You make the cuts (in the Federal Budget)

[Scout26]

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

Okay it's the NY Times, but....

I cut the crap out of everything except some Defense and did NOT raise any taxes.  Still managed to piss off everyone.

$415 billion saved this year, $1,669 Billion by the year 2030.

What say you ?

[Fly320s]

I couldn't play because I don't have Flash on this iPad, but I said "yes" to nearly all the cuts, and "no" to nearly all the tax changes.

[MicroBalrog]

Of course, nothing actually radical is allowed in this 'game'.

[AZRedhawk44]

I cut $274 Billion from the 2015 shortfall, and 1.2 trillion from the 2030 shortfall.  I was still short about $150 billion to balance the 2015 budget and $175 billion to balance the 2030 budget.

However, they didn't lay out the ATF and national endowment for the arts, PBS, and other gooberfluff for me to axe deliberately.

I refused to draw down troop levels for budget reasons alone, and I refused to raise taxes.

[Jamisjockey]

Of course, nothing actually radical is allowed in this 'game'.

This.  +1!elventymillionbillion

On my first day as Dear Leader Supreme, I'd show up in DC with an axe.  Diversity programs, student aid, home loans, education, CHIP, medicaid, medicare, hud, hhs, and many others would take the axe.  The rest would get their budgets slashed.  I'd place a cap on federal employee salaries.  I'd replace the 16th amendment with the 69th amendment, which would cap federal spending based on a % (like 15%) of GDP.  The states would be responsible for paying tribute to the federal government based on thier percentage of the GDP.  
I'd immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and leave behind scorched earth.
Anyone recieving current welfare benefits would become my brownshirts: they'd get shovels and brooms and paint brushes.  And a time limit to get a job.
Anyone currently in the SS system would get the option to opt out.  
DEA, ATF, Marshalls, Secret Service and FBI would be rolled into one agency, and cut in half.  Whats left would then be put under the microscope.
I'd declare the war on drugs lost, and strike out all federal drug laws.  States rights and all.
All intelligence agencies would be rolled into one, and then scrutinized deeply.  
I'd declare the war on terror lost, with a caveat:  You, hey you, yes you third world shitholes with all the oil.  We will do mutually beneficial transactions with you for your oil, but if you *expletive deleted* with us, we will carpet bomb your cities, find your leaders and stick their heads upon the masts of our warships, pillage your national treasures, and take your women as concubines for our sailors.  

I imagine I'd be the victim of a coup within weeks.

[AmbulanceDriver]

And then the rest of us who are in agreement with you would pick our jaws up off the floor and then stage a counter-coup

[HankB]

The linked worksheet is dishonest, which is what I've come to expect from the New York Times.

* No option to abolish Obamacare, saving between $2,500,000,000,000 and $3,000,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish Bush's well-intentioned but unaffordable Medicare drug program, saving around $800,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish ethanol fuel subsidies, saving between $70,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish (or at least severely curtail) the departments of Energy, Commerce, HUD, Indian Affairs, and Education.
* No option to abolish things like the Earned Income Tax Credit, NEA, CPB, tuition discounts for illegal aliens, and thousands of other kooky expenditures.

etc. etc.

And as for Social Security - it has a surplus and is not projected to run out of money until 2037. Yes, it's headed for problems down the road, and a fix today will be much less painful than a fix in 25 years. But a program that's currently in surplus does not contribute to today's deficit or today's national debt unless some crooked accounting is going on. (Fed.gov has "borrowed" from SS for decades. Now that those loans are beginning to come due, the debtor shouldn't blame the creditor - who's expecting repayment - for the debtor's budget problems.)

[Jamisjockey]

The linked worksheet is dishonest, which is what I've come to expect from the New York Times.

* No option to abolish Obamacare, saving between $2,500,000,000,000 and $3,000,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish Bush's well-intentioned but unaffordable Medicare drug program, saving around $800,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish ethanol fuel subsidies, saving between $70,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000 over 10 years.
* No option to abolish (or at least severely curtail) the departments of Energy, Commerce, HUD, Indian Affairs, and Education.
* No option to abolish things like the Earned Income Tax Credit, NEA, CPB, tuition discounts for illegal aliens, and thousands of other kooky expenditures.

etc. etc.

And as for Social Security - it has a surplus and is not projected to run out of money until 2037. Yes, it's headed for problems down the road, and a fix today will be much less painful than a fix in 25 years. But a program that's currently in surplus does not contribute to today's deficit or today's national debt unless some crooked accounting is going on. (Fed.gov has "borrowed" from SS for decades. Now that those loans are beginning to come due, the debtor shouldn't blame the creditor - who's expecting repayment - for the debtor's budget problems.)

Surplus my rump.  Have you ever run your income through a SS calcualtor?  You will not get out of it what you put into it!  That is not a retirement plan, nor is it security. 
Besides.  SS is not, has never been, and never will be constitutional. 

[makattak]

And as for Social Security - it has a surplus and is not projected to run out of money until 2037. Yes, it's headed for problems down the road, and a fix today will be much less painful than a fix in 25 years. But a program that's currently in surplus does not contribute to today's deficit or today's national debt unless some crooked accounting is going on. (Fed.gov has "borrowed" from SS for decades. Now that those loans are beginning to come due, the debtor shouldn't blame the creditor - who's expecting repayment - for the debtor's budget problems.)

You keep saying it. It's a lie. The money isn't there. The money isn't there. The money isn't there.

It's like saying, "I'm not broke, I have plenty of money in Enron bonds!!!"

Yeah, your money's gone. The politicians your generation voted for spent it ALL already. There's no surplus, only an accounting trick so you don't feel bad about stealing your Social Security from my children's future. 

[RevDisk]

What say you ?

Notice, none of these kinds of things actually get to the heart of the matter.  They're all tweaks.  Nothing more. 

How about defunding entire agencies?  DEA, HHS, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Department of Interior, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Labor Relations Board, Small Business Administration, Selective Service System, Commission of Fine Arts, Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission and dozens of others could all go with minimal disruption.  They do add up. 

[Jamisjockey]

Notice, none of these kinds of things actually get to the heart of the matter.  They're all tweaks.  Nothing more. 

How about defunding entire agencies?  DEA, HHS, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Department of Interior, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Labor Relations Board, Small Business Administration, Selective Service System, Commission of Fine Arts, Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission and dozens of others could all go with minimal disruption.  They do add up. 

Dozens?  I was thinking hundreds....councils, agencies, departments, offices....where the hell is my axe?

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

[MechAg94]

The SSN suplus just means the separate tax you pay for SSN  pays more than what the program costs.  The surplus extra doesn't go into a fund, it goes into the general federal budget and is spent.  There might be some IOU's, but nothing more.

[cosine]

Dozens?  I was thinking hundreds....councils, agencies, departments, offices....where the hell is my axe?

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

That is a scary long list.

[Jamisjockey]

That is a scary long list.

And many of those are redundant with state agencies. 

Oh, yeah.  I forgot, EPA.  I would actually like to axe EPA first.  And nastily.  Herd the people out of the building and set it on fire.

Also on my list:
All foriegn aid.  All of it. 
All UN funding.  Evict the UN from the building in New York and stop funding any support or security for UN functions inside our country.

[RevDisk]

Dozens?  I was thinking hundreds....councils, agencies, departments, offices....where the hell is my axe?

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I was pointing to "minimal disruption" as in you wouldn't have to reshuffle responsibilities or personnel.  "Ready to Can", essentually. 

There's hundreds of agencies, boards, commissions, et al that could go with some planning and schuffling into condensed agencies. 

[HankB]

You keep saying it. It's a lie. The money isn't there. The money isn't there. The money isn't there.

It's like saying, "I'm not broke, I have plenty of money in Enron bonds!!!"

Yeah, your money's gone. The politicians your generation voted for spent it ALL already. There's no surplus, only an accounting trick so you don't feel bad about stealing your Social Security from my children's future. 

There are US government securities in the fund. The money was NOT spent on benefits, it was "borrowed" and spent on OTHER things . . . mostly by politicians I never voted for. The actual money isn't there - I don't expect there's a large warehouse in Washington full of palleted greenbacks tagged "Social Security" - but trillions of dollars in IOU's are there. And with planned redemption rates, they should last until ~2037 or so.

That they're beginning to come due has nothing to do with today's deficit or today's national debt. The problem is that Fed.Gov is spending TOO MUCH on OTHER things, and wants to keep pirating SS to fund them.

As for it being an "accounting trick" . . . then by that logic, the entire national debt is an accounting trick, too . . .

[Jamisjockey]

There are US government securities in the fund. The money was NOT spent on benefits, it was "borrowed" and spent on OTHER things . . . mostly by politicians I never voted for. The actual money isn't there - I don't expect there's a large warehouse in Washington full of palleted greenbacks tagged "Social Security" - but trillions of dollars in IOU's are there. And with planned redemption rates, they should last until ~2037 or so.

That they're beginning to come due has nothing to do with today's deficit or today's national debt. The problem is that Fed.Gov is spending TOO MUCH on OTHER things, and wants to keep pirating SS to fund them.

As for it being an "accounting trick" . . . then by that logic, the entire national debt is an accounting trick, too . . .

Okay so here's what it sounds like.

I have a car loan.  I take a credit card and use it to pay off the car loan.  Then, I borrow money to pay for the credit card payments.  And then, I run around bragging about how my car is paid off.

[roo_ster]

[lots of wonderful proposals that bring a tear to my eye]

Where do I sign up?

[HankB]

Okay so here's what it sounds like.

I have a car loan.  I take a credit card and use it to pay off the car loan.  Then, I borrow money to pay for the credit card payments.  And then, I run around bragging about how my car is paid off.

Not quite - to make the analogy fit, you have to blame the credit card company for contributing to your personal deficit, and try to wiggle out of making the payments.

[makattak]

Not quite - to make the analogy fit, you have to blame the credit card company for contributing to your personal deficit, and try to wiggle out of making the payments.

No, it's leaving the credit card for your kids to pay off and then complaining that "you earned that car" when they object to paying for your debt.

[AJ Dual]

And many of those are redundant with state agencies. 

Oh, yeah.  I forgot, EPA.  I would actually like to axe EPA first.  And nastily.  Herd the people out of the building and set it on fire.

Also on my list:
All foriegn aid.  All of it. 
All UN funding.  Evict the UN from the building in New York and stop funding any support or security for UN functions inside our country.

I would stay in the U.N. and just monkey with their funding. (As in cut as far as I could get away with)

The U.S. permanent veto on the Security Council is just too good to give up. That's too big a lever to let be given to someone else. It's HUGE. Keep in mind South Korea owes it's independence to the fact the USSR walked out on the Security Council in protest, giving up their veto over the issue.

We may still have gone to war there, but not nearly as easily and with a 'U.N. Mandate' to provide some additional justification etc.

It's probably easier to keep riding that particular Tiger and just veto anything we don't like in the Security Council, rather than jump off and hope we can grab it's tail, and tell the U.N. to FOAD, and try using market and military pressures to ignore whatever it is they pass against us.

[Jamisjockey]

I would stay in the U.N. and just monkey with their funding. (As in cut as far as I could get away with)

The U.S. permanent veto on the Security Council is just too good to give up. That's too big a lever to let be given to someone else. It's HUGE. Keep in mind South Korea owes it's independence to the fact the USSR walked out on the Security Council in protest, giving up their veto over the issue.

We may still have gone to war there, but not nearly as easily and with a 'U.N. Mandate' to provide some additional justification etc.

It's probably easier to keep riding that particular Tiger and just veto anything we don't like in the Security Council, rather than jump off and hope we can grab it's tail, and tell the U.N. to FOAD, and try using market and military pressures to ignore whatever it is they pass against us.

IMHO, it is not our job to provide for the independence of other nations, espeically via the UN. 

[lupinus]

Heh, even using their tweaks I solved the deficit and generated a surplus on both counts. All spending cuts except for one tax.

I do love though how there is nothing substantial on there. Rather then tweaking ages, wheres the throw out SS button?

[kgbsquirrel]

Well that was a fun bit of interactive propaganda. I find it amusing that only a select few options are given to affect the budget, thus implying that those are the only options (cutting social security obviously isn't feasible, by it's exclusion) and with wonderful commentary for each option that echos either the left's support or disapproval.

Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households

The benefits of the mortgage-interest deduction (and several other tax breaks) flow mostly to high-income households – because they tend to have larger mortgages and have marginal income-tax rates. This option would reduce the value of some of those breaks to high-income households.

[Waitone]

My approach is simpleminded and in two phases.

1>If fed.gov can put on an additional $1 trillion in debt in one budget cycle then the opposition party (aka taxpayers) can reduce the debt by $1 trillion in one cycle.  None of this crap of 1 trillion up in 1 year and 1 trillion down in 10 years.

2>Across the board 10% budget cut over the previous years spending level.  EVERYTHING gets cut.  Every ox gets gored. 

For starters.  Then congress begins combing through 70 years of statism laying waste to the statist (if not fascist) infrastructure.

NYT's little game is a distraction.  It merely trims every statist program in place and does nothing to eliminate those same programs.  A part of the ultimate resolution to our mess is to dismantle the statist infrastructure and institute freer market solutions