WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.680 Welcome to the deep dive. So you've given us 00:00:02.680 --> 00:00:05.440 quite a stack of information here and well our 00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:08.000 job as always is to pull out the really crucial 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:10.259 bits for you. That's right. Today we're going 00:00:10.259 --> 00:00:14.279 to tackle three pretty big developments. First 00:00:14.279 --> 00:00:18.640 up the recent. difficult news about Joe Biden's 00:00:18.640 --> 00:00:20.920 health, his cancer diagnosis and what that might 00:00:20.920 --> 00:00:24.039 mean. Then second, we'll dig into the latest 00:00:24.039 --> 00:00:26.480 on the China trade situation under Donald Trump, 00:00:26.920 --> 00:00:28.260 looking at what the experts are saying about 00:00:28.260 --> 00:00:29.899 how that's actually going. Yeah, there's a lot 00:00:29.899 --> 00:00:32.119 of commentary on that one. And third, we need 00:00:32.119 --> 00:00:36.219 to examine the GOP tax plan proposal and crucially, 00:00:36.700 --> 00:00:39.219 its projected impact on the federal deficit. 00:00:39.280 --> 00:00:42.000 OK. So the mission here is clear. Cut through 00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:44.920 the noise. understand the immediate impact, and 00:00:44.920 --> 00:00:46.799 maybe glimpse the longer -term consequences. 00:00:47.859 --> 00:00:50.460 Let's get into it. Absolutely. These are definitely 00:00:50.460 --> 00:00:53.479 major developments, each with ripples now and 00:00:53.479 --> 00:00:55.859 potentially bigger waves down the road. Getting 00:00:55.859 --> 00:00:58.520 the core dynamics is key. OK, let's start with 00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:00.979 the news about former President Biden. It came 00:01:00.979 --> 00:01:04.900 out yesterday from Delaware. His spokesperson 00:01:04.900 --> 00:01:09.040 announced a diagnosis. It's described as an aggressive 00:01:09.040 --> 00:01:12.640 form of prostate cancer. Right. And very sadly, 00:01:12.680 --> 00:01:16.840 it's metastasized to his bones. That sounds, 00:01:16.840 --> 00:01:19.939 well, incredibly serious. It really is serious 00:01:19.939 --> 00:01:21.819 news. Naturally, the statements from, you know, 00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:24.340 Team Biden are emphasizing things like early 00:01:24.340 --> 00:01:27.819 detection, treatment potential. that message 00:01:27.819 --> 00:01:30.120 of resilience. Understandable. But, you know, 00:01:30.120 --> 00:01:33.439 the reality is, hearing aggressive and metastasized 00:01:33.439 --> 00:01:36.000 to the bone is, well, it's sobering. It kind 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:37.859 of brings that human element, the vulnerability, 00:01:37.959 --> 00:01:39.760 right back into focus, doesn't it? It really 00:01:39.760 --> 00:01:42.180 does. And the timing. I mean, the timing is just, 00:01:42.239 --> 00:01:44.700 wow, this is the week Jake Tapper in Alex Thompson's 00:01:44.700 --> 00:01:47.019 book comes out, the one focusing on Biden's mental 00:01:47.019 --> 00:01:49.739 state. Yeah. Couldn't really write a more awkward 00:01:49.739 --> 00:01:51.980 situation for the author, could you? It's certainly 00:01:51.980 --> 00:01:54.219 a striking coincidence or confluence, maybe. 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:55.900 Yeah. And you have to think, whatever's in the 00:01:55.900 --> 00:01:58.519 book, This health news. Yeah, it's likely going 00:01:58.519 --> 00:02:00.400 to shift the whole narrative, right? So well, 00:02:00.500 --> 00:02:02.819 now that Biden's out of office, he's not running 00:02:02.819 --> 00:02:05.700 again. Yeah, that intense political focus on 00:02:05.700 --> 00:02:08.860 his mental fitness, which was, let's be honest, 00:02:09.060 --> 00:02:11.599 a huge talking point, especially for Republicans 00:02:11.599 --> 00:02:14.000 and right wing media constantly. That's probably 00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:17.979 going to fade a lot. This diagnosis just changes 00:02:17.979 --> 00:02:20.280 the frame completely. Yeah, it feels like that 00:02:20.280 --> 00:02:25.610 line of political attack just became. Well deeply 00:02:25.610 --> 00:02:28.250 inappropriate really to pursue right now exactly 00:02:28.250 --> 00:02:31.759 and you know Just on a human level, obviously, 00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:33.840 our thoughts are with Mr. Biden. We wish him 00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:36.099 the best for his health, for the treatment. Of 00:02:36.099 --> 00:02:37.960 course. It really does highlight how important 00:02:37.960 --> 00:02:40.419 good health care is. And like you said, early 00:02:40.419 --> 00:02:43.219 detection. Those things, as some sources point 00:02:43.219 --> 00:02:45.419 out, make a huge difference in survival odds. 00:02:45.580 --> 00:02:47.599 That's such a critical point. And for anyone 00:02:47.599 --> 00:02:50.120 listening, the American Cancer Society has excellent 00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:52.520 resources online about cancer screening, checklists 00:02:52.520 --> 00:02:55.159 for tests by age, really valuable stuff. Good 00:02:55.159 --> 00:02:58.539 reminder. OK, let's switch gears now. to the 00:02:58.539 --> 00:03:00.860 economy and specifically the analysis around 00:03:00.860 --> 00:03:03.639 the quote -unquote trade deal with China. that 00:03:03.639 --> 00:03:05.560 Donald Trump announced. The sources you gave 00:03:05.560 --> 00:03:08.719 us here paint a remarkably consistent picture. 00:03:09.599 --> 00:03:13.599 And it doesn't look great for the US side, according 00:03:13.599 --> 00:03:16.180 to these experts. That might be putting it mildly. 00:03:16.500 --> 00:03:19.020 The consensus seems, well, almost universal across 00:03:19.020 --> 00:03:21.020 different political viewpoints, different economic 00:03:21.020 --> 00:03:23.560 schools. Really? Yeah, that this agreement is 00:03:23.560 --> 00:03:25.719 basically a setback for the Trump administration. 00:03:26.300 --> 00:03:29.680 The phrase losing bigly seems to capture the 00:03:29.680 --> 00:03:31.780 general sentiment pretty well. based on these 00:03:31.780 --> 00:03:34.840 analyses. OK, losing bigly. We got some pretty 00:03:34.840 --> 00:03:37.860 short quotes here. Imran Khalid in The Hill, 00:03:37.939 --> 00:03:41.060 he calls it a reluctant American retreat, says 00:03:41.060 --> 00:03:43.939 Beijing outplayed Trump. Then Abraham Newman 00:03:43.939 --> 00:03:46.900 at Georgetown writing for MSNBC calls the whole 00:03:46.900 --> 00:03:51.319 policy an omni shambles, cites chaos and mismanagement. 00:03:51.620 --> 00:03:54.060 Strong words. Very strong. And what's telling 00:03:54.060 --> 00:03:57.159 is, it's not just one perspective. Even the Wall 00:03:57.159 --> 00:03:59.099 Street Journal's editorial board, usually more 00:03:59.099 --> 00:04:01.300 aligned with conservative economics, right? They 00:04:01.300 --> 00:04:05.099 call the tariff rollback a repudiation of Trump's 00:04:05.099 --> 00:04:09.219 policy, a win for economic reality. Heather Stewart 00:04:09.219 --> 00:04:12.139 in The Guardian. She notes the financial markets 00:04:12.139 --> 00:04:15.780 see this temporary truce as basically a capitulation. 00:04:16.459 --> 00:04:19.500 Wow. And it keeps coming. Kyle Chan from Princeton 00:04:19.500 --> 00:04:21.920 in the New York Times calls it inconclusive and 00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:24.459 temporary, but then says the larger trade war 00:04:24.459 --> 00:04:26.980 is being decisively lost. Decisively lost, yeah. 00:04:27.439 --> 00:04:29.759 Max Boot in the Washington Post points out, you 00:04:29.759 --> 00:04:32.480 know, the deal didn't hit Trump's goals, reviving 00:04:32.480 --> 00:04:34.759 manufacturing, cutting the deficit. No. And he 00:04:34.759 --> 00:04:36.879 even mentions Hu Xijin, the former editor of 00:04:36.879 --> 00:04:39.899 China's Global Times, basically claiming victory 00:04:39.899 --> 00:04:42.860 for China. So it was hard to find anyone in these 00:04:42.860 --> 00:04:45.639 sources really backing Trump's position on this. 00:04:46.019 --> 00:04:48.819 Extremely hard. The only piece maybe leaning 00:04:48.819 --> 00:04:50.560 slightly positive that was mentioned came from 00:04:50.560 --> 00:04:52.620 the New York Post. It really highlights how negative 00:04:52.620 --> 00:04:54.680 the overall expert assessment is. So what's the 00:04:54.680 --> 00:04:57.720 best case people are seeing? Well, the kind of 00:04:57.720 --> 00:05:00.560 posited best case seems to be a quiet climb down. 00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:02.740 You know, maybe some small trade changes. Trump 00:05:02.740 --> 00:05:04.439 declares victory anyway, and everyone just tries 00:05:04.439 --> 00:05:07.439 to move on, especially if Peter Navarro's influence 00:05:07.439 --> 00:05:10.060 fades. Right. And it's important, as the source 00:05:10.060 --> 00:05:12.399 material stresses, this isn't necessarily saying 00:05:12.399 --> 00:05:15.100 tariffs never work or that China's trade practices 00:05:15.100 --> 00:05:18.399 are fine. No, exactly. The focus is purely on 00:05:18.399 --> 00:05:21.339 the strategy and the results of this particular 00:05:21.339 --> 00:05:23.579 approach by the Trump administration. Precisely. 00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:26.399 It's about the specific execution. the perceived 00:05:26.399 --> 00:05:29.040 missteps, and the concessions made in this instance. 00:05:29.420 --> 00:05:33.519 Okay, which leads us nicely into the Walmart 00:05:33.519 --> 00:05:36.160 piece of this trade puzzle. Right, the tariffs 00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:39.180 hitting consumers. Yeah, Walmart CEO Doug McMillan 00:05:39.180 --> 00:05:41.339 came out and said, basically we'll probably have 00:05:41.339 --> 00:05:44.100 to raise prices because of these tariffs. And 00:05:44.100 --> 00:05:46.689 Trump's reaction on social media was... Well, 00:05:46.930 --> 00:05:50.009 pure Trump told Walmart to stop trying to blame 00:05:50.009 --> 00:05:52.730 tariffs, said Walmart and China should just eat 00:05:52.730 --> 00:05:55.870 the tariffs. Yeah, that reaction, while, you 00:05:55.870 --> 00:05:58.430 know, typical for his style, maybe misses the 00:05:58.430 --> 00:06:01.149 basic economics here. In this fight, Walmart 00:06:01.149 --> 00:06:03.389 kind of holds the cards, don't they? Yeah, it 00:06:03.389 --> 00:06:05.750 seems like it. They're a huge retailer. Their 00:06:05.750 --> 00:06:08.170 main job is to their shareholders, their bottom 00:06:08.170 --> 00:06:10.889 line. It's almost guaranteed they'll pass those 00:06:10.889 --> 00:06:14.050 tariff costs on to shoppers. Higher prices. Exactly. 00:06:14.350 --> 00:06:16.610 And the source material points out the usual 00:06:16.610 --> 00:06:19.110 ways Trump might pressure a company, you know, 00:06:19.290 --> 00:06:23.310 threats of DOJ investigations, ICE raids, messing 00:06:23.310 --> 00:06:25.949 with government grants. Right. The usual toolkit. 00:06:26.189 --> 00:06:28.589 Those don't really work the same way with a giant 00:06:28.589 --> 00:06:30.769 like Walmart. They're just not vulnerable in 00:06:30.769 --> 00:06:33.370 the same ways. No. But there's an interesting 00:06:33.370 --> 00:06:36.110 potential side effect here, isn't there? What's 00:06:36.110 --> 00:06:39.029 that? By Walmart publicly saying, hey, prices 00:06:39.029 --> 00:06:41.449 are going up because of tariffs. They accidentally 00:06:41.449 --> 00:06:44.410 become this really visible messenger. Ah, nice. 00:06:44.449 --> 00:06:46.509 They're telling American consumers directly, 00:06:46.850 --> 00:06:49.629 this policy is costing you money, which, you 00:06:49.629 --> 00:06:51.209 know, could actually push the administration 00:06:51.209 --> 00:06:54.209 to maybe back off the trade war quietly, avoid 00:06:54.209 --> 00:06:56.949 more bad press, avoid upsetting shoppers even 00:06:56.949 --> 00:06:59.050 more. Interesting angle. OK, let's pivot one 00:06:59.050 --> 00:07:01.170 more time. We need to delve into the proposed 00:07:01.170 --> 00:07:03.529 GOP tax plan. It's making its way through the 00:07:03.529 --> 00:07:05.050 house. All right, it's the taxes spending bill. 00:07:05.360 --> 00:07:07.800 Republicans seem to have made progress, but the 00:07:07.800 --> 00:07:10.339 initial analyses, well, they suggest it might 00:07:10.339 --> 00:07:13.360 not hit the mark on fiscal responsibility, particularly 00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:16.240 the deficit. That's definitely the headline finding 00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:19.160 from the early looks. Despite, you know, the 00:07:19.160 --> 00:07:21.579 usual Republican rhetoric about fiscal discipline, 00:07:22.199 --> 00:07:24.779 this plan is actually projected to increase the 00:07:24.779 --> 00:07:27.800 federal deficit by nearly three trillion dollars 00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:31.800 over 10 years. Three trillion. Wow. How? It essentially 00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:35.079 locks in tax cuts. and some spending increases 00:07:35.079 --> 00:07:39.019 that more than outweigh the cuts they're proposing 00:07:39.019 --> 00:07:41.259 in places like Medicaid and nutrition assistance. 00:07:41.759 --> 00:07:43.920 OK. But we're hearing the counter argument, right? 00:07:43.920 --> 00:07:47.220 That classic Republican line. Tax cuts spur growth. 00:07:47.339 --> 00:07:49.459 Growth brings in more revenue. Deficit problem 00:07:49.459 --> 00:07:52.439 solved. We are hearing that argument, yes. But 00:07:52.439 --> 00:07:55.620 it seems like budget analysts really across the 00:07:55.620 --> 00:07:57.519 board from different perspectives are looking 00:07:57.519 --> 00:07:59.500 at that with a lot of skepticism this time. They 00:07:59.500 --> 00:08:02.319 don't buy it. They seem very doubtful. The general 00:08:02.319 --> 00:08:05.500 warning is that this plan, as it stands, is probably 00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:07.240 going to make the country's long -term fiscal 00:08:07.240 --> 00:08:10.459 picture worse, not better. Now, the bill did 00:08:10.459 --> 00:08:12.240 get through the Budget Committee. But not easily. 00:08:12.639 --> 00:08:15.500 No, not without some internal drama. Some conservative 00:08:15.500 --> 00:08:17.779 members were holding out initially, highlighting 00:08:17.779 --> 00:08:19.860 those ongoing tensions within the party. Yeah, 00:08:19.860 --> 00:08:22.079 you see those fault lines again, don't you? The 00:08:22.079 --> 00:08:25.180 tax cut wing wants lower rates locked in permanently, 00:08:25.259 --> 00:08:29.680 if possible, while the more fiscally hawkish 00:08:29.680 --> 00:08:33.559 group wants deeper spending cuts faster. We saw 00:08:33.559 --> 00:08:36.220 some conservatives end up voting present eventually, 00:08:36.600 --> 00:08:39.179 right? Shows the disagreement. Exactly. And the 00:08:39.179 --> 00:08:40.779 concerns are coming from different angles inside 00:08:40.779 --> 00:08:44.600 the party, too. Some conservatives want clean 00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:46.759 energy credits gone faster, bigger entitlement 00:08:46.759 --> 00:08:50.100 cuts. But then some moderates worry about those 00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:52.139 energy incentives disappearing too quickly, or 00:08:52.139 --> 00:08:54.139 they want changes to the salt deduction cap, 00:08:54.519 --> 00:08:56.279 the state and local tax thing. Right, the salt 00:08:56.279 --> 00:09:00.379 cap. Always contentious. So Speaker Johnson thinks 00:09:00.379 --> 00:09:03.179 it'll pass the House. Arrington says negotiations 00:09:03.179 --> 00:09:06.539 continue. But there are outside pressures too, 00:09:06.639 --> 00:09:09.360 aren't there? Moody's. Yeah, the Moody's downgrade 00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:11.399 of the U .S. credit rating. That definitely hangs 00:09:11.399 --> 00:09:14.139 over this. They specifically cited worries about 00:09:14.139 --> 00:09:17.039 the deficit, the lack of a clear plan to reduce 00:09:17.039 --> 00:09:20.580 it. And the debt is already huge. Interest payments 00:09:20.580 --> 00:09:22.799 alone are costing more than defense spending 00:09:22.799 --> 00:09:25.580 now. It's a stark reminder of the fiscal trajectory. 00:09:26.299 --> 00:09:29.019 Roman Obochi at the Cato Institute had an interesting 00:09:29.019 --> 00:09:32.159 observation, didn't she, saying that, well, despite 00:09:32.159 --> 00:09:35.419 all the campaign talk about spending cuts, Republican 00:09:35.419 --> 00:09:38.679 actions recently seem to prioritize tax cuts 00:09:38.679 --> 00:09:41.320 much more heavily. Though we should include the 00:09:41.320 --> 00:09:43.820 Republican defense of the plan, they argue it 00:09:43.820 --> 00:09:46.740 stops a big tax hike scheduled for 2026. True, 00:09:46.820 --> 00:09:49.059 the expiration of the Trump tax cuts. And it 00:09:49.059 --> 00:09:51.279 achieves some long -sought changes to social 00:09:51.279 --> 00:09:53.679 safety net programs. Russell Vaught, the White 00:09:53.679 --> 00:09:55.879 House budget director, even called the spending 00:09:55.879 --> 00:09:58.879 cuts historic. And you have folks like Representative 00:09:58.879 --> 00:10:01.659 Obernaut framing it as a choice. High tax, high 00:10:01.659 --> 00:10:04.419 spend versus low tax, low spend, arguing the 00:10:04.419 --> 00:10:06.039 latter is better for growth. But the Democrats 00:10:06.039 --> 00:10:07.779 are hitting back hard. Oh, yeah. They're talking 00:10:07.779 --> 00:10:09.929 about people losing health care. more hunger, 00:10:10.649 --> 00:10:13.269 rural hospitals closing, and saying the whole 00:10:13.269 --> 00:10:15.370 thing benefits the rich while just adding to 00:10:15.370 --> 00:10:17.610 the debt. It also seems like Republicans know 00:10:17.610 --> 00:10:20.610 this might not fly as is, right? There's some 00:10:20.610 --> 00:10:22.549 awareness they might need Democratic help later 00:10:22.549 --> 00:10:25.429 to avoid those 2026 tax hikes. There seems to 00:10:25.429 --> 00:10:27.750 be, but the source also noted that Democratic 00:10:27.750 --> 00:10:29.950 alternatives might increase deficits even more. 00:10:30.159 --> 00:10:32.799 So it's complicated. It really just highlights 00:10:32.799 --> 00:10:35.179 this fundamental mismatch, doesn't it? Between 00:10:35.179 --> 00:10:38.000 what the government takes in and what it spends, 00:10:38.720 --> 00:10:41.200 driven by demographics, spending promises, past 00:10:41.200 --> 00:10:44.840 tax cuts, crises. Exactly. A structural imbalance. 00:10:44.940 --> 00:10:47.740 Yeah. And more debt isn't free. It can mean higher 00:10:47.740 --> 00:10:50.320 interest rates for everyone, less private investment, 00:10:51.120 --> 00:10:53.500 real economic consequences. So boiling it down, 00:10:53.659 --> 00:10:56.179 compared to just doing nothing, letting current 00:10:56.179 --> 00:10:59.840 law play out. This GOP plan makes the deficit 00:10:59.840 --> 00:11:02.940 worse by about 13%. That's the analysis, yes. 00:11:03.320 --> 00:11:04.960 Because the tax cuts are just much bigger than 00:11:04.960 --> 00:11:06.820 the spending cuts. We're talking nearly $4 trillion 00:11:06.820 --> 00:11:10.279 in tax cuts versus maybe $1 .6 trillion in spending 00:11:10.279 --> 00:11:12.320 reductions. And some spending actually goes up. 00:11:12.480 --> 00:11:14.600 In certain areas, yeah, like border security, 00:11:14.879 --> 00:11:16.960 defense. According to the Committee for a Responsible 00:11:16.960 --> 00:11:19.259 Federal Budget, the net deficit increase compared 00:11:19.259 --> 00:11:22.779 to doing nothing is around $2 .7 trillion. OK. 00:11:23.460 --> 00:11:25.899 Though analyst Don Schneider at Piper Sandler 00:11:25.899 --> 00:11:28.259 did acknowledge while it worsens the deficit 00:11:28.259 --> 00:11:30.679 early on, there are some real spending cuts in 00:11:30.679 --> 00:11:33.279 there, like with Medicaid. True. And the whole 00:11:33.279 --> 00:11:36.519 Republican bet hinges on growth, right? Growth 00:11:36.519 --> 00:11:39.659 from tax cuts, deregulation, energy production, 00:11:40.220 --> 00:11:42.960 hoping that offsets the deficit jump. Which economists 00:11:42.960 --> 00:11:46.240 are skeptical about? Generally, yes. Yeah. Especially 00:11:46.240 --> 00:11:49.539 since these projections often don't include potential 00:11:49.539 --> 00:11:52.610 drags on the economy like Save from trade wars. 00:11:53.090 --> 00:11:55.110 There's also that other argument some Republicans 00:11:55.110 --> 00:11:58.049 make that the deficit impact looks worse than 00:11:58.049 --> 00:12:00.309 it is because everyone knows those expiring tax 00:12:00.309 --> 00:12:02.830 cuts will get extended anyway. Right. They argue 00:12:02.830 --> 00:12:04.850 if you assume the cuts get extended no matter 00:12:04.850 --> 00:12:07.850 what, then this bill with its spending cuts actually 00:12:07.850 --> 00:12:10.149 reduces the deficit compared to that baseline. 00:12:10.429 --> 00:12:12.870 But that's a big assumption. It is. And Mark 00:12:12.870 --> 00:12:14.629 Golding from the Committee for a Responsible 00:12:14.629 --> 00:12:17.059 Federal Budget points out the opposite. Having 00:12:17.059 --> 00:12:19.679 popular cuts scheduled to expire creates huge 00:12:19.679 --> 00:12:21.860 political pressure to extend them, potentially 00:12:21.860 --> 00:12:23.980 adding even more to the costs down the line. 00:12:24.279 --> 00:12:27.860 He called the costs front -loaded. Okay, so let's 00:12:27.860 --> 00:12:30.340 try to wrap this deep dive up. Key takeaways 00:12:30.340 --> 00:12:33.649 seem to be... Biden's health news adds this layer 00:12:33.649 --> 00:12:37.570 of, well, human reality and uncertainty. The 00:12:37.570 --> 00:12:40.529 first read on Trump's China trade moves from 00:12:40.529 --> 00:12:43.370 the experts we looked at is overwhelmingly negative 00:12:43.370 --> 00:12:45.710 for the U .S. position. A strong consensus there. 00:12:45.909 --> 00:12:48.970 And the GOP tax plan, despite aiming for fiscal 00:12:48.970 --> 00:12:51.590 responsibility, is currently projected to add 00:12:51.590 --> 00:12:54.269 significantly to the deficit over the next decade. 00:12:54.370 --> 00:12:56.409 That's the picture painted by the analysis. Yes, 00:12:56.750 --> 00:12:59.370 a complex set of evolving situations. So this 00:12:59.370 --> 00:13:01.919 dive gives you the listener, a condensed look 00:13:01.919 --> 00:13:04.299 at these moving parts based on the sources provided. 00:13:04.840 --> 00:13:07.460 Dynamic issues, definitely potential long term 00:13:07.460 --> 00:13:10.139 impacts. Absolutely. So here's something to think 00:13:10.139 --> 00:13:13.299 about. Considering all this Biden's health, the 00:13:13.299 --> 00:13:16.460 trade dynamics, the fiscal path, what basic assumptions 00:13:16.460 --> 00:13:18.820 may be about leadership or economic strategy 00:13:18.820 --> 00:13:21.500 or fiscal responsibility? What's being challenged 00:13:21.500 --> 00:13:24.320 for you or what's being reinforced? What questions 00:13:24.320 --> 00:13:25.860 does this raise in your mind about where things 00:13:25.860 --> 00:13:28.259 are headed? Some food for thought until our next 00:13:28.259 --> 00:13:28.799 deep dive.