Times- Budget game

[JTsyo]

Link

Much easier to do when you don't have to worry about being reelected. I'm sure I wouldn't make many friends with all the cuts and tax increases. Especially from the Baby Boomers.

My plan

 

[matt0611]

Thats pretty cool.

My proposal:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zz1vr010

Its harsh, but it could be done over 2-3 years to make it easier.

No tax increases though. (some tax cuts actually )

 

[Craig234]

It has very limited options - nothing about investment in growth, for example - but here is the plan I made, which appears to have a $246 billion surplus in 2015, $51B in 2030, to pay off debt.

It does not cut social spending other than raising entitlement caps to 68, leaves in place foreign aid, earmarks, all federal workers except contractors, rejects the deficit council's suggestion on eliminating deductions, does not add a national sales tax. The breakdown is 51-49 tax increases and spending cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mxbn5qc

 

[maddogchen]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=yl0pd4m3

44% savings from tax increases. 56% from savings cuts
Projected 2015: 83 Billion Surplus
Projected 2030: 405 Billion Surplus

We're rolling in money!!!!

 

[dank69]

Reduce spending and raise taxes

 

[xj0hnx]

Too easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vh9pg511

27% from tax increases

73% from spending cuts

Money coming in isn't the problem, it's the spending that raping us.

 

[MotF Bane]

88% from cuts, 12% from taxes. Didn't like it's options much though.

 

[dank69]

Too easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vh9pg511

27% from tax increases

73% from spending cuts

Money coming in isn't the problem, it's the spending that raping us.

I went the opposite way with my spending cuts than you did. I kept the R&D stuff because I think it is important for the US to lead in innovation. It would be nice if there was a way to just eliminate waste in those programs, without eliminating the programs themselves.

 

[Atreus21]

I did them all. I'm currently running a 1.3 trillion dollar surplus by 2030.

 

[xj0hnx]

I went the opposite way with my spending cuts than you did. I kept the R&D stuff because I think it is important for the US to lead in innovation. It would be nice if there was a way to just eliminate waste in those programs, without eliminating the programs themselves.

Yea I agree, the options weren't as in depth as I would have liked, but I figured even if we cut, or severally cripple some we can rebuild them more efficiently once we are out of the hole.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Why is there never the suggestion to change from fix amounts of SS to lower rates at younger years that would increase as you get older.

This would reflect that some people will not be able to find work past a certain age and would still not fall into abject poverty but at the same time would be low enough to create an incentive to find work work.

Never seen the numbers for something like that.

Seems much better (and kinder) than just saying "raise retirement age to X"

 

[FallenHero]

You can do it easily by just cutting almost everything. Problem is that no one wants to do that because they are Sacred Cows.

 

[sunzt]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=y06pflm0

29% from tax increases
71% from cuts

Kept the R&D investments and took cuts in SS and medicare.

 

[sactoking]

According to the 'game' all you need to do is enact the Medicare growth cap and pick-and-choose a small handful of other items and you've solved the deficit problem.

 

[Zebo]

It's like going to a lake and saying you only get two spots to fish. Options are too limited. Lame.

 

[sandorski]

Balanced, but Politically next to impossible.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It's like going to a lake and saying you only get two spots to fish. Options are too limited. Lame.

expecting them to cover everything is silly. they probably took the most popular/prevalent choices and posed them as a list.

 

[Craig234]

I find this site probably more harm than good; while it's good for raising some awareness of the challenges to sane people (the insane ones are the 'mark all the boxes' type), it is ridiculously narrow in its options. I mentioned one example; another is not being able to pick single-payer healthcare. It also doesn't include options like the right-wing desire to privatize social security that might cause great harm, showing the greatly increased costs to administering the program, even if it 'technically' cuts government spending.

The thing is, the issue really demands getting a bit more informed - most Americans are smothered in myths on this. But with 'multiple choice', it doesn't inform that much.

 

[MovingTarget]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gm2l456m

 

[PJABBER]

A nice compilation of some of the choices on the table along with a cursory explanation of what are likely the first order results.

My choices wound up being 69% spending cuts and 31% tax increases.

With all of the rhetoric about how maintaining the reduced Bush tax rates will not help balance the budget, I suggest that the country is more than ready to cut the spending - always the second half of the equation that is never adequately addressed.

 

[ebaycj]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=yl0pd4m3

44% savings from tax increases. 56% from savings cuts
Projected 2015: 83 Billion Surplus
Projected 2030: 405 Billion Surplus

We're rolling in money!!!!

Remember we need to run that 405 billion surplus for many, many years straight to pay off all the existing 14T debt we currently have (not to mention spending between now and 2030, as well as interest on our current 14T debt).

 

[manimal]

My solution was to set the whole thing on fire and watch it burn...basically the libertarian angle....

get it Angle...ya I know she lost lol

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't even know why we have to play this 'game'

All we need to do is control spending and we will eventually grow our way out of the deficit. The 90s were a perfect example of this happening.

Limit the growth of spending to about 2% a year and just sit back and wait.

 

[Elias824]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=0202056z

87% tax increases
13% cuts

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I don't even know why we have to play this 'game'

All we need to do is control spending and we will eventually grow our way out of the deficit. The 90s were a perfect example of this happening.

Limit the growth of spending to about 2% a year and just sit back and wait.

Yeah, that's true to an extent. I played the little game and it wouldn't let me "win" because I didn't raise taxes to cover the short term deficit. the 2030 was good but 2015 was a bit short. lame lame lame. This mess wasn't created in a day(but has gotten extreme in the last couple years) so it can't be solved in 1 year.