> Fixing the deficit is the opposite of looting, actually. I think this has two errors. First, I don't agree that he's fixing the deficit. I think that's an a

> Fixing the deficit is the opposite of looting, actually. I think this has two errors. First, I don't agree that he's fixing the deficit. I think that's an assumption not in evidence. We'll see in a few years time, though. I'd be willing to bet in 4 years the deficit is > 0, and likely larger than it is today. But let's assume arguendo that he is fixing the deficit. It's still possible to loot the treasury while fixing the deficit, which shows that they aren't actually the opposite. Consider this example with completely made up numbers: Before - Revenue: $1T - Defense Spending: $500B - Benefits Spending: $1T - Public Services Spending: $499.9B - Government Contracts with Musk's Companies: $100M The before scenario has $1T in revenue, and $2T in spending, for a deficit of $1T. Now, let's allow hypothetical Musk to have free-reign to "fix the deficit" After - Revenue: $800B - Defense Spending: $300B - Benefits Spending: $300B - Public Services Spending: $100B - Government Contracts with Musk's Companies: $100B In this scenario the deficit has been reduced to $0, while Musk has enriched himself and his companies with $99.9B in government funds. This would be an extreme example of Musk looting the treasury, while still completely resolving the deficit.