JD Vance was roundly mocked online over a trip to the supermarket where he bemoaned the steep price of eggs — and botched the photo opp.
The Republican vice presidential nominee stopped by a supermarket in Reading, Pennsylvania, with his sons over the weekend to illustrate how grocery prices have been impacted by “Kamala Harris’s policies” when he claimed a dozen eggs cost $4.
The problem? When footage of the visit emerged, Vance was quickly called out by viewers who spotted the price tag of a dozen eggs behind him was actually $2.99.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
This story is absolutely trash. Here’s a link to the video I presume this trash article is referring to https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1837581418329002260 You can see, like every grocery store I’ve ever been to, a number of different prices for eggs, including at least three for $4.99 and one for $3.99.
EDIT: Here’s the photo op since some people prefer to comment on headlines rather than source material.
The average price of visible price tags is $4.10. Though I still argue that the literal price tag on these eggs is far from the relevant point of his words. Arguing over the average value in the background of an image is wholly irrelevant to a politician making claims about policy.
The take away from this video shouldn’t be hurdur the tag says $2.99 but the discussion of his claim about “Kamala Harris’ inflationary policies” and “because she cast a deciding vote on the Inflation Explosion Act”. At least, that’s what a reputably news organization would give a shit about discussing.
This article from PBS quotes Alex Arnon, an economic and budget analyst for the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, “We can say with pretty strong confidence that it was mostly other factors that have brought inflation down,’’ he said. “The IRA has just not been a significant factor.’’
This bit from Wiki says “the benefits of the Act will likely not be felt before the 2024 election, but that the Act is a great long-term strategy to decouple from volatile energy markets that drive inflation and that the Act will reduce inflation over the medium to long-term.”
The Inflation Reduction Act actually had very little to do with inflation or the price of eggs. The price of eggs has been mostly dictated by disease and the need to slaughter millions of birds.
Moreover, I understand the (under/misinformed) complaint people have about rising egg prices as it pertains to kitchen table economics. However, from the perspective of what we’re putting into our bodies and paying people a fair wage to do honest work, we should be complaining that eggs are too cheap.
Of all things, it continues to shock me how inexpensive eggs are. I’ve been paying $5-$7 for a dozen eggs from local producers for about ten years. They’re noticeably more delicious, it’s less impactful to the environment, the chickens are far less prone to disease, I assume the chickens are healthier and have a better diet, my dollars go towards a local economy not some billion dollar corporation on the other side of the country.
Thank you. I can’t get certified humane eggs for less than $4, and I live in a low-cost-of-living area. I’m willing to pay more for them.
This is supposed to be a man that could be president and he can’t just double check something like the price of the eggs he’s standing next to when he’s doing a photo op. Literally all he had to do was look and he didn’t have that level of attention to what was happening around him.
So I think that should be a takeaway.
How did you get to that part while ignoring the preceding sentence?
Every store has eggs tagged at different prices depending on what kind they are. If you look quickly and see more signs that start with $4 than $2, would you say eggs are $2.99 or “around $4”?
I’m really amazed at the ignorance, be it willful or not, all Americans are capable of.
I mean… all you had to do was look.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that he didn’t bother checking the prices around him in his own photo op, showing a complete lack of attention to his surroundings.
If you want to talk about high gas prices, don’t do it standing in front of a gas station sign with significantly lower-than-average prices unless you’re going to bring that fact up.
I edited my comment with an image of the source since you didn’t care to look for yourself.
The answer to your question is $2.99.
When you say “cars are costing three million dollars this year” and you’re standing by both a Lamborghini and a Kia, you look like a fool.
Evidence has been presented to you which you are ignoring for the sake of your own narrative. You are so obsessed with your political agenda that you can not admit that your “opponent” might be right for once. The average price of the eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10. Vances’ statement about the price of eggs is 100% accurate.
Regardless, the story is not about the price of eggs. The story is about a political candidate making remarks about policy which may or may not have impacted the price of eggs and other consumer goods. These specific remarks are a mixed bag as the price of eggs are impacted more by disease and the price of other goods were not impacted by the Inflation Reduction Act.
I don’t understand how people are so blinded by their politics that they twist reality to turn the truth into fiction. You are disseminating “fake news” and deepening the divide between us.
This is exactly what’s wrong with us. When one side makes a claim that the other side sees very clearly to be false then we attack each other over something (a meme) that’s whole irrelevant to our lives. We should be discussing inflation. Because clearly, not enough people have a clue about how it works. We should be discussing this candidates claim that an Act of Congress caused the price of consumer goods to increase. Is that true or is it not? What is it that this administration has actually done?
This is what should guide us at the polls and in our political discourse, not if a quick glance at the price of eggs in one store in one part of one state is accurate to the dollar or not.
Where did he talk about averages? This is what he said:
If he wanted to talk about averages, as the article says:
So either way he was being dishonest. Sorry you don’t care for that, but he still was.
Right there.
So, now you want to ignore the signs behind him and use statistics for the country?
Just stop. You are not contributing to any valuable discourse.