Well, I would say that, in fact, most countries in the world, they just have a tariff assigned to them, right? Whether it’s–
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’ll be the 10 percent or 15 percent.
JAMIESON GREER: 10 or 15 or the higher level tariff. Because, again, when the President is looking at this, he looks at potential deals, and we bring him potential concessions from countries and the things they might want to do. And he compares that to the potential tariff that might be applied to try to get that deficit down. And then talking to his advisors, he makes a call on this. And you know, sometimes a country will come back and make additional concessions that, that make it more appropriate. He’s trying to get at the deficit. He’s trying to reshore manufacturing. And so those are the factors he’s looking at when he’s looking at when he’s determining whether he’s just going to have a tariff or he’ll take a deal.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Trying to reshore manufacturing, bring manufacturing jobs back to America. But we just saw in this unemployment data that while the level is pretty low overall, it’s pretty steady, good. Manufacturing in particular, we saw it contract for the fifth straight month in July, factory employment dropped to lowest levels in five years. What does that data indicate to you about the impact of your tariffs?
JAMIESON GREER: Yeah, I saw that and my own view is that I think a lot of companies were waiting to see if the tax bill was going to come through with the expensing for capital goods and things like that. And so I think now you know a lot of that data comes pre “One Big Beautiful Bill”. Now that we have “One Big Beautiful Bill”, and we have a better sense of where the taxes are going, I think we’re going to see a much, we’re going to see more investment, all the, all the commitments on investment we’ve seen countries making, that’s going to come through. And like you said, it’s a relatively small number. So I don’t, I don’t read tariff policy into that number. I think that is kind of pre-bill policy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you believe the executives are making strategic decisions with hiring, but the President just announced that the head of Labor Statistics is being fired because of the weak jobs report, claiming the data was faked.
JAMIESON GREER: Well, I think you know, and I saw what the president did, and he also talked about the, just the record from BLS, you know, last year–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Labor Statistics Bureau.
JAMIESON GREER: That’s right, yeah, exactly. You know, even last year during the campaign, there were enormous swings in the jobs numbers and so it sounds to me like the President has real concerns. You know, not just based on today’s but everything we saw last year. You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers. There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways. And it’s, you know, the President is the President. He can choose who works in the executive branch.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you were just saying you weren’t really doubting the data.
JAMIESON GREER: No, I wasn’t– You asked me what I thought about the data–
MARGARET BRENNAN:
Right.
JAMIESON GREER:–And was it reflected in the tariff policy? The answer is no. I mean, my view is, to the extent that there’s some kind of, you know, information about manufacturing jobs, you know, I think that we’re going to see a big increase in manufacturing jobs now that we have the “one big, beautiful bill” passed, now that we have the expensing going in. And I think that, you know, our manufacturers know that they have a clear and certain path forward on that now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you confident, though – because you have to deal in legal terms, in details, with facts and data when you are negotiating a legal agreement – do you trust that if you bring hard data to the president, he takes your counsel, even if it’s an inconvenient fact?
JAMIESON GREER: Always, yes. I mean, I’ve spent the- I spend many hours with the president almost every day, and that’s what we’re talking about is data. We’re looking – and I’m on the trade side, of course – and we’re looking at import figures, export figures, investment levels, et cetera. And that’s how we’re making this decision. So I’m very comfortable with that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’ve seen that Apple estimates, for the full year, tariffs are going to cost them more than a billion dollars. For the automakers – GM, Stellantis, Ford – they all came out and said they are going to take a hit from this.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, so that’s exactly the issue, right? We have, over decades, we’ve had these large manufacturers, advanced manufacturing, that have gone overseas. They’ve gone to other countries. They’ve taken advantage of unfair trading practices, and the fact that the US has had low tariffs while other countries haven’t, and they’ve taken advantage of that. That’s what businesses do. We’re all capitalists. And so if now they have to pay a tariff or build here, the President is creating incentives to bring them back here. That’s why GM has announced investments here in the United States, and that’s why we have all these companies and countries announcing investment in the US. Because the tariffs create the incentive to do so.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But reductions in profits come at a cost, right? And as CEOs are making decisions, how long do you expect this pain to last for corporate America?
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, you know, again, when we look at- you know, when we look at the numbers and the data, we’re seeing predictions of more investment here. That’s what we want. The President isn’t doing this so much for the companies. He’s doing it for American workers who have seen their jobs offshored to Mexico, to Vietnam, to China. So when we hear companies having to make hard choices about supply chain changes. We have to do that. I mean the status quo, where we keep making things overseas, because we can do it a little bit cheaper in the short run. That is not preferable to having that investment and employment here in the United States.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But we haven’t seen that reshoring happen.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, we have- we have announced AstraZeneca announced they’re going to have a $50 billion investment in pharmaceuticals. GM has announced $5 billion. Hyundai Steel has said they’re going to do a $21 billion investment in Louisiana. So this is- this is actually happening. These are things from the company saying it right, and they have to say it. And they have, you know, earnings reports, and they have and- they have filings. They can’t just make this stuff up. This is real investment that we’re seeing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Canada, which is our second largest- largest trading partner. The president increased tariffs to 35%. It applies, though, to just about 10% of what Canada sells here. Why bother to do this now in the middle of negotiations?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So I would say, first of all, you know, Canada is subject to 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum. 25% tariffs on autos, and again, the 35% tariff on- on goods that don’t follow the rules of USMCA. And, you know, early on, the president posed a 25% tariff on Canada, and that was really about fentanyl and border issues, right? It’s- it’s- it’s a separate regime from the reciprocal tariff. And what did Canada do in response? You know, they talked about helping at the border. And I’m not, you know, I’m not the drug czar or anything. But what I do know, as the trade guy, is that Canada retaliated. The only other country in the world who retaliated on tariffs was the Chinese. And so if the president’s going to take an action and the Canadians retaliate, the United States needs to maintain the integrity of our action, the effectiveness. So we have to go up too.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re talking about the things that the former Prime Minister Trudeau put in place, not the current Prime Minister–
AMBASSADOR GREER: — And are still in place–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — That are still in place. But the current prime minister has held off, largely, on retaliation here. That’s the guy you’re negotiating with and his team. So what’s the strategy here? And aren’t you worried that this will hurt the broader free trade deal if you truly do want to renegotiate it next year.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well- well, the President’s view with with every country, whether it’s Canada or Mexico, and regardless of the kind of trade agreement we have in place, is that the net result of the trading system, whether it’s our WTO agreements or our existing trade agreements, the net result has been that a lot of the manufacturing has gone overseas, and when that’s the net result, you can’t continue with that system. So you know, I’m not concerned that it’s going to complicate things with Canada. Our view is the President is trying to fix the terms of trade with Canada, and if there’s a way to a deal, we’ll find it. And if it’s not, we’ll have the tariff levels that we have.
MARGARET BRENNAN : So I hear you drawing distinctions when you say I’m the trade guy, I’m not the drug czar.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m the trade guy. I’m not handling these other things. But the President is kind of blending all these things together, because he cited fentanyl once again when it came to tariffs- to the policy with Canada. He also said on social media, Canada’s decision to back statehood for Palestine is going to make it hard for us to make a trade deal. How does that have anything to do with financial and trade agreements?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So, so- so, first of all, the president United States has his foreign affairs power where he can- he can manage relations under the Constitution with foreign countries. Second of all, you know, Congress delegated to the president the ability to take economic action in response to national emergencies in the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. And for example, the Treasury Department, they have a number of sanctions where they can actually cut off a country’s trade with the United States, prohibit goods, cut them off from our financial system for geopolitical reasons. So the fact that they can do that- almost certainly the President can do something that’s not as expansive and just- and just put a fee on those goods, which is a- which is a tariff. So if you–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But can and should are different things, right? And- and I’m asking this–
JAMIESON GREER: –But to- to go- but- but listen, if you’re going to sanction somebody and essentially prohibit trade, you almost certainly can do something that’s softer, which is to allow the trade and just put a tariff on it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So let me ask you about Brazil, because the U.S. has a trade surplus with Brazil. That means, you know, we sell them more than we buy from them. So it doesn’t seem to be consistent here, when you have the President put 50% tariffs on Brazil, one of the highest of any countries. And at the same time, the President is bringing up things that have nothing to do with trade when he’s justifying them. He sent a letter to the current government complaining about the prosecution of his ally, Bolsonaro, who is- who allegedly staged a coup when he lost the last election. The President called it a witch hunt. This seems politically motivated and not about trade.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Well, two things. First of all, there’s a 10% tariff on Brazil because we have a surplus with them. That’s the reciprocal tariff. And then there’s a 40% tariff that the President has chosen to do under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, like we would do any sanction where we see geopolitical issues. The President has seen in Brazil, like he’s seen in other countries, a misuse of law, a misuse of democracy, what one might call lawfare. It is normal to use these tools for geopolitical issues. I mean, sanctions, we’ve been using them for years with all kinds of countries, including countries we like–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You view tariffs and sanctions as the same?
AMBASSADOR GREER: They’re just different in degree. I mean, tariffs are actually lighter than a sanction- a sanction, you’re cutting off a country from your financial system. You’re prohibiting trade with them. A tariff, you’re allowing trade. You’re just putting a fee on it. It’s a- it’s a lesser
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But now
AMBASSADOR GREER: step than sanctions–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –You- you have moved far away from from dealing with the deficit. Now–
AMBASSADOR GREER: –Well the deficit has a 10% tariff–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –you are talking about politically motivated trade actions here. I mean, the president sent a letter to President Lula, saying that tariffs are due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on free elections. He also, at the same time, sanctioned the Supreme Court justice overseeing Bolsonaro’s trial. Why are you trying to influence a criminal trial of an ally of President Trump?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So, so, so the president of United States, historically, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican, they have used IEEPA to impose sanctions for all kinds of geopolitical reasons in all kinds of countries. Sometimes it’s countrywide, sometimes it’s specific to certain, you know, individuals and often foreign leaders and foreign officials. So this is not, this is not way outside the market. If anything, the President could have gone farther in the type of sanction that was used. Instead he just used a tariff instead of cutting them off from the financial system altogether.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you were fully on board with it. It sounds like.
AMBASSADOR GREER: With the president of the United States? My boss? Of course I am–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But with intervening in criminal trials–
AMBASSADOR GREER: –when the President–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — through trade policy.
AMBASSADOR GREER: When the President sees lawfare going on, he’s going to impose a sanction through IEEPA that’s been delegated by Congress. That’s his job as the president. He’s elected to assess the Foreign Affairs situation in the United States and take appropriate action. There’s just no question that it’s both from a legal perspective, it’s completely permissible. And from a policy perspective, that’s what he’s elected to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When it comes to trade, the big deal that is pending out there is how is the president going to deal with China? There’s an August 12 deadline, and if that deadline is not met, you have said tariff levels could snap back to above 80%. Is that deadline going to slide?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So that’s what’s under discussion right now. I would say that our conversations with the Chinese have been very positive. We have discussions at the staff level, at my level, you know, President Xi and President Trump have had conversations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They said that it’s sliding. The Chinese said it’s sliding.
AMBASSADOR GREER: That’s something we’re working toward. That’s what we talked about–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re not there yet.
AMBASSADOR GREER: And so, so they want to do that. We’re working on some technical issues, and we’re talking to the president about it, you know, I think it’s going in a positive direction. You know, I’m not going to get ahead of the President, but, you know, I don’t think anyone wants to see those tariffs snap back to 84%.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Did you get any commitments in those two days of talks in Stockholm?
AMBASSADOR GREER: So yes, we did. Yes, we talked about, and I won’t go into detail, because they’re, you know, confidential conversations between two, two governments, but they really focused on rare earth magnets and minerals. You’ve probably heard some about that, that China has put a global control on the world, and so for the United States, we’re focused on making sure that the flow of magnets from from China to the United States and the- and the adjacent supply chain can flow as freely as it did before the control, and I’d say we’re about halfway there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Greer, thank you for your time today.
AMBASSADOR GREER: Thank you so much.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’ll be right back.
[END TRANSCRIPT]
One of the “Angry Eyebrow” swamp women.
Brennan talks in circles, constantly trying to set up the BUT, but, but, gotcha argument.
Nothing but an anti-President Trump magpie.
“Off with her head!”
She comes across as a miserable leftist. Oh nevermind she is one.
IBM in my area is considered manufacturing. They just laid off more Americans and those jobs went over seas. A plant that had 11,000+ employees with three shifts is down to one shift and no weekend work. The R&D for companies like Texaco and manufacturing like Keebler and the post office processing offices are never coming back to this area. Cal me a sooner or eyore-I don’t care. I don’t see it coming back
Strange that I couldn’t find a news article backing up your assertions. In fact, IBM itself states that it’s workforce is actually increasing and that the 8000 laid off were rehired.
IBM’s AI Gamble Backfires as Company is Forced to Rehire After 8,000 Job Cuts – Techish Kenya
My next door neighbor was laid off last month. I worked there in the 80’s when it 11,000+ people and 3shifts. I personally worked 2nd shift and had many friends on both first and third shift
Did you consider the fact they may be laying off in NY and hiring in lower tax states? I’m a NYer too. After the democrats took the Governership, every business in my area went under or left the area. The green energy scam took over one of the 2 last large private employers and it’s probably going under within the next couple of years. Communists suck the life out of everything and everybody! Biggest employer around here now is the Public schools, then county offices!
A lot of that off-shoring started in the late 90s and early 00’s, and was industry wide for Tech after the Dot-Com bubble burst. Board-level manufacturing, even if it was brought back to the US, would never employ the same numbers it used to because so much of it is automated now. I still would like to see it return though. It won’t be 11k + 3 shifts, but even a thousand jobs is better than zero.
On the AI ‘issues’, ironically, the thing that’s partially ‘saving’ us from AI-takeover en masse for now is that much of these systems use ‘learning’ input from the internet, and the internet is full of ridiculous, dopey ‘stuff’ these days… garbage-in, garbage-out. That will get tuned out over time though.
I think the real Achille’s heel for AI is the electrical draw it requires. The greenies aren’t going to like having power-plants built everywhere to enable this stuff. They’ll be fighting it in the not too distant future.
What does IBM still manufacture in the US?
Mainframe and quantum computers, semiconductor reasearch, AI and hybrid cloud offerings.
I help manage a lot of offshoring for my companies, and the pace is only picking up to transition jobs overseas. Folks in India etc. are very competent in the technical sense, in many cases even moreso than workers here. We can pay these workers the US equivalent of $30,000, which is a very high wage in India, versus $100k here. It is a no-brainer for global companies looking to save on their bottom line while still expecting high-quality work.
These types of jobs are not coming back here, despite what the Stable Genius keeps telling people. Hey, they are easily fooled.
Because the workers in India were always brilliant. It’s not possible that when the companies moved their stuff to India, they trained these employees to do the work, right? Could it be possible that when these same companies move back to the US, they’ll actually train US employees? I spent 20 years training people to do tasks and I can tell you that you just don’t open a factory and in come the workers, all ready to go. That isn’t how things work. The workers in India do the jobs they’ve been trained to do. It will work exactly the same way here.
Thank you.
My buddy, a Chevron suit with 20 years in IT security, recently trained his last employee (replacement)
He said he’s trained 50 or so in the past ten years.
He even moved to Houston a few years ago because he got an “or else” offer.
Laid off and severed out a couple months ago.
I guess he did a fine job?
Hes out 150k a year. He estimates the replacements make half that.
And yes, all of them were Indians.
Been doing tech-work for 30 years, I’ve never seen an offshored s/w project actually work and come in anywhere near the budget promised, with correct functionality, the offshore-advocates claim. Maybe in very non-technical ‘we need a data-transfer solution to merge bookkeeping databases with a new acquisition’, that’s about it. You don’t see highly technical projects get farmed out and succeed.
It’s almost always the opposite, and it’s not getting better.
The reason it’s not getting better is that for every Indian that’s actually reasonably good, there’s 20 who aren’t. I’ve had to work with them many times, the good ones tell me this directly… they get very depressed about their predicament, they get worked to death. The turnover at those jobsites is horrendous. The good ones get tired of carrying the weight, realize they are being taken advantage of, and they… presto… move to the West (not just the US, either) and get paid better and have a better quality of life.
When ‘a good one’ leaves that sweat-shop, whatever knowledge about your offshored project that they had leaves with them and the company inserts someone who has to start from ground-zero, and its unlikely to be another 1 of 20 that’s actually good (that’s just the odds). The project then starts to go off the rails further. Deadlines start to slip, corners get cut.
The Indians are exceptionally good at parsing up the requirements documentation to implement literally, and exactly, what is written in it. Very few PRD’s are as iron clad as the author(s) think. The s/w is delivered on-time but barely functions. The Indians offer a ‘deal’ to make it work for more $$.. and b/c the company that commissioned it is now ‘pot-committed’, they pay.
Offshoring is still a desperation move that looks good on ledgers for a few quarters or so before it implodes and by that time, the Execs that made that call either have moved on or have found a scapegoat to blame the failure on. It gets covered up like a big cat-box ‘deposit’, time and again.
Spot on James! As a IT technical lead for capital IT investment projects $5M-$50M managing onshore/offshore crews was a nightmare. After 15 years dealing with Indians I retired. Now BigCorp have realized this model does not work. The companies end up with products that don’t meet their requirements and end up costing millions more in maintenace. BoA and many others have moved their IT Departments with saturated onshore resources out of state to shed the onshore presence and now calling me to run their American IT department.
Sadly, it is a tale as old as time… or about 30yrs thus far, but still.
Aren’t you glad you retired?… I’m a few years from being able to yet… cannot wait!
No brainer to reshore and not pay Tariffs.
Marge getting her “snark” fix; thinking she’s going to school Ambassador Greer. 🤣🤣🤣
Interesting how Canada mirrors China…almost like a puppet and its master…
Chinida?
I’m not seeing that at all?
Why does anyone go on this show. She should just be ignored.
We like to see succinct, intellectual, & honest answers to her leftist writers (propaganda press) bovine excrement. I don’t watch her, just read about it here on this most prestigious site!
Exactly.
And my blood pressure still reaches stroke levels.
I almost snorted my 5% alcohol Truly Citrus through my nostrils after reading your commeent.
Try lower case Lee….That could be a great help on the stroke level – everything is connected.
A deliberate break from the post-WTO global trade consensus. What Greer laid out is a codified doctrine where tariffs serve four overlapping functions: Deficit correction, Reshoring incentive, Foreign policy leverage and Punitive sanction substitute.
When the U.S. engages countries one-on-one, it prevents them from forming unified blocs in response. There’s no multilateral forum to coordinate retaliation. Each country negotiates independently, under direct pressure, knowing that its treatment depends solely on its own behavior.
Each country received their valentines day letter from PDJT 💌. And now they can reply.
So simple I thought even a doofus like Brennan would get it. Alas, no.
After interviewing Jamieson, will she reach for the bottle of Jameson?
It’s there just off camera lol
She probably has to have Old Crow.
Rush was right again.
The show should be called Deface the Nation.
I can’t watch this woman. She is just a political hack parading around as a journalist.
Margaret Brennan never lets a silver lining pass her by, without stripping it from its big black cloud. What a friggin’ pessimist.
Yep. I turned her off when she didn’t quite “get” why tarriffs are
higher in Brazil due to the never ending persecution of Bolsinaro. ( WHAT doesn’t her NETWORK GET ABOUT THAT?)
I only watch her for as long as I can tolerate because Sundance posts her “interviews” with people who actually have important roles and are cogent about what their their work entails. So her interviews serve a purpose.
Margatet appears to read from her script only. Never diverges. as far as I can ken, with an original thought. That is her employer’s problem , not mine,
That is why it is so much easier to watch CNBC.
Canada needs to have their tariffs doubled due to the air pollution sent down to the mid west…
To cover those who ended up in the hospitals with breathing trouble related to the Canadian Wildfires.
I read somewhere on Al Gore’s internet, that Canada does nothing to put them out…sorry no links or verification…
https://www.wbez.org/weather/2025/07/31/chicago-worst-air-quality
Sounds like fake science and fake news.
It’s the National Park Service in the United States that refuses to put out forest fires because, they claim, that fires are a natural process!
Canada has a similar policy. Many of the wildfires are in remote areas with little to no road access. So if there is no immediate threat to life or property, they let the fire burn naturally and spend resources elsewhere.
https://www.greenmatters.com/nature/why-does-canada-have-so-many-wildfires
Seems like there isn’t much anybody can do about that. Thank you.
@Abbigirl. I agree whole lungfully. The Canadian wildfires, the Mauia fires, and the latest California fire are a tremendous burden on the lungs of humans and other mammals who inhale the smoke.
The leaves on the trees absorb so many toxic substances in the atmosphere. And when they go up in smoke all the toxins they have absorbed go up in flame and are inhaled wherever you live.
So many lung comprised humans in Maui and California. I hope they all fing healing.
find
Except most of the trees in Maui and LA did not burn – just the homes. Makes one wonder…
You got that right. Summers are too short in the NE and last year it was non stop air quality alerts. They were so bad, I woke up one morning wondering why I could hardly breathe. After spending the day outside the day before and mentioning my breathing problems, my daughter told me there had been an alert to stay inside with the windows closed. I started paying more attention and found out I should be inside for almost 2 weeks straight. No thanks to Canada. I quit checking breathing alerts after that.
Great news, now eliminate useless visa’s too and we really could eliminate the IRS. Foreign visa workers pay no income tax, so why should we?
I cannot stand this pompous piece of garbage woman.
She’s such a tool.
Sundance watches these idiots so we don’t have to.
Yeah, I just read the transcript so I don’t have to listen to the Democrat harpie.
I honestly had no idea Canada sells autos to the USA… I thought it was the other way around. Give me the names of a few Canadian auto brands?
Ford and GM moved some manufacturing to Canada from Detroit because electric power was much cheaper in Canada and to break the strangle hold of the UAW in order to lower costs of cars. Canada is just helping to make America cars. They don’t have any brands of their own.
my 1985 chev trk was made in canada
The Lexus SUV’S are made in Canada. Ottawa. My 2025 Lexus RX 350Hybrid was made in Canada. So was my Chevrolet SUV and my Ford Truck.
My 2005 Toyata Prius was made in Japan. I don’t speak Japanese, but they sure made a good car. I have over 330,000 miles on it. Had to replace the main battery last year, which was about $5k, which was a lot better than getting a car with so many bells and whistles that I don’t know how a person drives them.
The only thing I wish my Prius had was hand cranked roll down windows. Just in case I went off a bridge and landed in the water. That was just a nightmare I used to have.
Those autos are American brand cars from The Detroit automakers manufactured in Canada. (Just like Mexico)
If Main Street (the middle class) is going to be restored, doesn’t that automatically mean that Market Street (the %1 corporatist) will have to make less?
Big corporate profits and their CEOs big salaries will have to be sacrificed for better wages for workers.
If that happens, the overpriced stock market will have to make a big correction.
Wretched woman.
Her stupidity on Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs really makes her come across like a dumb old dog with a favorite bone.
I bounced around between Welker and Brennan this morning for as long as I could stand it. They both had the conservative interviews first, either to get the hard stuff out of the way, or to distort everything said to their standard useful idiot panelists later on. It’s funny, ’til it’s not.
funny how biden’s administration skated by with ZERO scrutiny by these communist media frauds…
Just amazing. These people cannot applaud even one deal that is good for America and its people.
Thank you, Sundance!
Can’t stand her! Only made it halfway through!
90% of Canada’s gov’t pension plan is invested in China. President Trump knows that.
Wow, They are a vassal state.
During Trump’s first term we found out all US military pensions were invested in China. He was trying to course correct that. I never heard the end result.
In ever knew JAMIESON GREER.
I like him very much.
Margaret, you ignorant slut!
Rank Countr Trade Deficit Total Trade ($B) US Exports ($B) US Imports ($B)
1 Mexico (172) 840 334 506
2 Canada (63) 762 349 413
3 China (295) 582 144 439
4 Germany (85) 236 76 160
5 Japan (69) 228 80 148
Canada 2nd largest trading partner, but still a 63 billion dollar trade deficit
All of them have a trading deficit (2024), except Brazil, with a small 7b surplus.
Wow! She is damn sharp. Glad she is on our side. I would be scared to date her.
I hope President Trump sends us stimulus checks since I get no stimulus from my wife anymore. If you get my drift.
Let her know she can tariff you, and you can leave it on the night stand.
But seriously, is this Margaret Brennan related to the ogre from the IC?
And more seriously, raising the automatic deductions for under 100k sounds better to me than more stimmy checks.
Thats part of what got us into this recent inflationary period. Tax deductions can diffuse those extra dollars, rather than
getting”free money”. Same thing but easier to manage the inflationary effect.
Harder to spend a tax deduction on fentanyl.
She’s such a nasty witch! I have no idea how his voice never wavered, I wanted to reach inside the video and slap her myself! Her comments on “poor Canada” got me going and lead him to explain the Presidential powers perfectly, then she launched into Brazil. Trump and geopolitical bs about interfering in a judges case and elections. Tariffs oh my! She tried to make it out to be exactly what the Clinton, Obama, CIA, FBI etc..did to Trump & others…No comparison in punishment. Obvious, shrewd and disgusting piece of work she is! Her heart is as black as her soul.
Maybe I’m the last to realize this, but… these tarrif arrangements are going to heavily incentivize foreign money contributions to opponents of the policy.
Without stringent enforcement of election laws on foreign contributions, UniParty candidates who promise to help specific countries with their tarrif burdens are going to attract lots of money.
She is as swarmy as hell. Jamieson Greer is thoughtful, smart and impressive as hell dealing with such as her.
Bravo, Ambassador Greer! Very well done.
Margaret Brennan is just a arrogant, snobbish white bitch, she acts like she’s always smarter than the people she’s interviewing. It’s very, very annoying to watch her body language and facial expressions ,when she does that it seems to me like she’s not satisfied with their answers.
A CCP commitment has the same value as Brennan’s claim to be a journalist.