Done. 1 restart, 2 guesses.

Done, 11 guesses

it was not really a guess, i made an error that solved it.

Morning. Go.

Completed. NG. EZPZ.

done

We are told, "This country is too big, we are not like Sweden, France, England, etc...." "Our health care is the best in the world." "Health care is not a Right." All the arguments for the U.S. not having a single payer comprehensive health care system like the rest of the developed nations of the world actually boil down to one simple reason. Greed. We can do it. We should do it. We should look at it as a fundamental right for all. It looks like the Ruling Party is beginning to see how easy it is to criticize and how difficult it is to actually do something that is good for the American People and not just their Corporate/1% Overlords.

So tuco, any idea why both parties act against their stated philosophies? It doesn't make sense that Democrats (Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson) didn't provide healthcare to all. It doesn't make sense that Republicans (up to and probably including Trump) don't want single payer which would pull the burden of healthcare from corporations and other employers. Greed is probably part of the answer but something is missing.

"We can do it"....Tuco TODAY, Entitlements are SIXTY THREE PERCENT of the US Govt Budget...tell me this.......What is the correct amount of Govt Subsidies 80%? maybe 95%? the trend line of spending over the past 8 years during the "Bama Experiment Of Social Welfare" rose to the level ONLY EXCEED By the period from 1942 to 1948...When does the Country adopt SANITY as a budgetary guideline?

lk, you are not including the military which is 54% of the budget. 63% of the rest of goverment spending means it is less than 31% of the total.

Interst cost 46b; Defense 264b - Non-Def Discretionary 387b, ENTITLEMENTS 1.8TRILLION...

Total B approx 3.7T

total budget

Ohhh...and 11TRILLION IN DEBT...forgot that side note...

lk, problem comes in different sites reporting on just "discretionary" spending or just "mandatory" spending. The situation is far more complex. Further "entitlements" is a mix of things that people have paid into, like social security, and help for those in trouble, like SNAP. My quoting a site that claimed 54% appears to be inaccurate as are the numbers that you presented. Here's an interesting breakdown of the numbers:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-bas\nics/federal-budget-101/spending/

i am not sure the precise numbers matter. even relative numbers like plus or minus 5% don't matter either...what matters is the mindset which does not comprehend the "End Game" with the escalations which are currently baked into the numbers which are GUARANTEED to raise the commitment levels and debt load until the capacity of the economy to support the increase is reached...about 2045. Now that should be sobering for anyone who can add "2+2". for those who would then say...we just need to raise taxes...this person is ignorant...because the max capacity of the economy IS the max capacity of wage earners to support THE SYSTEM...

It's not about raising taxes. Or too much military spending...those are straw men in the conversation. This is about creating a truly genuine authentic system which 1/3 of the population supports 2/3...and every manifestation of this economic structure in the history of the human race...has collapsed. It's just a fact. So that is the story and that is the 'slope on the curve' and with nothing changed, the future is pretty clear.

Good puzzle...a triple unlocks it and then just elimination...fun!

start

lk, you're right. It doesn't matter that we are spending more on our military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the UK, and Japan combined. It only matters that the wealthiest among us can ignore the 2/3rds (your figure) in need. The golden rule in reverse.

Entitlements are not a bad thing. We paid into the budget for them. Just like welfare is not a bad thing. Where did the military get their money? From the taxpayer. Who paid for the bombs, bombers, bullets, and subs. We did. Is the military on welfare and entiltements? Are we in debt because of two wars put on a credit card? Can we easily get out of debt by raising taxes on the top 1% and cutting military spending? Yes. Can we pay for universal health care by implementing a VAT tax and highly regulating the insurance companies limiting them to a 10% profit margin. Yes.

The biggest mistake the Democrats made as regards health care was to let the Republicans add amendments that could unravel it later. Look up Marco Rubio and Risk Corridors.

done

welfare is a bad thing when you choose to live on it for your life time grrrrrr

but on the upside there are no incentives to get off

ellenz, please research a bit. No one, NO ONE, wants to live on welfare. The vast majority of recipients are short term, or are working at extremely low wage jobs. "No incentives" is a myth, and fake.

Just when you're stuck, there's an interesting argument for putting in a 4 in the lower middle block. But it doesn't get you very far.

being on welfare is incentive to get off welfare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bXpQVJwlsY Dont watch if you object to crude language.

tuco, what are you talking about when you say the Democrats let the Republicans add amendments to the ACA that could unravel it later? The ACA was passed by the Democrat controlled Congress and signed by President Obama before the Republicans even had a chance to read it.

As for the issue of risk corridors, that provision of Obamacare was hobbled not by an amendment (because there wasn't one) but by a serious flaw in the act. The ACA failed to specify a source of funding for the excess amount of risk corridor payments to unprofitable insurance companies beyond the total amount of fees paid to the government by profitable insurance companies. It is true that, when the DHHS announced their intention to transfer funds from other programs to fill the expected huge risk corridor funding shortfall, Marco Rubio pushed for the spending bill (later passed by Congress in December 2014) to include a rider barring the DHHS from the unauthorized moving of funds between programs. But Rubio was only able to do that because of the glaring omission from the ACA of a funding provision for excess risk corridor payments.

Moral of the story: If you're going to push a law through Congress without debate, you had better do it right or it will probably come back to bite you.