Fix the federal budget tool (how would you do it?)

S

speedracer

Banned
NYT has a tool up that asks how you would fix the budget.

Mine would result in a $200 billion surplus by 2015 and $400 billion by 2030 (which allows for paying down the debt) while balancing the budget.

Here's the website:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

And here's my budget:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=43t325jt

Mostly done via returning tax rates to Clinton years. Who would have guessed massive tax cuts end up with massive deficits and debt.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well why aren't you running for congress then?[/QUOTE]

I don't have enough cash on hand to purchase an election victory. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
I'm intentionally not finishing mine. It's complete in 2015, with only the payroll tax upped for those over 106k. Medicare and SS were pushed to 68. No malpractice reform. But I can't cap Medicare growth spending at 1% if expansionary monetary policy isn't stopped, as that would be a disaster waiting to happen.

If I had my druthers, I'd cut troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan to 0 by 2015, as well as bring troops home from Korea, Japan, and Germany, and cut another $200 billion in empire spending overall. That'd put us at a $210 billion surplus in 2015. Cut off the printing press and I'd sign on for the 1% cap on Medicare spending. Keep it on and I'd support it for the budget as a whole, which would essentially mean you'd have to continue to cut every year. I'd also be open to pushing Medicare and SS eligibility to 70 by 2025 or so, but not right away.

Then I'd eliminate income taxes on the first 30k. I'd have to see a chart of what the projected revenues would be from there, as I'd want to eliminate income tax on the first 50k by 2020.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='The Crotch']As a Canadian - and one from the west, no less - there was a certain satisfaction in seeing the "cut farm subsidies" option.[/QUOTE]

Against the wheat board?
 
[quote name='Mike23']Against the wheat board?[/QUOTE]
The wheat board is not a government subsidy.

And it hasn't been doing so hot lately, anyway.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']The wheat board is not a government subsidy.

And it hasn't been doing so hot lately, anyway.[/QUOTE]

I figured it was in the same vein. Interesting stuff.
 
I'd cut the military budget. They get way too much cash for $500 toilet seats, $300 hammers and no-bid Halliburton contracts.

If my household has to tighten its belt and cut spending, our nation's biggest budget item can afford to do the same.
 
The bank tax option looks like a goodie.

I'd cut the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 or less; I'd be a lot more conservative on military cuts worldwide though just because I don't think it's a good idea to throw a whole bunch of soldiers out of work and add to the unemployment problem at home.
 
Not sure why cutting troop levels to 30,000 or less is a good option. Sure if you oppose the war, less troops means we are that much less involved, and are spending that much less money, but if our generals are saying they need this many troops, then we need that many troops. Either withdraw completely, or fulfill our soldiers needs, but don't leave our guys spread thin.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not sure why cutting troop levels to 30,000 or less is a good option. Sure if you oppose the war, less troops means we are that much less involved, and are spending that much less money, but if our generals are saying they need this many troops, then we need that many troops. Either withdraw completely, or fulfill our soldiers needs, but don't leave our guys spread thin.[/QUOTE]

I think I picked that.

My view is that the so-called war is not being waged as one. It's a lot of prancing around and tickle-fights. It's the most expensive ballroom dance ever put on. So I say if that's the show they want to put on, then they need to put on a much cheaper version.

So yes - either wage a real war that's over and done with quickly or pretty much don't do one at all. But playing second-hand high priced police man indefinitely is not something I'm interested in.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']I'd cut the military budget. They get way too much cash for $500 toilet seats, $300 hammers and no-bid Halliburton contracts.

If my household has to tighten its belt and cut spending, our nation's biggest budget item can afford to do the same.[/QUOTE]
:applause: The $500 toilet seats got me quite infuriated when I first found out that our government gets taken over a barrel on a daily basis like that.

They need real accountability and not just a rubber stamp that pays these leeches that charge our gov't so much for common items.
 
Got this in my inbox. Falls in line with cutting $ and having congressmen treated like the rest of us

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the
message. Maybe it is time.


THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!


**********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 2010


1. Term Limits

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A Two Six-year Senate terms
B Six Two-year House terms
C One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.


Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and
back to work.


If you agree with the above, pass it on.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='some fucking e-mail']The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.[/QUOTE]

Apparently not, since they didn't impose term limits.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think I picked that.

My view is that the so-called war is not being waged as one. It's a lot of prancing around and tickle-fights. It's the most expensive ballroom dance ever put on. So I say if that's the show they want to put on, then they need to put on a much cheaper version.

So yes - either wage a real war that's over and done with quickly or pretty much don't do one at all. But playing second-hand high priced police man indefinitely is not something I'm interested in.[/QUOTE]

That much cheaper version may end up costing lives though - Iraqi, Afghan, and Americans. I understand the want and need to get out, but I still believe its an all or nothing thing. We either do the job well, and support our troops 100% with what they need, or we get the hell outta dodge. There is no in between though, we cannot simply cut troop levels to save money unless those troops are unnecessary, and our Generals say they are necessary.
 
Of course the generals are going to say they're necessary. If they didn't they'd be without a conflict to lord over and probably reduced to being desk jockeys.

Although this nonsense with Korea is probably the next useless conflict our military is going to be 'needed' for.:roll:
 
At least it would give the thousands we have there something to do other than stare at the north across the DMZ.
 
This is exactly my point for the longest time now. Why do we feel we need to have people stationed in bumblefuck all around the world when they're doing NOTHING there? Pull them all home and focus on making OUR border secure and fuck the rest of the world.
 
Funny little tidbit here. The North keeps three guards on their side of the DMZ. One looks back toward the north, the other two stand facing each other right at the border. The reason is so that they're watching each other so neither tries to defect to the south.

How sad is that, that you have to have guards watch each other so none of them try to escape? Mean while the south makes sure they use rather large men to guard their side. They stand in these really intimidating poses, like they're ready for a fight right then. It's really bizarre stuff. There is a great National Geographic special on Netflix streaming about all this.
 
Just as a note of comparison, 30 years ago (well, 34, as these changes occurred under Carter and his Democratic Congress),

- capital gains tax was 50%
- estate tax was 70%
- marginal tax rates on the wealthy were 70% (okay, that one lasted until Reagan in 1982, when it dropped to 50%)

And the national debt jumped from $697B at the end of 1976 to $997B at the end of 1980. There's a clear relationship between tax rates and our level of debt.
 
[quote name='Clak']It was implied, right? Must have been.[/QUOTE]

The framers also imagined multi-member districts, not the single member districts we have today.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']This is exactly my point for the longest time now. Why do we feel we need to have people stationed in bumblefuck all around the world when they're doing NOTHING there? Pull them all home and focus on making OUR border secure and fuck the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]

This did not work for the united states when the world was a multipolar system, why do you think this would work now that we are a (arguably) unipolar, and we are the main world power? Or in a few years when other countries skew us back towards a multipolar international structure?
 
[quote name='tivo']There's a clear relationship between spending on social benefits and the rising level of debt.
[/QUOTE]

1) Heritage is an organization that starts with a conclusion (what fits conservative ideology) and works backward to frame its argument. They are funded by wealthy interests, they are beyond partisan, and they are not to be trusted.

2) Social Security funds are not part of our expenditures - they contribute to SS and are separate from taxation. To treat them as a portion of taxes is misleading. Please return to point #1.

3) That chart, if taken literally, argues that SS, medicare, and medicaid spending account for over 50% of all our tax revenue spent annually (as of 2005, they have the three expenditures pegged at 10% of GDP, while tax revenue is under 20% GDP). 50¢ of every $1 the government takes in goes to one of those three funds. That's preposterously untrue. Return to point #1.

My data on deficits came from the CBO. The best you have in response is Heritage, an organization which does not hide that it has an agenda. That's the best you can do? I suspect not.
 
Just look at the damn numbers man, these programs have increased spending dramatically over that time period as a percentage of GDP. It is fact, please tell me you aren't trying to dispute this.

Between 1962 and 1980, social security, medicare, and medicaid doubled from around 2.5% to 6% of GDP.

Meanwhile defense spending as a percent of GDP went from 9.2% 1962 to 4.9% in 1980, and went as high as 6.1% in 1985.

Total spending went from 18.8% in 1962 to 21.6% in 1980.

No those increases could never have contributed to the deficit. Nope, not at all.

According to Myke taking a pay cut is the same as spending money. Meanwhile going out and purchasing an item doesn't cause you to have less money. It actually adds money to your wallet ;)
 
1) find a non-heritage source. cut the partisan bullshit. i give you the CBO, and you stand behind bullshit.

2) you're arguing social security has contributed to the deficit. yes, or no.
 
the cbo..... I am arguing that we are spending more as a percentage of GDP than we were 50 years ago. Fine take social security out, medicare and medicaid spending as a percentage of GDP has still increased. You seem to think that tax cuts are the sole reason this country has such a high deficit, and that we are not spending enough. It is mind boggling how that makes sense in your mind.
 
It makes sense in his mind because not only is every single government program we have necessary, but we need at least 50% more. So cutting any of it is ridiculous; we need to find a way to grow it while reducing the deficit; the only way to do that is taxes.

Once you grasp that, arguing with myke is less like walking against a fire hose of shit and more like understanding that pandas will always shit on the ground no matter how fancy of a toilet you give them.
 
that's what passes for grown up talk in your circles, is it?

i stand by what i said - find me a non-heritage source. your childish tantrums and refusal to do so, frankly, say a lot about your character, your work ethic, and your pride in the quality of your work. i hope you don't take those kinds of debate styles and apply them to your places of employment.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']that's what passes for grown up talk in your circles, is it?[/QUOTE]

You're bitching about this? You? Really?

Anyways - thrust - grab something from a Soros-bot source and that will fill the bill.
 
While I use strong language, I always take the issue on and I don't resort to fecal metaphors.

I said the source was suspect and point out why - and all I got in response was outrage and petulance. and now you dare to call *me* out? I would prefer you have some dignity and help your fellow ideologues out in a substantive way by finding a nonpartisan source.

you guys do *know* what a nonpartisan source is, yes? if not, i'm willing to help; I know it's been a while since you've seen one.
 
I was simply pointing out another instance of your hypocrisy - that you're bitching about "grown up talk". You stoop way below that often, that was the point.

Thanks for giving us another example of your hypocrisy, though. You won't accept a partisan source like Heritage because it doesn't support your argument, but you'll quote Krugman all day long. He's just as much a partisan hack as anyone, but since he supports your POV, it's all good.
 
You're not sourcing the CBO, you're sourcing *Heritage* sourcing the CBO. Which is not the same thing as sourcing the CBO, as you're taking for granted that Heritage is accurately and precisely using those data. Which is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top