CDZ What happens to the Federal spending pie when everything is free?

[MarathonMike]

Here is a very clear picture of where our Federal tax dollars go. You will notice that over half of the tax money goes to health care and social security. There is also a 9% piece of the pie called "remainder" that I assume goes to paying INTEREST ONLY on our 22 Trillion plus national debt.

Now what happens to the Federal spending pie if one of the "Medicare For All" Democratic candidates is elected President? And if we also add in Reparations, where does that money come from and how big a slice will that be?

It seems to me that there are only two ways to pay for Medicare For All and Reparations. Programs need to be cut or taxes need to go way up. What do you think?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Free pie eventually becomes no pie.

 

[Jets]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

 

[MarathonMike]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or Howe to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

Certainly at this stage of our politics, compromise does not appear likely on the debt. That is the can that will be endlessly kicked down the road. But we can at least not make our spending problems worse by taking on new debt a.k.a 'free stuff'. The Democrats would have us believe that America is the bottomless pool of money and that we can just keep taking on more debt. It's pretty frightening to me that over 9% of all federal tax revenue goes to interest on the debt.

 

[sartre play]

Anyone ever consider that All the money is going some place? That we just keep borrowing money? does it matter if the free stuff go's to people who wont "pull them self's up. or go's in some super rich guys pocket or some bought & paid for congress critter's. the cost of everything keeps going up, not seeing much use of Our money going towards the betterment of the average American.

 

[jwoodie]

We need to condition COLAs on balanced budgets. This would eventually eliminate deficits through inflation and/or economic growth.

It is insane to keep automatically increasing expenditures with borrowed money, but the Dems never pass up an opportunity to demagogue any limits on increases as "cuts."

So we are screwed.

Of course the Dems characterize any less than full increases as "cuts."

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

That's because compromise doesn't work.

As in, literally it does not work.

It's kind of like saying two people want to build an air plane. I want to build an airplane with a jet engine. You want to build an airplane with a propeller engine.

There is no way to 'compromise' on this. The two engines have no interchangeable parts.

You can't build an engine that has a propeller stapled on the front of a turbine, instead of a fan disc, and expect it to work.

You either build the plane with jets, or you build it with props, but trying to compromise and do both, results in neither working.

The idea of taxing your way to wealth has been tried many times throughout human history, and not one time has it worked. The right-wing economic system, and the left-wing economic system, are both mutually exclusive systems. It's one or the other.

When you compromise, you end up with neither system working.

 

[Jets]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

That's because compromise doesn't work.

As in, literally it does not work.

It's kind of like saying two people want to build an air plane. I want to build an airplane with a jet engine. You want to build an airplane with a propeller engine.

There is no way to 'compromise' on this. The two engines have no interchangeable parts.

You can't build an engine that has a propeller stapled on the front of a turbine, instead of a fan disc, and expect it to work.

You either build the plane with jets, or you build it with props, but trying to compromise and do both, results in neither working.

The idea of taxing your way to wealth has been tried many times throughout human history, and not one time has it worked. The right-wing economic system, and the left-wing economic system, are both mutually exclusive systems. It's one or the other.

When you compromise, you end up with neither system working.

And it’s that mindset that allows our two parties to not bother passing legislation. All either party needs to do is denigrate the oppositions proposal.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you. However, it seems that scenario applies to too many issues.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

That's because compromise doesn't work.

As in, literally it does not work.

It's kind of like saying two people want to build an air plane. I want to build an airplane with a jet engine. You want to build an airplane with a propeller engine.

There is no way to 'compromise' on this. The two engines have no interchangeable parts.

You can't build an engine that has a propeller stapled on the front of a turbine, instead of a fan disc, and expect it to work.

You either build the plane with jets, or you build it with props, but trying to compromise and do both, results in neither working.

The idea of taxing your way to wealth has been tried many times throughout human history, and not one time has it worked. The right-wing economic system, and the left-wing economic system, are both mutually exclusive systems. It's one or the other.

When you compromise, you end up with neither system working.

And it’s that mindset that allows our two parties to not bother passing legislation. All either party needs to do is denigrate the oppositions proposal.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you. However, it seems that scenario applies to too many issues.

So what issue do you think we should have bipartisan support for? Give me an example.

 

[Jets]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

That's because compromise doesn't work.

As in, literally it does not work.

It's kind of like saying two people want to build an air plane. I want to build an airplane with a jet engine. You want to build an airplane with a propeller engine.

There is no way to 'compromise' on this. The two engines have no interchangeable parts.

You can't build an engine that has a propeller stapled on the front of a turbine, instead of a fan disc, and expect it to work.

You either build the plane with jets, or you build it with props, but trying to compromise and do both, results in neither working.

The idea of taxing your way to wealth has been tried many times throughout human history, and not one time has it worked. The right-wing economic system, and the left-wing economic system, are both mutually exclusive systems. It's one or the other.

When you compromise, you end up with neither system working.

And it’s that mindset that allows our two parties to not bother passing legislation. All either party needs to do is denigrate the oppositions proposal.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you. However, it seems that scenario applies to too many issues.

So what issue do you think we should have bipartisan support for? Give me an example.

Ok, immigration issue. There is no reason why border security and a path to citizenship for those here cannot be looked at. Just so we are clear, I’m answering your question on what we should have bipartisan support for. What we should vs what we will are two different discussions.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Washington remains unchanged because they are not being held responsible for what they do.
In 2016, despite having an abysmal 17% approval rating, I believe it was 96% were voted back in.
Humans are programmed from birth to base decisions on either achieving an incentive, or avoiding a disincentive.
There is no disincentive for the Congress or the Senate to not to do what is wrong.

WE ARE ACTUALLY THE ONES TO BLAME.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem is that people cannot agree on what the priority should be or how to go about it. Let’s say for discussion purposes we want to deal with the deficit and national debt. One answer would be to increase taxes and decrease spending. Now, here comes the imbroglio. One side will say tax cuts increase revenue and the other will say otherwise. At this point instead of trying to find common ground and compromise, both sides will dig their heels in. As Zell Miller once said: “Compromise is a dirty word in Washington”

That's because compromise doesn't work.

As in, literally it does not work.

It's kind of like saying two people want to build an air plane. I want to build an airplane with a jet engine. You want to build an airplane with a propeller engine.

There is no way to 'compromise' on this. The two engines have no interchangeable parts.

You can't build an engine that has a propeller stapled on the front of a turbine, instead of a fan disc, and expect it to work.

You either build the plane with jets, or you build it with props, but trying to compromise and do both, results in neither working.

The idea of taxing your way to wealth has been tried many times throughout human history, and not one time has it worked. The right-wing economic system, and the left-wing economic system, are both mutually exclusive systems. It's one or the other.

When you compromise, you end up with neither system working.

And it’s that mindset that allows our two parties to not bother passing legislation. All either party needs to do is denigrate the oppositions proposal.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you. However, it seems that scenario applies to too many issues.

So what issue do you think we should have bipartisan support for? Give me an example.

Ok, immigration issue. There is no reason why border security and a path to citizenship for those here cannot be looked at. Just so we are clear, I’m answering your question on what we should have bipartisan support for. What we should vs what we will are two different discussions.

And that to me is a perfect example of the problem.

The left-wing wants open borders.

The right-wing wants controlled borders.

There is no "compromise" between these two mutually exclusive goals.

One side has to win, and the other side has to lose... or the problem doesn't get solved.

Think about it....

If my side wants a controlled border, so we know who is coming into this country, what their history is, and where they came from and for what purpose......

Any compromise, would inherently mean that those goals are not met. So if we only controlled 20% of who comes into this country, then the problem still exists, does it not? If people are walking in without us knowing anything about them.... Then we still have a problem.

Any compromise here, would mean we still have a problem. Either we have everyone coming into this country documented, or we don't. One or the other.

Similarly, the left-wing wants an open border. They have said this repeatedly and clearly. They want no border.

So if we compromise and 30% of those coming in are being held up at the border, then in their eyes, the problem remains.

The only way that the problem is fixed, is if someone wins, and someone loses. If the no border people win, and we have no border at all... then at least in their eyes, the problem is solved.

If the controlled border people win, and 100% of those coming into the country are checked, the then at least in their eyes the problem is solved.

But if you have compromise.... then the problem is not solved from any perspective.

It's one or the other. Compromise results in no solution. Or a really terrible solution that will need to be fixed again later.

 

[sartre play]

Very little will ever be free unless your very rich.