If anybody cares, this is the budget simulator I've been using

[shortylickens]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#
for college.

Specifically English for Business. It probably isnt the best, especially in terms of accuracy or precision. I've seen other estimates with vastly different numbers.
But it gives a good impression of the difficulties faced by budget makers.
You cant have stuff without paying for it, and we've been doing that for way too long. And its gonna take a while to correct.

I'm also doing a report on it with a proposed budget. If anyone cares, I'm being brutal and heartless in my paper.

On an unrelated topic, can anyone translate why this guy is saying?
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/tag/grow-the-army-initiative/

I think he's being ultra sarcastic, but its so thick I cant even get what his actual point is. Either that or he's being incredibly stupid.

 

[chucky2]

Someone in another thread linked to it, so I gave it a try. Got down to 56%. The pdf save wasn't working when I did it.

 

[shortylickens]

Like I said, its actually easy to save money but nobody wants to be the bad guy. Which is sort of a conundrum. Because all the people who propose the programs blame the other guy when it finally needs money and the government cant pay. A lot of shit is set in place by politicians who know damn well they wont be around years later when folks finally question its necessity. Also a deeply slashed budget wont kill our debt, just get the country on track to slowly reducing it over the generations.

 

[Farang]

On an unrelated topic, can anyone translate why this guy is saying?
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/tag/grow-the-army-initiative/

I think he's being ultra sarcastic, but its so thick I cant even get what his actual point is. Either that or he's being incredibly stupid.

He's being serious. National debt as most people understand it is a political conception that comes forward when a Democrat is in the White House. It's used as a blanket argument to oppose a progressive agenda.

Democrats have been known to use it as well against Republican presidents (Iraq/Afghanistan), but less so because they generally favor government investment/spending.

The fact that the debt is one of the top issues facing our country more reflects the success of Republicans to bring it to the fore, rather than it being a true priority or crisis.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Out of curiosity I was able to get it down to 57% while keeping the current tax cuts for all income levels and not implementing cap and trade.

 

[soundforbjt]

You reduced the debt to 57% of GDP in 2020, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.

Not too bad.

 

[shortylickens]

Out of curiosity I was able to get it down to 57% while keeping the current tax cuts for all income levels and not implementing cap and trade.

Thats cool, its easy to click on the buttons and hit a home run.
But I have to write up a 20 page report justifying my decisions.
I cant even imagine what its like for a congressman to go home and explain to people how things work and why they cant have the things they want.
I mean, no politician is going to tell his constituents they are ignorant and lazy and greedy, so how do you manage their needs with reality? I dont think I could do it. I couldnt kiss babies and hug old people and then go to Washington and fuck em over. I dont have the stomach for such things.

 

[Acanthus]

Out of curiosity I was able to get it down to 57% while keeping the current tax cuts for all income levels and not implementing cap and trade.

I got it to 55% while increasing funding for NASA, making no cuts to SS or Medicare, and no cap and trade. I also lowered the corporate tax to 30%.

Increased taxes on billionaires and eliminated a shitload of deductions.

There were a few choices that were missing, such as the "let all of the tax cuts expire, regardless of income" choice.

Or any option to close a shitload of foreign bases.

Or an option to stop paying senators for life even if they serve 1 term.

Or an option to eliminate the department of homeland security.

 

[buckshot24]

The lowest I got it to was 34% of GDP

This thing seems to neglect any effect tax policies may have on the economy.

 

[CycloWizard]

Thats cool, its easy to click on the buttons and hit a home run.
But I have to write up a 20 page report justifying my decisions.
I cant even imagine what its like for a congressman to go home and explain to people how things work and why they cant have the things they want.
I mean, no politician is going to tell his constituents they are ignorant and lazy and greedy, so how do you manage their needs with reality? I dont think I could do it. I couldnt kiss babies and hug old people and then go to Washington and fuck em over. I dont have the stomach for such things.

How do you manage their needs with reality? Math. If people would stop trying to argue with math, then the world would be a much better place. Even the laws of physics are not known with absolute certainty. Math is. Arguing with math is arguing with reality.

 

[First]

This thing seems to neglect any effect tax policies may have on the economy.

Lol, there's a reason for that.

 

[buckshot24]

Lol, there's a reason for that.

Whats that?

 

[schneiderguy]

Whats that?

Libruls don't understand economics.

 

[buckshot24]

Libruls don't understand economics.

Why don't they just propose a 90% flat tax with no deductions? The economy wouldn't be affected and just imagine all that money they could spend? :twisted:

 

[Brovane]

The lowest I got it to was 34% of GDP

This thing seems to neglect any effect tax policies may have on the economy.

Probably because there is so much argument what effect tax policies have on the economy. You can find all sorts of data supporting any conclusion you want.

 

[buckshot24]

Probably because there is so much argument what effect tax policies have on the economy. You can find all sorts of data supporting any conclusion you want.

Yup, if it could be put in equation form we'd be able to just run our government within the parameters without much debate.

 

[Ausm]

Budget? What's that? Talking about my own finances.

 

[unokitty]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#
for college.

Specifically English for Business. It probably isnt the best, especially in terms of accuracy or precision. I've seen other estimates with vastly different numbers.
But it gives a good impression of the difficulties faced by budget makers.
You cant have stuff without paying for it, and we've been doing that for way too long. And its gonna take a while to correct.

I'm also doing a report on it with a proposed budget. If anyone cares, I'm being brutal and heartless in my paper.

On an unrelated topic, can anyone translate why this guy is saying?
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/tag/grow-the-army-initiative/

I think he's being ultra sarcastic, but its so thick I cant even get what his actual point is. Either that or he's being incredibly stupid.

Don't know much about Political Science or Economics nonetheless I think that you might want to look at an article that Michael Lewis published in Vanity Fair.

California and Bust

In the article, he looks at why Schwarzenegger failed to reform the California Budget. His thesis is similar to yours. Though, rather than directly blame the taxpayer, he implies that the politicians are captive to special interest groups and vote what is best for the special interests rather than what is best for California.

For example, the politicians that supported Schwarzenegger's budget reform attempts were all voted out of office. An example of a special interest group would be the Prison Guard Union. The Prison Guard Union is one of the major contributors to the reelection funds for state politicians. If you fail to support their request for a pay raise, you will not get contributions from them. And they will do their best to vote you out. (Note that this article very similar to a chapter from his book Boomerang.)

Regarding the blog you reference. There is a school of thought that promotes the proposition that national debt doesn't matter. That there is an equilibrium between the banks and the governments and as long as that equilibrium holds nothing else matters...

Of course, it becomes a problem when a democracy votes to not pay their debt. Or, if a government gets into a situation where they can't pay their debts and the banking system collapses. Here is an article from Der Sieigel about this topic that you might find interesting:

Prison of Debt Paralyzes West

Anyway, I can't fix the national debt. But I can wish you luck with your paper.

Best of luck,
Uno

 

[First]

Whats that?

It requires basic understanding of statistics and econometrics, i.e. not your forté.

 

[buckshot24]

It requires basic understanding of statistics and econometrics, i.e. not your forté.

With which tax rate would there be more economic activity?

A) 100%
B) 0%
C) It doesn't matter, tax rates cannot affect the economy.
D) I like tacos
If you answer A or C then you are a moron.

If you answer B then you realize that tax policy can cause or hinder economic activity.

If you answer D then its time for lunch you fat bastard!

 

[First]

With which tax rate would there be more economic activity?

A) 100%
B) 0%
C) It doesn't matter, tax rates cannot affect the economy.
D) I like tacos
If you answer A or C then you are a moron.

If you answer B then you realize that tax policy can cause or hinder economic activity.

If you answer D then its time for lunch you fat bastard!

To repeat, it requires basic understanding of statistics and econometrics, i.e. not your forté.

But to summarize for those of you who don't know, tax increases or decreases generally have little to no significant affect on economic growth one way or another, as they are almost always exclusively small %-wise in whatever direction it happens to be. Hoover's basically the only POTUS in history who significantly fucked up the magnitude, timing and direction of tax changes.

 

[buckshot24]

To repeat, it requires basic understanding of statistics and econometrics, i.e. not your forté.

But to summarize for those of you who don't know, tax increases or decreases generally have little to no significant affect on economic growth one way or another, as they are almost always exclusively small %-wise in whatever direction it happens to be. Hoover's basically the only POTUS in history who significantly fucked up the magnitude, timing and direction of tax changes.

So taxes can have an effect. What percentage would make a difference do you think? Obama wants a 13.1% increase for the rich, is that enough to make a difference?

 

[nehalem256]

So taxes can have an effect. What percentage would make a difference do you think? Obama wants a 13.1% increase for the rich, is that enough to make a difference?

Do you have evidence to provide that Bush lowering them 13.1% made a difference?

 

[Brovane]

Yup, if it could be put in equation form we'd be able to just run our government within the parameters without much debate.

Well hopefully. I have some people tell me that no matter if we raise taxes revenue will not increase.

 

[buckshot24]

Do you have evidence to provide that Bush lowering them 13.1% made a difference?

Increasing tax revenues?