the u.s. is good, best in the world, but slowing a little bit. europe is flat to down. china is definitely slowing down but still growing. that is a very mixed message overall. the second thing is all this trade and tariff stuff going on. tariffs are bad for the global economy but we don t know if there is going to be a deal with china or not. that is a problem so the market is mixed up about that. finally, the federal reserve, ali. remember they re in charge of short-term interest rates. they ve been trying to keep rates low but there is disagreement in the fed right now about how much they should keep lowering interest rates. we still have the best deals in the world. the highest yields in the world but some people at the fed say we don t really need to keep cutting rates. others say, no, no. we should do it. an insurance cut. lower rates. just in case things start slowing down. you see how difficult it is to figure things out right now. yeah. all right. a lot of my viewers are not
rest of the 300 billion in chinese goods. he has backed away from that rhetoric. i ve been reporting for a while they are likely to do this because they know it would be terrible for markets and the economy. i think status quo with china from here through the election is fine for him. if he could cut some great deal where the chinese, you know, agree not to steal our intellectual property, do all these sweeping things he wants, great. celebrate. awesome. they re not going to get that. the last thing he wants is full on trade war with china between now and the election. can t have it. speaking of sand bagging how about our own economy or at least the fed? the president just this morning saying, greatest economy ever, touting low unemployment, talking about the booming stock market. right now, central bank officials are meeting and speaking about cutting rates. is the president responsible for this? i mean, the fact that he says it s the greatest economy we ve ever had, 2.1% growth i
yes. right now, 50/50. we vote, only 52 republicans in the senate. democrats put out a statement last week, chuck schumer, they re not much interested in cutting rates. that enmoos it means likely a republican-only. numbers aren t very positive. they re numbers. hooray for america. thanks very much for coming on. thanks, wolf. coming up the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu facing serious allegations of corruption and now one of his top staffers will testify against him. dramatic developments unfolding in jerusalem. we ll go there live, right after a quick break. ng eye gel with hyaluronic acid born to outperform the #1. prestige eye cream for better hydration. and your best look yet. olay eyes collection. ageless.
you. one page, light on details, and one senior gop aide says it s not even close to a tax reform. the question is, everyone knows the tax code needs to be reformed. but is all of this sort of a drive to get something accomplished within this first 100-day mark? well, it s important to note it s tax reform. i m told last week there was a debate about whether the strategy ought to be to pursue reform or just pursue cutting rates. it s pretty clear when you look at this plan, that the vast majority of it is just cutting rates and cutting the effective tax rate for low and middle income people. but especially for high income people and corporations. and that is reflective of a desire among the president to just keep things as simple as possible. he does not like things like the border adjustment tax, which
together with sensible and smart targeted cuts in the out years and get it all done. all right well i want to thank the congressman, go on. what dot republicans say to you, joy, frame theed the question well a minute ago. when you say to them, mitt romney and you and all the other republicans were for closing loopholes, just last fall during the presidential campaign. and now you re saying it s an unconscionable tax increase to do what you just supported a few months ago? what s their answer to that? they ve always taken the position that you can t eliminate one special tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. you can only do it for cutting rates somewhere else, which goes to your point, jonathan, which is their real interest here, is not reducing the deficit or debt. if that was their primary objective, why would you oppose closing a tax break for hedge fund managers or big oil companies in order to reduce the deficit? that s not their priority. grover norquist told us