YOU fix the Budget!!--A Game

[heliochrome85]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html

[Amays U G37S]

No one wins at that game!!!!!

i don't wanna

[BusyBadger]

No one wins at that game!!!!!

i don't wanna

And that is exactly the problem. Tough choices all around and no one wants to tell people "no". So in the end, instead of "No one wins at that game!" what actually happens is that "Everyone loses."

The sooner decisions are made and action is taken the easier things will be, delays will only make the choices tougher and the actions more severe.

[srellim234]

I had no problem exceeding the goals. Unpopular choices, but choices that have to be made nonetheless. And yes, some of the choices impact me negatively as well. Everyone including the one making the choices has to be willing to "bite the bullet."

My results?

2015 projected shortfall: $418 billion My projected savings: $559 billion My surplus: $141 billion
2030 projected shortfall: $1,335 billion My projected savings: $1,691 billion My surplus: $356 billion
1/3 (34%) from tax increases; 2/3 (66%) from spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=wcftq6p0

Of course, with our current buffoons in Washington, D.C. none of these will ever be implemented and no one will get elected who proposes these. Too much selfishness among the electorate to be willing to take any kind of hit themselves. They will continue to elect those who will only cut "the other guy."

[mattblancarte]

Glad to see this thread already started.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... s=cz1vpj02

My 2015 Projected Surplus: $8 billion
My 2030 Projected Surplus: $122 billion
(8%) from tax increases; (92%) from spending cuts

[srellim234]

matt- 8% and 92% is a lot closer to 1/10 from tax increases and 9/10 from spending cuts. Not 1/3 and 2/3.

[mattblancarte]

Whoops, just copied yours over as a template and forgot to adjust that. will edit

[96Qowner]

Fun game!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=cd0rg159

Projected 2015 Surplus: $50 billion
Projected 2030 Surplus: $395 billion

It's easy. You just extend Medicare and Social Security eligibility to 70 and tweak the tax system a bit. That leaves a bunch of obese government institutions yet to be pared back.

[srellim234]

Not really easy. It's important to remember that every one of those cuts or tax increases impacts real human beings and real lives.

[heliochrome85]

it is really good at demonstrating how much we would have to cut to compensate for not touching defense spending.

[IBCoupe]

it is really good at demonstrating how much we would have to cut to compensate for not touching defense spending.

^Elephant in the room.

[96Qowner]

So you youngsters don't want to extend the retirement age? You like the idea of two of you paying for the checks some old guy gets from "the government"?

I just opened a cafe, I'm 4 years from getting SS checks, and I sure won't need them. I'd be glad to wait until 70. Very few of the guys I know who retired are having much fun. They're irrelevant now - no one cares what they do.

Or we could let some other country be the big military badass. Maybe France. Iran is itching to be a regional military power ...

[heliochrome85]

excuse me. we are not military badasses. at least not since vietnam...

[mattblancarte]

excuse me. we are not military badasses. at least not since vietnam...

How did Vietnam paint us as badass any more so than Desert Storm?

[heliochrome85]

hell, the last time america's armed forces had a rousing victory was when we cornered the north koreans via Gen. MacArthur.

[stebo0728]

Game is no good, it doesnt give an option to dump Income Tax and implement NRST.

[IBCoupe]

Because only crazy people think that's a real solution.

[stebo0728]

True genius lies in the bowels of insanity, didnt you know?

Just wait, as soon as Michael Moore makes a Fair Tax movie, there'll be no stopping it!

[IBCoupe]

I just opened a cafe, I'm 4 years from getting SS checks, and I sure won't need them. I'd be glad to wait until 70. Very few of the guys I know who retired are having much fun. They're irrelevant now - no one cares what they do.

So wait. Do what you want to do. I'm not gonna tell a factory worker that, though his body's falling apart, he can't go ahead and collect because some other schmuck might take advantage of it.

Or we could let some other country be the big military badass. Maybe France. Iran is itching to be a regional military power ...

We don't need to spend what we spend to remain a military badass. We do need to spend it to be a "big" military badass, but "big" isn't necessarily better. "Big" government, "Big" brother, "Big" bad wolf, "Big" electric bill, "Big" (a decent performance by Tom Hanks, I think, but you might disagree).

[IBCoupe]

Just wait, as soon as Michael Moore makes a Fair Tax movie, there'll be no stopping it!

He really did wonders for Truthers, didn't he?

[96Qowner]

<fail>

[mattblancarte]

hell, the last time america's armed forces had a rousing victory was when we cornered the north koreans via Gen. MacArthur.

That was a pretty short lived victory, considering the subsequent mistake he made.

I agree with those calling for a draw down in US troop levels and defense spending.

So why have only three people completed the budget form? Still waiting on a few that I'd like to see. Greg, Isaac (IB?), Tariq, Steve, and Matt (Aud)... It only takes a few moments to fill out.

[IBCoupe]

Can't get to it from work, and I haven't had much time outside of work. Maybe tonight during property class.

There's a good chance I'll forget about it, though. Not gonna lie.

[srellim234]

matt- which Steve are you referring to? Mine is up there before yours. Bigger surplus, too.

I'm interested as to why you wouldn't allow the social security tax to apply to incomes over $108,000. Heck, the second assistant manager makes that much at Wal-Mart! I'm pretty sure he's going to be looking at collecting upon retirement. For those who make millions we need to recall that social security was supposed to be a safety net for those who might need it. Given stock market collapses, pensions and retirements from companies disappearing and property value dropping many of the people above that income level are going to be collecting. They should be contributing to that safety net, too, at the same % rate as the $100k; it should not be a progressive rae but instead a flat tax rate. I haven't seen figures but I would imagine it would make social security self-funding if we could "lockbox" the collections and keep them away from Congressional IOUs.

Huge mistake that it wasn't made self-sustaining from the very beginning.

[heliochrome85]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=druk55jj

thats what i came up with. the reality is that without capping medicare growth and drastic defense cuts, we are doomed. everythign else is small peanuts.

[mattblancarte]

Can't get to it from work, and I haven't had much time outside of work.

No worries, I totally understand.

matt- which Steve are you referring to?

I was nudging at Stebo. I would have asked for yours, but you were quicker to the punch than myself.

Bigger surplus, too.

I'm interested as to why you wouldn't allow the social security tax to apply to incomes over $108,000.

Huge mistake that it wasn't made self-sustaining from the very beginning.

While I see the need for a surplus, I figured it could remain as small as possible. In my perfect world, we'd tax only enough to cover costs.

If it were necessary to balance the budget, the SS tax bump you're talking about would be one of the next items to enact. It's sensible, and I agree that the system was inherently flawed.

[mattblancarte]

the reality is that without capping medicare growth and drastic defense cuts, we are doomed. everythign else is small peanuts.

Yep.

[srellim234]

matt- I totally understand. I went for the bigger surplus, picking additional items in order to allow me to give up some things as part of enactment deliberations. We don't live in a dictatorship so I made sure there were some extra things there. You and I can see that a "give and take" on such items can lead to compromises and accomplish the goals; too bad Congress has been bought off to the point they don't.

[IBCoupe]

I solved the defecit, with 54% of my plan involving tax increases and 46% of my plan involving spending cuts, resulting in a $109 billion surplus in 2015 and a $70 billion surplus in 2030!

And I did it without capping Medicare. I actually had to go back and remove some of my choices once I saw how much of a surplus I was running.

[Eikon]

Interesting game.. It's a different perspective when you see all the options and dollar figures attached to them.

I will say this... I have "almost" always aligned myself with the republican set of ideals when it comes to economics. But having completed that test myself, I'm surprised to see how many of my decisions would be condemned by the republican party. lol. Most prevalent is the idea that I've always considered myself to be "pro-military", but I wound up cutting a huge swath of dollars from the military and the war in the middle east.

I am also one of those people who agrees with cutting the IRS and income taxes and going with a flat sales tax.. but that's another discussion I guess.

Good find Helio!