Druckenmiller Warns Of 'Dire Consequences' Of More Government Spending 1

Druckenmiller Warns Of ‘Dire Consequences’ Of More Government Spending

 

American investor Stanley Druckenmiller, who has been briefing lawmakers negotiating an infrastructure deal, is sounding the alarm over Senate Democrats' $3.5 trillion proposal, warning that it could provoke a massive rise in inflation. He tells Stephanie Ruhle about his talks with senators and cautions that "we have a very hot economy and very hot inflation."

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Druckenmiller Warns Of 'Dire Consequences' Of More Government Spending

57 comments

    1. @Jaak Savat bank bailout was bush, the Auto bailout was Obama both of which were paid back with interest.

    2. @Jason M bush was cause of the financial crisis, by deregulation, whilst cutting funds on oversight.

    3. @Jaak Savat I still remember W standing behind a podium stating that banks would do the right thing because they valued their reputation.

  1. If these millionaires and billionaires would pay the taxes that literally EVERYONE else does, these plans would be paid for. But noooooo. That makes way too much sense.

    1. @Kay KeelanIt’s not just excuses though. It actually DOES happen. People remove their wealth when others try to take it from them. Or they intentionally don’t earn as much and opt for more time off rather than work. And if you applied a wealth tax to rental properties, that only increase rent prices. The tenets would end up paying the tax.

    2. @Kay Keelan pre-reagan tax cuts are where we really need to get back to….

      I just know in the current government, toll roads(another tax on the masses) will pop up everywhere to pay for infrastructure and inflation will likely lead to a recession, if not a world depression…

      printing cash to pay for stuff historically always ends poorly.

    3. @JJ Strumr Well thank you for your post but you’re making this about me. I should not be the point of contention. I provided scholarly research and the links. I hope you learned something and became more informed. Clearly you were the one suffering from a false premise, not me. Nevertheless, thanks for the response. Have a great weekend, stay safe, stay healthy and be careful.

  2. We paid for WW2, NASA, Internet, Highways, 17 YEARS in Afghanistan….not to mention TRILLIONS in tax cuts for rich people.

    1. @Dean Cripps perhaps you would agree we don’t need to raise taxes on anyone but eliminate the loopholes?

    2. @GeezerGamez im not sure you are grasping global economic structure- there’s a podcast called freakonomics, it’s a good starting place to understand how sprawling and complicated economics can be

  3. Did he apeak up during Trumps tax cuts. No? Hmm guess that was in his favor. Maybe if the rich started paying their fair share in taxes we wouldn’t be so bad off in the future.

    1. @Harry Johnstone: I’m speaking specifically about the SHARE of the total taxes paid by rich people vs the bottom 90%. (Since people always say “pay your fair share”).
      But if you want to put in terms of the percent of an individual’s income, I have to ask who’s “percent” goes to build stuff with tax dollars? Even if they pay a lower percent of their income (which is arguable once you consider capital gains tax, estate tax and corporate tax) rich people still build 7 miles of road for every 1 mile the bottom 90% builds in terms of tax dollars. No matter how you slice it, rich people still contribute FAR MORE than others. And they TAKE far less when it comes to government funded programs. They don’t use public schools, public healthcare, housing assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc.

    2. @Reason I didn’t say they didn’t, nor did I define ‘fair’ or ‘share’.

      Share of the POT or share of their income?

      Was it Jesus, or Buddha, maybe it was Karl Marx – it ain’t whatcha got to give it’s HOW MUCH of what ya got ya give.

      10% for the Big Guy is fine if we are talking about tithing

      Total wealth of the 1%
      Total wealth of the 10%
      Total wealth of the 90%

      When you process the total taxes paid through the above differentials and the “share” comes up, please let me know. Until then I’ll assume you are arguing from the POT not the HAND

      Ooops!!
      As of Q3 2019, the top 10% of households held 70% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2%.

      The wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled about $41.52 trillion in the first quarter, according to Federal Reserve data released Monday. Yet the bottom 50% of Americans only controlled about $2.62 trillion collectively, which is roughly 16 times less than those in the top 1%.Jun 23, 2021

      If your statement is a given does that explain why we the people are the ones that send our sons to war, they’ve already paid?

      If we look state by state at which ones add more to the treasury than they take out each year will we find the best educated states are blue and feeder states and the least educated states are red and also happen to be the taker states? I think we would. To 5, 6, maybe 7 places on both ends of the spectrum?

      Can we see some disparity in 90% of the people making $150,000 per year or less?

      The way I figure it, the top 1% should be contributing 16x what the rest of us pay in. They don’t. They pay 40% and we pay 60% We pay 1.5x as much as they do

    3. @Harry Johnstone: The original comment mentioned “fair share” which is what I was originally responding to. And yes, I’m talking about the pot not the hand because if it’s “fair share” we’re talking about (original comment, not yours) then THAT is in fact what we should be looking at; SHARES of the pot.

    4. @Reason We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point I guess.
      -Number of people-

      1. Total wealth
      2. Percentage of the pot filled with that wealth
      = They don’t pay their fair share of the pot either

      Do the super rich pay more than the poor?
      *Yes*
      Are there more poor people than rich?
      *Yes*

      The top 1% controls 16x more wealth than the bottom 50% but they only contribute 41% of all shares in the pot

      Do the rich pay their fair share of the pot?
      *No*

    5. @Harry Johnstone: But they also TAKE less from the pot as well. They don’t use public schools, living assistance, public healthcare, welfare, food stamps etc.
      And It’s perfectly fine if you want to disagree. I don’t find you to be an unreasonable person and I appreciate the civil conversation. Thanks!

  4. Where was all the worry when Trump gave his tax cuts to the 1%???!!! No worry over that! Screw them!!!

    1. @David Hale yea, maybe some democrats voted for the tax cuts imma look it up, but it’s kind of irrelevant. you seem to look at your world as being Democratic lib snowflakes and you Republicans, and its us verses them, but the truth is, a looot of us are independents, I don’t worship Obama lol- NO political party is 100% “good” and thats why it takes 2 political parties, 3 co-equal branches of government to keep this ship running. – i used to say no party is “good or bad” but if you cant see that the majority of the republican party has cashed in their decency to play this “political deathmatch” game, instead of trying to run the country in the interest of their constituents, then I dont know how to make you see it. And before you get all defensive, yea some democrats are less than stellar, but they havent abandoned their duty to the constitution

  5. If you, “I’m rich,” are getting Social Security and don’t need it, why not do something to stop your payments? I’ll bet you’re still getting them even though you’re wealthy. Put your money where your mouth is!

    1. That is not what he meant. What he meant is that poor, who need SS, will hurt allot more than him when USG can no longer afford to pay SS.

    2. @One Two, exactly why he should give it up. And anyone who doesn’t need it should give it up. I hear the older rich white men say they only use their s.s. to pay their golf fees.

    3. @One Two he’s also equating his receiving of that SS check as a major contributing factor to the USG not being able in future to pay Social security to anyone- really that’s a straw man argument, he NEVER mentions trumps 3 TRILLION dollar addition to our deficit to give wealthy people, (who already loophole their way out of paying most or all of their taxes anyway) yet another tax break- he neglects to mention the cost of our failing infrastructure to U.S taxpayers, lost tax revenue from tax evasions of the rich. He’s sayibg that investments in the poor will sag our economy and cost him millions in potential stock market gains, instead of seeing the bigger picture, that if you invest in the working class, you actually get more in taxes, a bigger wage means more for uncle Sam, you start making Bezos and Trump and their ilk actually PAY their taxes, then you can lower the tax rate on folks like you and I.

  6. There you go. Took him 8 minutes to get to the root of the problem. “ Entitlements “. For whom Sir. I bet I know which end you’re talking about. Start at the Top.

    1. The US had one job. One job. To get Capitalism right. But they turned their Capitalism into Socialism for the rich. While Scandinavian countries got it better than our so-called “Capitalists”.

    2. Entitlements are paid for. People who’ve watched FICA deductions come out of their wage, for forty or fifty years, don’t like being told they will now not get SS payments.

    3. @Deborah Freedman It’s not paid for. If it was paid for, it wouldn’t be an unfunded liability. The money you pay for FICA taxes isn’t set aside for you, it’s immediately paid out to other people. It’s a ponzi scheme.

    1. Those corporations did great for investors. And with so many new people getting into stocks, it actually did a lot of good for the little guy.

  7. Biden is trying to bridge the yawning financial disparity between the rich and the poor. An initiative that is causing a huge discomfort amongst the bourgeois in America.

  8. So, it sounds like we need to give more money to the rich to speed up the trickle down.
    Got it !!

    1. Bit delirious are we? Trump averaged $4.8 trillion while Biden is nearing $10 trillion in one fiscal year…wtf are you talking about?

  9. “‘Entitlements’ are less of a priority,” says the guy advising those who are preventing the passage of meaningful legislation desperately needed by the majority of Americans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.