Great. You named once about a time it went down under Dems in the house immediately following a massive military operation. But it counts. And then immediately started talking about presidents again.
Now. Who controlled the house in liberals favored times they point to lowering the deficit. In 1998 and 2012? You know. “Clinton’s surplus” and “Obama slashing the deficit”. Both of whom had to be under threat to do it?
You totally ignored the fact that under a completely GOP-controlled government, or when there was a GOP President, deficits NEVER went down.
You need a Dem President before you see deficits go down.
Because that’s design. Deficits balloon way more because of tax cuts than they do spending increases. This is simply a fact.
And the GOP pushes for tax cuts…without fail.
You said yourself the Deficit was 226 billion in 1995.
Is where it’s at now compared to then because of tax cuts or spending increases?
We had two massive tax cuts under W and under Trump.
We did also have two national emergencies.
You tell me.
Tax cuts drive the deficit more than spending increases, save in extraordinary circumstances…because tax cuts represent a permanent loss in government revenue.
The pattern is perfectly clear. If the GOP is in charge, deficits go up.
By…design.
The average tax rate across all filers in 1995 was 14.4%
The average rate in 2017, which is the most recent google showed me quickly even though I searched 2020, was 14.6%.
It’s not taxes. It’s spending.
Can’t answer the question?
It’s tax cuts. Using an “average tax rate” when you have different populations paying different marginal rates, is a mathematically invalid way of comparing tax revenues and their effects on the deficit.
Plus again we had two national emergencies that led to two giant recessions. Black swan events that of course decades of hamstringing government via tax cuts made them harder to deal with.
Again…tax cuts disproportionately impact the deficit because tax cuts always…always…result in a permanent loss in revenue. Tax cuts do not and never have “paid for themselves” because tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth anywhere near the level direct spending does,
Spending increases will not always negatively impact the deficit because spending increases sometimes will not outpace growth in tax revenues.
This is simple mathematics.
I agree with him. Tesla is way overpriced.
Ummmmm…the deficit may have been lowered, but the debt went way up. But hey, ignore that…
you sure ignored it for the last 4 years.
Um…the debt has gone up almost every year the Untied States has existed,
Again…a nation’s economy is not like your household ledger.
You’ve got to stop thinking of it like that.
So if debt and deficit don’t matter, why take Trump to task on it?
The argument isn’t that deficits don’t matter.
The argument is their lack of causal link to inflation…so, against the assumption we are headed towards hyperinflation because of budget deficits.
A better question might be: how did Trump deploy spending and did it produce the intended outcomes?
I know that with Trump, that’s difficult to answer, because he has no vision, policy or strategy, but Mnuchin, Ross and Mulvaney did.
How do you determine ‘overpriced’ and why would a short position be the correct response to Tesla’s current long run? Since it’s Burry we’re discussing, if he get’s this play wrong, might it damage his standing among people who think hyperinflation is imminent?
And why does Burry, who knows better, really want hyperinflation in the news?
If he gets it wrong, a lot of investors will. Tesla is the most shorted stock in the world.
Reasons to short the stock…profits still rely heavily on regulatory credits as opposed to revenues and rivals such as Ford, VW, and Hyundai have or will have good competitors to the Model 3 and Model Y on the market this year.
Reasons not to short the stock…while these new EVs are coming on to challenge Tesla, the market for EVs is set to explode…although that may not help Tesla in 2021.
Normally you short a stock when you think it’s about to crash in a few months. Burry shirted Tesla in December…he would have done better to wait until January.
Yeah, I’ve got no argument with any of that.
But, with regards to Burry’s claims about hyperinflation, his positions do not show any hedges against imminent inflation.
And I think his position against Tesla, which is probably covered, suggests that he knows inflation is not in the offing. So, why generate a ‘Weimar’ narrative? What’s he actually trying to accomplish?
Let’s bump this for a realistic summation of the challenges China poses
Doubtful.
