# Post ts_117343152138358246

- Post ID: `ts_117343152138358246`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-09-27T13:06:46.408Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246/analysis

## Post text

_No text of its own. The post is its media, below._

## What the media says

**Video transcript** (18:33), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his:

> Lots of talk about affordability, or is there? I don't even hear a lot of talk about it anymore, but still, there's a lot of grumbling about it on the internet, there's a lot of people talking about it. And one of the things they're saying is, if you understood the mindset of young people, you would understand what the problem is. They're leaving Trump by the zillions, and they expect us to do something to help them. And so you have some people proposing sort of socialism-like. These are from so-called conservatives who become pseudo-conservers. The populists, of course, are all over this, because in many ways, they're the socialists. And so more government and more spending, despite the $40 trillion debt going to $50 trillion, and despite, at some point, the need to do something about Social Security and Medicare, Social Security in six years, say the trustees, is going to lose money and go broke, and in seven years, followed by Medicare. So Washington proposes what Washington's best at, spending more debt, redistribution of wealth, stealing from you and the private sector. So let's get into this. I want the Democrats, specifically, to answer a few questions, and the media hosts, particularly on these Sunday network magazine shows or news shows, maybe they'll try asking some actual questions when they have Democrat Party guests. Please specifically spell out your affordability agenda. You raised gasoline prices when Biden was president. How will you lower them when you raised them last time? You raised food prices when Biden was president. How will you lower them when you raised them last time? You raised inflation when Biden was president. How will you lower it when you raised it last time? You raised the cost of living for average Americans. How will you lower it when you raised it last time? You raised healthcare costs when Obama was president by passing Obamacare, not a single Republican voted for that. How will you lower it when you raised it under Obama by expanding it and calling it Medicare for all? Well, they don't have any answers, you know, they'll just say tax billionaires or something like that. But I want to take a little bit of a deeper dive here and talk some turkey with you. People talk about in the 1950s and '60s, people could afford a home, they could afford a car, they had modest incomes, not anymore, not anymore. We need to get back to that. So I looked, in the 1950s and '60s, young adults in their early 20s and 30s, well, they had lower average incomes, more family-based households and less access to credit. This meant that while they might have spent a larger share of income on certain categories, like cars or housing, the absolute dollar amounts that they spent were generally lower than today's young adults in their 30s and 40s. Young adults in the 1950s and '60s by today's age had lower total spending than today's young adults in their 30s and 40s due to lower incomes in different economic conditions. Core spending takes up the greatest share of income for the youngest and oldest generations. Core spending, that trend can be explained in part due to changes in income. Peak earning occurs in middle age, obviously not when you're just starting out and obviously not when you're retired or retiring. Even in the dollar value of household spending, that goes up as someone approaches middle age. The increase in household income on average outpaces the increase in spending. So when you're really kicking into your career or your business or whatever it is you're doing. Medical expenses are the smallest percentage of budgets for the youngest adult generation. So they're paying lower than any other generation when it comes to medical expenses. Young adults today are much more likely than their counterparts 30 years ago to be college graduates. But that comes with a cost. College tuition is expensive. Most students wanna live away from home and go to schools away from home. So in addition to tuition, you have room and board on top of tuition. That said, those with college degrees over the course of their lifetime, they earn significantly more than those without. Although for many at the start of their career, they have college loan debt and perhaps other debt they've acquired, such as cars and credit cards for eating out or vacations that put great pressure on their incomes. Again, when they're starting out, their incomes are those of junior employees. Young women have made greater gains at attending college than young men. From 1993 to 2023, the share of young women, ages 25 to 34, with at least a four-year college degree rose from 23 to 47%. And among young men, the increase was smaller, 24 to 38%. Therefore, the debt spending income scenario can be even more widespread among young women and especially among single women. So in other words, much of this has nothing to do with government, nothing to even do with government policies. These are lifestyle decisions. In other words, the benefit for many young people in going to college doesn't actually come until several years or even a decade or more after they graduate. They pay down both student debt and other expenses they've incurred. So in the long run, the degree is typically beneficial. In the short run, depending on lifestyle decisions and spending habits, it can create more financial difficulty. The 1950s and '60s, fewer Americans went to college. Young people started work early. They didn't make big purchases requiring lots of debt, no student loans, not new cars. They lived more modestly in the types of homes and vehicles they might buy. They ate home at home more often than going out to restaurants. They didn't travel as much, so they didn't use airlines. They didn't go to hotels and that sort of thing. Maybe they drive for a three-day vacation or something like that. Family expectations were different. In limited consumer goods were available. Goods like sugar and meat were still rationed in the early 1950s, and refrigerators were a luxury for some households. Colored TV didn't even exist for most households until starting in the early '60s and beyond. Leisure was often local and low cost. Kids played outside, not a whole bunch of computers and video games. Clothing was practical and modest. While the 1950s and '60s saw economic growth, many young people's lives were marked by modest living. And so some young people had brought these circumstances onto themselves. It's not the system, it's not capitalism. It's not even government. We have gotten so good at producing so many consumer products, leisure products, and so forth and so on, that people wanna partake of them. They wanna acquire them. But sometimes they outpace their income, particularly when they're young people, particularly if they go to college, particularly if they take out student loans, and they live away from home with tuition and board. And all those expenses pile up. It's a bigger percentage of young people than 30, 40, 50 years ago. And I wanna talk about gas prices. We're told that a gallon of gasoline, if we can get the price of gasoline down, we Republicans will win the midterm elections. Gas prices may feel like a record in 2026, but adjusted for inflation, they are not, writes Dr. Randall Olson. We're told gas is the most expensive it has been in years. The war headlines are everywhere. And he says the record gas prices, it's back in everyone's feed. The pump number stings, but adjust for inflation and the record evaporates. US gas costs more in 1981 than it does today. More in 2008 than it does today. Again, inflation adjusted. More in 2022 under Biden than it does today. The number on the pump is near an all-time high. What a gallon actually costs you in real money is nowhere near an all-time high. 2008 is still the one to beat, he writes. The real all-time high was June 2008 at $6.20 a gallon in today's money. 1981 was worse too. 1981 held the record before 2008, took it. March 1981, regular gas hit, again, inflation adjusted. Regular gas, $5.32 a gallon in today's dollars. Oh yes. Even in 2022, a few years back, the most recent peak is the one people remember. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the national average set an all-time record just above $5 a gallon in June 2022. That was the highest price ever at the pump in plain dollars adjusted for inflation. It works out to about $5.50 for a gallon of regular gasoline still above spring 2026 and still short of 2008. And if you live in California, my son, our son took a picture of the prices at the pump. They are unbelievable. You got 72 cents a gallon sales tax in California, the highest in the nation by far. Other expenses that they add on to gasoline and oil out there, it is nuts. And they want you to blame Trump and they want you to blame the Iran war and on and on and on. No, I've said it before and let me underscore it again. The prices for gasoline, the prices for everything when it comes to energy is higher due to what we call Democrats. What about housing prices? As of June 2026, the last information that is comparative, the inflation adjusted US home price index is 170.2 up from 169 in May of this year. But that's 3.8% below the highest May 2022. That was the record 176.9. This is the number they use to compare income to housing prices. So the highest it's been was in May 2022, 3.8% higher than it is today. That means that when stripped of inflation housing prices, they're still near an all time high. And by the way, for investors, they like that. For first time buyers, they obviously don't, but it's not at the peak that it was under Biden in 2022. I just told you that gasoline at its peak was higher in the 1980s and highest under Joe Biden. I just told you that housing prices were highest, highest under Joe Biden. But you don't hear this. You don't hear it anywhere really. The two highest points were 2006, the housing bubble and 2022, the post pandemic surge. Now there's no accounting for what Democrats do in these blue states and these blue metropolitan areas. Take Mondami, the Marxist Islamist. Oh yes, socialism he supports. Well, let's take rent control. What does rent control do? Let's think for a second. They lock in rent prices back to a given year or time. Now people who are renting and are older, they love it. They love it because they're gonna have a fixed rental price whether the landlord likes it or not, whether his or her expenses go up or not, whether utility prices and taxes go up or not, they don't care. It's just wonderland. We love socialism, rent control. But what does that do? It limits the number of units. You have to be nuts to be a developer and go in and say, you know what, I'm gonna build a whole bunch of new rental properties just so I can have rent control at some point. No, because if a government can put in rent control today it can put it in tomorrow. That's not Trump's fault. That's not Israel's fault. That's Mondami's fault. That's the fault of the socialists who drive up the cost of everything. And not only is affordability an issue, but availability is an issue. Okay, I wanna address another topic before we go to our guests and that is Iran. I wanna be very blunt about this. This is not a war between the United States and Iran or the United States and Israel versus Iran. This is a civilizational war. You see, we don't quite understand the enemy. We can't seem to get our heads around it. I'm afraid some of our generals can't, some of our advisors can't. This is a civilizational war, certainly from the perspective of the enemy. Khomeini in 1979, he was not interested merely in taking over a nation state, a country. He is spreading an ideology. He is spreading Islam. He seeks to conquer the West. He seeks to conquer obviously an entire Middle East. He and his followers. Israel is a big problem to that agenda because the Jews don't intend to go easily. In fact, they don't intend to go at all. They have a serious military, one of the most powerful on the face of the earth and certainly one of the most experienced on the face of the earth because they're facing enemies, they're surrounded day in and day out. We are war hardened too, but not in the same way. Not in the same way. My concern is this. We've heard from generals talking about off-ramps. We've heard generals say that we have limited munitions, whether they've said it anonymously or however, same with advisors who said the same thing. They're leaking to the media. We had an MOU that was never going to work. The enemy, you know, they have an agreement and two minutes later they violate it. So we're constantly looking for ways to negotiate our way out of this. You wanna end this war? I will give you my best thought on this. I want us to win. I want the administration to succeed. I want my friend, President Trump, to be the greatest president, including wartime president in American history. And what he's done so far is unparalleled. Seven prior presidents, you know, chose to do next to nothing. Some of them even subsidized the enemy. Some of them subsidized their nuclear program. The fact is that this president had to act, did act. He couldn't wait. The enemy told his envoy that we could make 11 nuclear bombs in 10 days. Our intelligence said we needed to act and it was imminent. But it is a civilizational war. You can't contain the enemy no matter what's negotiated if it's ever negotiated. The enemy will not comply. The enemy will not agree to anything. The enemy views us as a bump in the road. Whether it's the first tier, the second tier, the third tier, or the 10th tier of this regime. If we want to defeat this enemy, we've got to use all that's available to us to destroy it. That includes arming the Iranian people, as I've said for half a year, as was the Reagan doctrine. Now there may be generals and advisors telling the commander in chief, "No, the risk averse and so forth and so on." There is no effective off-ramp. Arming those people with the help of the Israelis, who we've sidelined, with the help of Mossad, working with the CIA, will make a huge, huge difference as it has in the recent past in other countries, among other things. There is no reason Karg Island is off the table in some of these other infrastructure facilities. I don't care what the Arabs say, ignore them. I don't care what Erdogan says, ignore him. This is a civilizational war that we must win. It is a righteous war. We have a courageous president. I don't think we'll see another one like him. It's now or never.

## Media

- video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/117/343/140/307/077/412/original/67ec7fab56da6a04.mp4

## Engagement

- Likes: 7,803
- Reposts: 1,972
- Replies: 303
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-10-04T13:01:38.886Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-09-27T13:41:01.070Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

A caption-free video repost on a Sunday morning, amplifying a talk-radio monologue whose opening move is to deny the premise of the affordability debate: "Lots of talk about affordability, or is there? ... there's a lot of grumbling about it on the internet." Published alongside two same-morning boasts ("BEST FINANCIAL NUMBERS EVER," "More people working ... than at any point in the History of our Country"), it supplies the argumentative body those assertions lack — in a voice that is not his, so none of the numbers attach to him.

Three collisions make the selection notable. The clip condemns transfers as "stealing from you and the private sector" a day after he promised "A 5000 Dollar Dividend to all adults if Republicans WIN!" It says something must be done about entitlements ("Social Security in six years ... is going to lose money and go broke"), against a decade of pledges not to touch them. And it attacks his own coalition's populists as "in many ways ... the socialists."

It also carries an unflattering line he did not have to publish — "They're leaving Trump by the zillions, and they expect us to do something to help them" — postable only because the frame turns the defection into an indictment of the defectors.

Defenses: denial of the condition, blame displaced onto administrations out of power via five repetitions of "you raised them last time," and a generational-spending detour that answers a price complaint with spending data. No target, no mobilization; the escalation is epistemic.

## A clip that tells the audience the squeeze isn't real

The post carries no words of his own — a single video, and the video is one host's monologue. The opening move is the load-bearing one: *"Lots of talk about affordability, or is there? I don't even hear a lot of talk about it anymore, but still, there's a lot of grumbling about it on the internet."* Affordability is demoted from a condition to a noise complaint. What follows is a statistical argument that young adults are not worse off — *"the absolute dollar amounts that they spent were generally lower than today's young adults"*, *"Medical expenses are the smallest percentage of budgets for the youngest adult generation"* — which answers a claim about prices with a claim about spending levels, two different things.

Putting this in front of the audience on a Sunday morning does specific work. Two posts earlier the same day insist *"We have the BEST FINANCIAL NUMBERS EVER, and the FAKE NEWS MEDIA refuses to report them"* and *"More people working in the United States right now than at any point in the History of our Country."* The clip supplies what those bare assertions lack: a long, data-textured script for treating complaints about cost of living as a perception problem belonging to the complainer. That is the manipulation worth naming — not a disputed number, but an instruction to distrust one's own household budget.

## The blame is pointed at administrations that ended

The monologue's rhetorical spine is five repetitions of one frame: *"You raised gasoline prices when Biden was president. How will you lower them when you raised them last time?"*, then food prices, then inflation, then cost of living, then healthcare *"when Obama was president."* Prices in late 2026 are assigned to officeholders out of power. Amplifying it is displacement performed at one remove — he does not have to write the attribution himself, and the host closes the loop for him with *"they don't have any answers, you know, they'll just say tax billionaires or something like that"*, disposing of the reply before it is given.

## What the clip says that he usually does not

Three things in this selection cut against his own recent output, and they are the reason the post is worth logging rather than filing as routine amplification.

First, the host treats new spending as the enemy: *"more government and more spending, despite the $40 trillion debt going to $50 trillion"*, *"Washington proposes what Washington's best at, spending more debt, redistribution of wealth, stealing from you."* Yesterday he posted *"A 5000 Dollar Dividend to all adults if Republicans WIN!"* — a direct cash transfer, which is the thing the clip calls stealing. He has published the argument against his own proposal without appearing to register the collision.

Second, the clip walks toward entitlements: *"the need to do something about Social Security and Medicare, Social Security in six years, say the trustees, is going to lose money and go broke."* His standing position for a decade has been that he alone would not touch them. Handing an audience a clip that says something must be done there is off that script.

Third, the monologue attacks inside the coalition — *"these are from so-called conservatives who become pseudo-conserv[ative]s. The populists, of course, are all over this, because in many ways, they're the socialists."* He has spent years courting exactly that faction. Publishing a clip that calls them socialists is a factional endorsement, not a partisan one.

## "Leaving Trump by the zillions"

The clip contains a sentence about him that he did not have to publish: *"They're leaving Trump by the zillions, and they expect us to do something to help them."* He normally excises unfavorable numbers rather than carrying them; the same morning he claimed media suppression of good ones. What makes it postable is the frame it arrives inside — the defection is recited as the pretext used by people demanding handouts, so an admission of lost young support converts into a rebuke of the people who left. The transaction is legible: he tolerates an unflattering fact when the surrounding argument makes the defectors the ones at fault.

The posture across the clip is order-defender — fiscal restraint, the private sector, trustees' projections — while the grievance machinery underneath (Democrats ruined it, media won't ask, nobody has answers) is the same as always. The defenses on display are denial of the condition, blame redirected to prior administrations, and a long rationalizing detour through generational spending shares that never reaches the question of what a given basket now costs.

## Posting circumstances

13:06 UTC is 9:06 a.m. Eastern on a Sunday, with the clip itself addressing *"these Sunday network magazine shows"* — consistent with his long-documented habit of pushing out what is on screen in the morning hours. Nothing here is his own language, so his sentence construction, spelling and word retrieval are simply absent from the record; the monologue's fluency and its one likely transcription slip (*"pseudo-conservers"*) belong to the host. Selection is the only behavior with a subject attached, and timing is the only evidence bearing on who made it.

No target is named for harm, and the aggression stays inside argument — questions posed to Democrats, epithets aimed at a rival faction. What escalates here is epistemic, not physical: an audience told that the cost of living they experience is internet grumbling.

## Authorship Analysis

**Uncertain** (score: 60%)

### Indicators

- 9:06 a.m. Eastern on a Sunday, inside his documented morning television-reaction window
- clip explicitly addresses "these Sunday network magazine shows or news shows," consistent with real-time reaction to Sunday-morning programming
- posted into a same-morning run of two first-person economic boasts signed "President DJT," a sequence he personally drives
- no caption, no framing, no professional formatting — nothing an aide would normally add to an amplified segment
- clip includes an unflattering line about him ("They're leaving Trump by the zillions"), which staff amplification tends to avoid

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 60%
- Agreeableness: 20%
- Conscientiousness: 35%
- Neuroticism: 45%
- Openness: 30%

Strongest facet: low tender-mindedness

**Motives:**
- Agency: 70%
- Communion: 15%

Primary drive: power

### Narrative

- **Role:** steward of an economy he says is being slandered, with the damage traced to his predecessors
- **Arc:** contamination
- **Contrasting:** Democrats held responsible for present prices, plus "pseudo-conserv[ative]s" and populists inside his own coalition

**Identity Claims:**
- the economy under him is the best on record and only media suppression hides it
- hardship talk is manufactured, not measured
- the people demanding help are the ones who left

### State

**Mixed State**

**Trigger:** Preemptive Attack — Criticism (sustained public complaint about cost of living, and the young-voter defection the clip itself names)

Sentiment: -0.35

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 45%
- Antisocial: 30%
- Paranoid: 35%
- Sadism: 10%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- denial (pathological)
- displacement (neurotic)
- rationalization (neurotic)
- splitting (immature)
- projection (immature)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 0%

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- lets a third-party host carry an argument he never signs, so the claims reach his audience without attaching to him
- supplies followers with a scripted rebuttal to use when confronted about prices ("How will you lower them when you raised them last time?")
- pre-answers the opposition so the audience never hears a real reply: "they don't have any answers ... they'll just say tax billionaires"

## Danger Assessment

**NONE**

### Gaslighting

- tells an audience that its experience of rising costs is "grumbling ... on the internet" rather than a condition
- offers generational spending-share data as proof that young adults are not worse off, sidestepping price levels entirely
- assigns 2026 prices to Biden and Obama-era policy without accounting for the intervening years
- adjacent same-morning post frames contrary reporting as suppression: "the FAKE NEWS MEDIA refuses to report them"

## Tags

- uncaptioned video amplification (90%)
- affordability denial (85%)
- retroactive blame displacement (80%)
- contradicts own dividend promise (75%)
- populist wing attacked by proxy (60%)
- young-voter defection acknowledged (55%)
- perception attacked over conditions (70%)
- entitlement insolvency framing (50%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**An AI-rendered Xi summit, gold cursive "Oval Office" sign and all, published in among the real photographs**

Twenty-five posts on Sunday, and only three carried words he wrote himself. Two were boasts about jobs and financial numbers with no actual figures attached; the third grumbled that the Supreme Court had blocked Missouri's congressional map for a third time, without naming a single justice or mentioning that the ruling was unanimous. Everything else was wordless — mostly a bulk re-run of photographs from Xi Jinping's White House visit three days earlier, including an AI-generated version of the scene complete with a gold "Oval Office" sign and a ceremonial guard in a uniform no U.S. service wears. One captionless map circled the Strait of Hormuz and labeled it "TRUMP STRAIT." There was no anger anywhere in the day, and he appears to have slept normally: nothing posted between Saturday night and mid-morning.

Full digest for 2026-09-27: https://trump.fm/date/2026-09-27/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, September 27).  [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "" Truth Social, 27 Sep. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "," Truth Social, September 27, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_117343152138358246
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_117343152138358246
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_117343152138358246
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-09-27
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117343152138358246.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._