MS NOW⁠95%

‘No basis in reality’: Steve Rattner fact-checks Trump on inflation, affordability⁠0%

By Allison Detzel⁠85%

12/5/2025, 12:58:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Overconfidence Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 29.4% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 796 faulty-reasoning hits from 394 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

"Morning Joe" economic analyst Steve Rattner broke out his charts on Friday to fact-check Donald Trump's false claims about the economy, which he said have "no basis in reality." 
During a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Trump said he had inherited the "worst inflation in history" but had since stopped it "in its tracks." 
As Rattner showed, citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Trump did not inherit the worst economy in history. 
Instead, the U.S. experienced its worst inflation in the 1970s, during the oil embargo. 
As to the president's claim that his administration has stopped inflation "in its tracks," the former Treasury official said the data showed otherwise. 
When Trump took office, inflation was about 3%. 
While inflation did decrease early in the administration, Rattner said it then "went right back up." 
"Inflation, in fact, has not decreased under Trump, and it's certainly not stopped in its tracks," he added. 
The "Morning Joe" economic analyst moved on to the president's false claims about affordability. 
"You heard him say that it's a 'con job' by the Democrats," he said. 
"That is certainly contrary to what everybody thinks, including most Republicans." 
Rattner highlighted that wage growth among lower-income Americans has decreased since Trump took office. 
"So the idea that when you see people lose this much purchasing power over this long a period of time, that we don't have an affordability crisis is completely fictitious," he said. 
The former Treasury official then took Trump to task over his claim at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting that his administration had reduced drug prices by as much as 900%. 
"Most of us took sixth-grade and seventh-grade math. 
He says we're going to reduce drug prices by these huge numbers. 
Let's just do basic math here: If you have a $60 drug and you get a 50% price cut in that drug, it costs $30. 
If you have a $60 drug, and they cut the price by 100%, it's free, right?" 
Rattner explained. 
"When those go down by 200%, what happens? 
They give you the drug for free? 
They pay you $60 to take the drug?" 
Rattner asked. 
"Obviously, the idea that drug prices can go down by these amounts is ridiculous. 
The price of something simply cannot go down by more than 100%." 
You can watch Rattner's full analysis in the clip at the top of the page. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Allison Detzel: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.1%This article: 6.3%Allison Detzel: 5.4%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 29.4%Allison Detzel: 11.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias29.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 30.4%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 4.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 8.1%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 25.6%Allison Detzel: 28.4%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias25.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 7.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.6%This article: 19.8%Allison Detzel: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 6.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Allison Detzel: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.1%Allison Detzel: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Allison Detzel: 4.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem5.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 5.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 10.9%Allison Detzel: 6.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 9.1%Allison Detzel: 23.1%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion9.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.8%Allison Detzel: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 10.9%Allison Detzel: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question10.9%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.1%Allison Detzel: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma8.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.6%Allison Detzel: 12.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization21.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity9.6%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.1%Allison Detzel: 4.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man7.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

394 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.