Compromise proposal:

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by modernpaladin, Feb 10, 2018.

  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since the left doesnt want to cut any spending other than military, and the right wants to cut everything but the military...

    We should cut both, as a compromise.

    For every dollar cut from non-military budget, cut a dollar from the military budget (preferably the overseas budgets), and vise versa. A true 1:1 compromise.

    Anyone with me?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    28,525
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Military expenditure creates crowding out effects on the civilian sector and therefore stunts economic growth. You would expect, mind you, for reductions to be replaced with civilian expenditures to maintain any macroeconomic demand management effects.

    Of course you started with a left-right fallacy. Military expenditure reductions, for example, isn't left-specific. You'd expect right wingers to acknowledge the impact of influence costs (and therefore how government offers rent seeking opportunity). You get the same left-right agreement over a lot of government expenditures. Consider, for example, welfare benefits. That provides an automatic stabiliser for the economy; again neither left or right wing orientated.

    Why not just consider the economic rationality of each form of spending? Informed comment...
     
  3. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,843
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds good to me. Lets do it. The government now spends 4.1 trillion a year with a 700 billion dollar deficit and 700 billion in military spending. If we cut 400 billion out of military and 400 billion out of non-military then we will have only 3.3 trillion in spending and 300 billion in military spending.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    28,525
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well golly, isn't that a bleedin great argument?
     
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Im speaking generally, of course. If you try to cut welfare, the left complains that we should cut military spending instead. If you cut military, the right complains about entitlements.

    Love it or hate it, you have to appease the majority to get anywhere. Sure, it'd be great if we could all see things objectively, but every one if us has our own bias and misinformation, and we're all a bit busy paying the bills to catch up with the reality of politics. So the 'mob' must be catered to, to a degree. Compromise is necessary in politics.

    There will never be perfection in a democratic republic. Good enough will have to be good enough.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2018
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    28,525
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Compromise? We haven't seen that. Instead we have seen corruption of rational policy-making through the ideological grunt of austerity. Market fundamentalism developed a 'there's no other way' dialogue, ensuring false debates over the focus of cuts.
     
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed- we havnt seen any compromise. Thats why Im proposing one.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    28,525
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But you're not. You're asking for austerity to be accepted and to fudge around the edges.
     
  9. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How about for every $1 cut to military spending, which serves to protect the nation as a whole, apply a $1 cut to spending back to each of the 50 States, DC, and territory? Then each $1 billion cut to the military would result in an over $50 billion reduction to Federal spending with a minimal reduction to our military ability to provide protection. And a $50 billion reduction of the military budget would result in reducing the Federal budget to about $1.25 trillion, and a massive revenue surplus to start paying down the Federal debt.
     

Share This Page