Government Spending

Democrats' $3.5 Trillion Fully-Paid-for Spending Plan Probably Won't Be Fully Paid for

The spending proposal is likely to be offset by gimmicks and rosy assumptions.

|

Yesterday, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee released the outline of a $3.5 trillion budget agreement. That's $3.5 trillion in addition to the $2 trillion or so already spent at the beginning of the year on the recovery plan, and beyond the roughly $4 trillion spent last year on pandemic relief. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), of course, was disappointed: He'd been pushing for $6 trillion in new spending. Ah, well. 

Those previous plans were all deficit financed. But although many of the details weren't yet clear—the announcement was of a general framework and a top-line number—reports suggested that this plan would, somehow, be fully paid for, if only in the Washington sense.

Consider what it means for something to be fully paid for. If I claimed that I had fully paid for my cocktail bar tab, for example, you would probably assume that I had forked over actual money equivalent to the entire tab. Cocktails in. Money out. A more or less straightforward exchange of currency for services. 

But for Senate Democrats, it probably means something more like producing an estimate showing that, over the next decade or so, drinking cocktails at this particular bar could generate enough money-making ideas to offset the cost of the drinks…maybe minus food items. The cocktails pay for themselves!

That's perhaps somewhat exaggerated. But it's not entirely off base. For decades, Democrats have lampooned similar logic when applied to tax cuts, opposing the GOP-endorsed supply-side logic that tax cuts "pay for themselves" by increasing economic activity and bringing in greater revenue in the long run. Those supply-side effects are real, but they are typically much smaller than the most enthusiastic partisans have hoped; rarely do they fully offset the revenue loss. (That's not necessarily an argument against tax cuts. It is, however, an argument against assuming that budgets will balance after tax reductions without commensurate spending reductions.)

Yet earlier this week, Axios reported that Democrats were likely to use dynamic scoring to offset the price tag of some of the new spending. Only instead of applying it to tax cuts, they'll be applying it to new spending programs—the assumption being that the new "programs will be so beneficial for the economy, they'll produce future tax windfalls." In the private sector, the saying goes that you have to spend money to make money. In government, you have to spend money…to spend money.

There are other gimmicks in the works as well, like providing temporary funding for programs that are expected to become permanent. The recovery package passed earlier this year, for example, included $100 billion for an expanded child tax credit. The expansion was initially set to last just one year. After that passed, President Joe Biden proposed extending that program to 2025, an expensive proposition. But reports indicate Senate Democrats may shorten that extension, providing, say, one or two years of additional funding in the $3.5 trillion package they are now working on.

Yet they have no intention of actually letting that program ever expire. Reducing the length of some programs is merely a way of reducing the cost of the bill on paper. As The Washington Post reports, "Democrats are prepared to fight for their extension in future budget battles with Republicans." The temporary programs, and the spending to support them, must extend forever.

Speaking of forever, Senate Democrats are all proposing to expand Medicare, adding a suite of new coverage areas, such as dental and vision. It is at least possible that a final bill will also expand eligibility to everyone aged 60 and up (currently, normal eligibility starts at 65), although that particular decision will be up to the Senate Finance Committee.

In theory, this will all be fully financed somehow or another. But what does it mean to fully finance an expansion of a program that is already in dire financial straits? Medicare's hospital fund is already running a deficit, and will for the foreseeable future. This year's Trustees report is months late, but the most recent official look at its finances showed that the program would be insolvent by 2026—meaning there simply wouldn't be enough money to cover the expenses. The program's Trustees have practically begged for a substantial overhaul of its shoddy finances. Instead, Democrats are piling on expensive new benefits.

And then there is the IRS. Democrats hope to boost funding for the agency in order to close the "tax gap," bringing in more overall revenue in the process. It is quite likely that this plan will bring in far less revenue than Biden and Senate Democrats hope. But it will give the IRS more power and more resources to snoop on private financial information and make life unpleasant for many more Americans.

After Senate Democrats released their plan yesterday, the earnest and ever-helpful deficit hawks at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released a statement detailing myriad ways that a fully-paid-for bill might end up not being fully paid for: by expanding the 10-year budget window that has long been used for congressional budgeting, for example, or relying on rosy revenue and cost estimates created by self-interested Democratic lawmakers rather than the more conventional, conservative estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office. "Politicians," the statement said, "should not be making up their own estimates, choosing their own scorekeeper, incorporating fantasy growth assumptions, or relying on future promises to pay for their spending today." The folks at CRFB are good people, but I do wonder: Have they ever met any actual politicians?

The ever-so-slightly exasperated headline on the statement declared, "Fully Paid for Must Mean Fully Paid For." It probably won't.

NEXT: Drug War, Pandemic Likely Reasons for Spike in U.S. Overdose Deaths

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, can’t really trust either team to even have a balanced budget, let alone one that cuts spending in absolute terms.

      1. Ok. What % of the national debt was incurred under R Prez? What under D Pres? Do the same for R and D House? Feel free to adjust those numbers by the years in power if you want.

        I’d like to see how the R’s are better

        1. Hey another dumbfuck who thinks president os the independent variable for deficits.

          1. You’re the one who is associating voting preference with some outcome re fiscal responsibility.

    1. Lol. What a joke you are.

      1. He’s right. Every libertarian knows that.

        1. He, and apparently you, use false claims or inferences of false equivalency to excuse measuring the awfulness of the two parties.

          Please explain how 7 billion is even in the same ball park as 4.7 Trillion if you add both bills.

          This is known as false equivalency and should stop.

          The fact is Jeff can’t just deride the left. The only time he will ever criticize them is if he can also criticize the right. It is pathetic. You shouldn’t support that.

          1. That may be so. But what he said is still true.

            Or, I suppose you could trust one of the major parties to create a balanced budget, but you’d be an idiot to do so.

            1. Again, you’re applying a perfect solution fallacy or a nirvana fallacy.

              Both won’t complete a balanced budget, it has never happened.

              One will increase spending far more. So why would a libertarian continue to yell both sides when one is obviously worse. It is a coward’s way out of discussion and one that should stay in theoretical realm, not when discussing actual policy.

              It would be like arguing physics under ideal conditions when desiging the air frame for the new airliner. It is useless discussions as the airliner will not be ran under ideal conditions. So we transfer to running CFD analysis tools to design and add margin to algorithms in autopilot controls to account for non ideal states.

              Libertarians who continue to retreat discussions of purely idealistic conditions are not worth actually discussing things with. Ideal conditions do not and will never exist. The irony of idealism is that it requires complete totalitarian control as all actors must act in the same manner. It is one of the ironies of the big L party in not recognizing it.

              Sometimes a small win is more value than stomping your feet for an ideal solution.

              1. Would you rather be tossed off a 500ft cliff or a 499ft cliff? There’s a difference between holding out for perfection and holding out for a tolerable solution. At some point there is simply no point in even trying to figure out whether the lava or the spikes at the bottom one cliff or the other will be more fatal, especially when there are actual libertarians running for most every ballot space.

                BUT JOJO ONCE SAID BLACK LIMES MADDER!!111
                You were saying something about perfect solution fallacies? Oh, right, I believe the correct terminology here is “But no mean racial tweets!” Glad you’re enjoying Biden rule so much.

                1. You think the difference in 70 billion as compared to 4.5 Trillion is one foot?

                  Nothing will ever change by you simply foot stomping and saying things aren’t perfect.

              2. I’m not doing anything like that. I’m just commenting on another comment.
                I’d rather have republicans in power than democrats at this point for sure. But I’m not going to expect any particularly good results either way, just a slower decline under republicans if we’re lucky.
                There is no contradiction in acknowledging the small wins but still pointing out that they are pretty small and we’re still not going in a good direction.
                I come here to discuss libertarian ideas and blow off steam to somewhat like minded people. We aren’t going to solve all the worlds problems here, so get over it if sometimes people get off in the weeds of nerdy libertarian debates.

                1. I agree with you for the most part. But there is an entire segment if posters here that don’t. They will continually retreat to both sides so they can avoid actual discussions. Jeff is the biggest one that does it here. But most of the editors do it as well.

              3. So why would a libertarian continue to yell both sides when one is obviously worse. It is a coward’s way out

                I wouldn’t call it cowardly. People who engage in both sidesism are actively hiding that Democrats are always worse. This pretense there isn’t a difference is a defense of Team Blue. So by doing it they’re revealing their partisanship.

              4. Again, you’re applying a perfect solution fallacy or a nirvana fallacy.

                Both won’t complete a balanced budget, it has never happened.

                So you agree with chemjeff.

                What the fuck are you supporting the GOP for anyway? You’re admitting that they’ll never stop growing the debt. That means we’re locking ourselves and future generations into the mountain of debt and the high taxes that are required to support it. We’re $28.5 trillion in the hole already. At what point do your Republicans start to grow some balls?

          2. I don’t know what 7 billion you’re talking about. A Republican Congress approved 4 trillion in spending last year. Maybe current Congress is worse but as usual Republicans only slightly apply the brakes. You expect libertarians to settle for that?

          3. He, and apparently you, use false claims or inferences of false equivalency to excuse measuring the awfulness of the two parties.

            Please explain how 7 billion is even in the same ball park as 4.7 Trillion if you add both bills.

            This is known as false equivalency and should stop.

            This is known as a straw man and should stop.

  2. The “I” after Senator Sanders’ name is for Idiot.

  3. The reality is nobody cares about the budget they just want Santa Claus. It doesn’t play except maybe during midterms. In any case I’ll take the least worst option which is the GOP, because dems are insanely more stupid, and libertarians just won’t get elected.

    1. Look at just about any public works project started in the past thirty years. Always far behind schedule and far over budget.
      Why should this be any different?

  4. I’m shocked. Not!

  5. As long as the Biden economy continues to concentrate wealth at the very top — Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch is already up over $6,000,000,000 this year, for instance — Democrats can spend whatever they want.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

  6. Looking at those two piles of shit, it’s easy to imagine them thinking “Fuck I’ll be dead before this shit hits the fan.”

    By that time it will all be wheelbarrow money.

    1. Even if they’re still alive it won’t effect them.

  7. When “libertarians” pretend that the government spending $3.5T would be ok as long as it taxes us enough to “pay for it”.

    1. I’m not seeing any judgement one way or another on the ok-ness of the spending.

      1. It’s probably the headline.

  8. Tax cuts without spending cuts is stupid. Spending increases without tax increases is stupid. Both sides are idiots.

    I don’t want tax increases, therefore… CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING! I’m looking at you, Trumpistas. You had two years with full control of the presidency and both houses, plus the Supreme Court, and you couldn’t manage to even keep overall spending at the same level. You guys cheered as it was jacked up. And yet you call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist.

    1. I agree with you about cutting spending but the Never Trumpers gummed up the works so badly nothing got done. Trump tried to cut spending…remember the “budget crisis” of 2018-2019? And that was just to reign in budget increases not actually cut spending. The swamp is vast and deep.

      1. If he’d spent even a tenth as much energy on budget cutting as on his damned wall, we’d be far better off.

        1. You do know what the Impoundment Act is right?

          Please explain, if you know it, how a budget can do more than simply try to streamline various agencies when Congress sets the appropriations.

          If you need to learn what the Impoundment Act is, here:

          What is the Impoundment Control Act?
          The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

          This Impoundment also disallows the Executive to spend reductions in budget unless the action appropriated for is complete. The Executive can’t just arbitrarily cut spending on his own.

          Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided/

          Knowing civics helps in these discussions.

          1. It’s funny how you get all technical when arguing against someone who argues against your simple-minded partisan blaming.

            1. Simple minded or not, he is correct.

            2. Lol. You can just say you didn’t know how government works. We’ve had this done argument at least a dozen times now.

            3. By the way, here is the actual issue. I’ve blamed congress for every single damn veto proof appropriation or budget. They are responsible for the deficit. Presidents can be responsible for deficits through actions tbey control such as when Obama killed energy exploration on federal lands which was 30% of the economic growth during his term.

              I will blame biden for these budgets as they are being passed without veto proof majorities so he could veto them.

              You’ve blamed the president for deficits whenever it suits your argument. You blamed Trump for not vetoing veto proof budgets. It is pretty clear you didnt know about the impoundment act from your prior postings.

              When Paul Ryan caved and stopped pushing reduced budgets I blamed him. When he caved under pressure from the budget show downs I blamed him and democrat led congress.

              Knowing how government works helps. I highly recommend it for you.

      2. So it was the fiscal conservatives who objected to spending increases that preventing any overall spending cuts? Hows that work?

        1. I’m not sure I would call people like John “I’ve never met war spending I didn’t like” McCain a fiscal conservative.

    2. I’m looking at you, Trumpistas.

      Of course the Con Man said he would fix the deficit and then proceeded to jack it up six times bigger than Obama’s last FY.

      Trumpistas then cry “PANDEMIC! HE HAD TO DO IT!”

      1. I wondered what the Biden Cultist would use to excuse this spending.

        1. The Biden spending is complete bullshit.

          Just like the $4 trillion The Con Man spent in 2020.

          and beyond the roughly $4 trillion spent last year on pandemic relief.

          You truly are the cultist.

          1. So you still don’t understand how the government works. And you are also comparing one year of Congressionally passed spending against 10 years of increased spending under Biden as equivelant.

            yes, you’re a cultist. And quite ignorant of how government actually works.

      2. Trump was up against a veto proof majority in that spending bill. He still shouldn’t have signed it, but I get why he did. The democrats would have torn him apart over it. It was their bill anyway. Created unilaterally by Pelosi’s staff. They don’t even go through committee anymore.

      3. You may not remember, but Obama used the “Housing Crisis” of 2008 to justify nearly a trillion dollars in largely “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs to fix the economy – except “shovel-ready wasn’t really ‘shovel-ready'”.

        Democrats can’t even conceive of a spending bill that is less than a Trillion dollars, lavishing billions on their constituencies. For example, how many hundreds of millions of dollars have Democrats spent on shuttered museums and theaters?

    3. Hey retard… if spending increases simply stopped, the revenue from taxes would continue to grow as GDP grows and balance within 10 years.

      1. Yeah, but spending increases will never stop unless programs and departments are cut. I don’t see spending slowing until the size of government is actually significantly reduced.
        I think a good rule would be that the budget cannot exceed the actual taxes collected in the previous year.

        1. Yeah, but spending increases will never stop unless programs and departments are cut.

          Not a true statement. The reason it doesn’t stop is Congress has adopted baseline budgeting which increases yearly spending by 3-5% without need of Congressional discussions.

          Programs and Departments can not be cut through Executive Orders alone, again, see Impoundment Act.

          1. Perhaps not absolutely, but practically speaking, I think it is pretty valid.
            I’m not suggesting a president can do this alone.

        2. I think a better rule would be to simply freeze federal spending levels for a couple years – no growth in spending, except when accompanied by a corresponding cut elsewhere in the budget.

          Force government agencies to ‘eat’ inflation by cutting waste and fraud.

      2. Hey retard… if spending increases simply stopped, the revenue from taxes would continue to grow as GDP grows and balance within 10 years.

        Hey retard… you admitted above that the GOP won’t complete a balanced budget.

    4. I’ve never understood the line of reasoning of blaming Repubs for not stopping the actions of Dems.

      Wouldn’t it just be more appropriate to blame the Dems rather than the Repub lack of action?

      1. Not if you’re a Democrat.

        1. I hear that argument all the time from democrats. Republicans are terrible for not stopping horrific democrat bills. So the solution is to vote democrat.

          1. That’s what I’m talking about. This a common thing that I just don’t understand. Dems do something awful, Repubs don’t stop it, and it becomes the Repubs’ fault for not stopping it so they vote Dem.

            1. “Their team” scores a touchdown because players on “Our team” were blocking for them. Which team should I be angry with?

      2. I don’t know if it’s so much blaming them as pointing out their uselessness when it comes to actually reducing government.

    5. I’m looking at you, Trumpistas.

      You can always tell the far leftists by their insanely justifications to blame everything on the right.

  9. I went to boot camp in some temporary buildings left over from WW II. They were so flimsy that every time a jetliner passed overhead to/from San Diego Airport, you could watch dust falling from overhead. So much, in fact, they they skipped the white glove dust inspections!

    Seems a good description of government temporary programs too. Last forever, and make everything so filthy that no one ever looks at them again.

  10. Is there anything in the trillions to get excited about?

    1. Depends if you’re a connected leftist or not.

    2. The ransom in Austin Powers 5 will be 1 trillion dollars.

      1. Could we at least get a new cool rocket or something?

  11. Why do we let these cadavers dictate our future? It boggles my mind.

    1. Part of it is because so many of us refuse to vote for Republicans against progressives–because the Republicans aren’t libertarians.

      1. Look at Ken. He actually believes that Republicans want to cut spending. It’s like a kid who still believes in Santa Clause. So naive.

        1. Look at shitplug. He actually thinks the parties have identical spending habits.

          1. Deficit spending goes up more with GOP presidents.

            But I will stay with “they both suck”.

            1. Yes, we know you like when your taxes are raised. You’re a democrat.

            2. And how does it work with democrat congresses? That’s where spending bills come from.

            3. Spending goes up more with Democrat congresses.

              Fixed that for you, no charge.

        2. The more conservative ones do. The problem is all the RINOs. Do you know how many RINOs are elected? Because the alternative is a democrat who is a straight up socialist. So republicans voters hold their nose and vote the RINO in to keep the socialist out.

          Fortunately, there is a trend towards putting up better candidates at the primary level to get the RINOs out. That might cruelly help.

          1. Trump-trash is straight up fascist:

            Top US general said Trump spread ‘gospel of the Führer’ and threatened US democracy with 2020 election lies: new book

            https://news.yahoo.com/top-us-general-said-trump-195844926.html

            1. Lol. The guy pushing CRT is really the one we should be trusting.

            2. Sure he did little buddy.

  12. “Speaking of forever, Senate Democrats are all proposing to expand Medicare, adding a suite of new coverage areas, such as dental and vision. It is at least possible that a final bill will also expand eligibility to everyone aged 60 and up (currently, normal eligibility starts at 65), although that particular decision will be up to the Senate Finance Committee.”

    Donald Trump losing the 2020 election was a disaster for libertarian capitalists and so was losing the senate runoff elections in Georgia.

    Anyone who is surprised to see the Democrats moving in the direction of Medicare for All is embarrassingly ignorant or gullible. Biden’s campaign website is all about expanding Medicare and providing a Medicare like public option.

    https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

    1. People are greedy. That is people with nothing want what they cannot pay for and think they are rational, good, caring people. They are not.

    2. “…and so was losing the senate runoff elections in Georgia”

      Gosh, who was going around discouraging Republican voters from voting in the runoffs. Oh, yeah, it was Trump’s dream legal team members: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, and the “Pillow Guy”.

  13. “Democrats’ $3.5 Trillion Fully-Paid-for Spending Plan Probably Won’t Be Fully Paid for”

    No shit.

  14. gimme gimme gimme … gimme some more!

    1. sitting here like a loaded gun, waiting to go off!

      1. More like a nuclear warhead.

      2. nothing to do but shoot my mouth off.

  15. * looks at picture * Well, I’m glad women and BIPOCs are finally having their day.

    1. Sen. Schumer’s chest identifies as female.

  16. I know it was just a charade but whatever happened to the “federal debt ceiling”? The denizens of the swamp used to pretend it mattered; now nobody brings it up.

    1. Set to ∞

  17. Way to go out on a limb there… “probably wont be fully paid for”.
    Let me try… Definitely wont be fully paid for.

    1. There isn’t enough money to pay for it. A few years ago, I read an analysis that it would take 20% of the GDP from every country on earth to pay for all US government spending at all levels, including unwinded liabilities. I’m sure that percentage is much higher now.

  18. Can Fauci vaccinate us against this Virus? Or are we doomed? We are doomed no doubt

  19. Spending is not the issue. Capacity is the issue. The universe is run by the laws of physics, not an accountant in the sky.

    “We have to balance the budget” has been a stupid lie meant to make stupid people think they have to give up benefits in exchange for tax cuts for decades now. You’re a joke if you still buy that crap. Balancing the budget in the wrong circumstances could be disastrous for the economy, because government deficit = private sector surplus.

    What do you think government money is spent on, whether you’re talking about direct buying or checks cut to citizens? Printing little red books and setting them on fire? They go to businesses, of course. Most production in this country is in private hands, even when government is buying it.

    Obviously government can purchase more than the national capacity can handle, but when the private economy is teetering on recession due to natural disaster or other external forces, that’s the perfect time to exploit the underutilized capacity.

    You can’t build an entire worldview around the category mistake that countries work like households. And even smart households know how to use debt strategically. I don’t understand how such bullshit has been sold for so long that no grown adult can possibly believe.

    1. That’s because you’re an asshole.

    2. This isn’t even about balancing the aggregate budget, Tony. You’re yelling at the wrong cloud.

      This is about Biden wanting to substantially increase future spending while waving arms over the increase somehow being paid for. It isn’t. It never has been. And nobody really believes it will be. Biden is, you know, lying. Which is a trait that his predecessor was ate up with and you hated. But now it’s cool.

      The emperor is buck ass nekkid and nobody in our grossly incompetent media even wants to point it out.

      The

    3. Exploring underutilized capacity is useful when the resources are deployed in value-adding ways. Government is not very good at doing this, and usually utilizes resources in less than optimal ways. Better to leave money in the hands of citizens, and avoid the agency problem of government decisions. And if there’s underutilized capacity that’s a decision made by citizens in aggregate. Why should government usurp those decisions?

      1. There’s a simpler way to look at it.
        When profits (via taxes) accrue to the government, the excess money ends up in the hands of people who are the best at making promises, so they can make more promises when the promised benefits fail to materialize.
        When profits accrue to those who earn them, the excess money ends up in the hands of people who are the best at creating wealth, so they can create even more and everyone can prosper (profit being the difference between the value of things created and the cost to create them).

    4. Keynes gave governments the green light to spend more when the economy is down, which makes a certain amount of sense, as long as governments spend less when the economy is up, which never happens. As Krugman always says, regardless of the economy, “Now is not a good time to try austerity!”

      1. It never makes sense, recessions are the cure for central planning in monetary and govt policy and the maleinvestments need to be liquidated…this crap that we need counter cyclical spending has never been proven correct and is an enabler to perpetual debt which only ends in a bad place for liberty. No, Keynes needs to be repudiated not just because he was a pedophile but his theories are garbage. Govt should never run a deficit..you want the goodies, then raise taxes.

        1. Indeed. But then taking from some to give to others is still called stealing in some circles. Just like generating money out of nothing and buying things with it. Something for nothing. It’s counterfeit, it’s consuming something produced by someone for nothing produced by the State, and it’s stealing.

    5. I don’t understand how such bullshit has been sold for so long that no grown adult can possibly believe.

      It’s funny the people who make these accusations are the people pretending Dems use debt “strategically” instead of spending every nickel they can to buy votes. But left wingers aren’t serious people.

      1. If govt was an investment we would not be running deficits

    6. Keynes meets Magic Money Theory.

  20. Who’s that in the picture with Biden?

    1. Does it matter? He’s just another politician trying to run our lives for us.

  21. So 5.5 trillion off budget, so Biden can claim he’s “only” spending 6 trillion, the same as Trump (which included lockdown relief on budget).

  22. Come on Corn Pop and Trotksy (Biden and Schumer) raise taxes to pay for this..come on you can do it..I’d love to see that and finally citizens who see the cost of all these bs programs and agencies. But no..just have the Fed print print print and buy the debt..of course need China to offload the inflation…this ends very badly obviously and it all goes back to Keynes bs theories..NO deficits ever for govt…ever…

  23. reports suggested that this plan would, somehow, be fully paid for, if only in the Washington sense…Consider what it means for something to be fully paid for. If I claimed that I had fully paid for my cocktail bar tab, for example, you would probably assume that I had forked over actual money equivalent to the entire tab. Cocktails in. Money out. A more or less straightforward exchange of currency for services.

    Well golly. Then everything that govt has ever spent money on has been paid for. Cuz I don’t see a long line of ‘govt service providers’ whose checks bounced.

    Maybe you twits should start realizing that debt = money = debt = money.

    The only difference between something paid for with new debt v something paid for via tax revenues is:
    1. WHO actually pays for the service
    2. How much extra does it cost because we are adding interest
    3. Who is benefiting from (receiving) that interest.

    Failure to be honest about all of that is far more evil than some bullshit flimflam about whether something is not being paid for. Because you’re the one reinforcing the notion that free lunches exist.

    Fucking DeRp’s and useless L’s all dwelling in their sewers. What we need is a new political party. The I Ain’t Paying Your Fucking Debt Party. Where the day one agenda is – default on the debt. ALL of it.

    THAT would serve to price in ‘let’s pay for this program using new debt instead of taxes’ .

  24. Gosh; That’s only $23K this year of every single WORKING persons *earnings* the federal government is pretending they own 100%.

    Gonna have to work harder slaves if you’re going to make it in this nazi-nation!

  25. “In government, you have to spend money…to spend money.”

    No. I think the idea is “In government, you have to spend money…to take money.”

  26. “… Democrats were likely to use dynamic scoring to offset the price tag of some of the new spending. Only instead of applying it to tax cuts, they’ll be applying it to new spending programs—the assumption being that the new ‘programs will be so beneficial for the economy, they’ll produce future tax windfalls.’ In the private sector, the saying goes that you have to spend money to make money. In government, you have to spend money…to spend money.”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1GlRr-K0KkQ

    1. Fortunately for the big spenders, every dollar in government spending is added to GDP, so GDP is guaranteed to go up.

  27. It’s kind of an open question as to which is worse, fully paying for 3.5 trillion in wasteful new spending, or not fully paying for 3.5 trillion in wasteful new spending.

    How about cutting the budget back to 5 trillion now that the pandemic and the lockdowns are over?

Please to post comments