Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

[Shuvo]

Fun little puzzle for anyone who's interested in this kinda stuff, the nytimes made a flash puzzle game where you get to decide how to fix the US deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html

It's not as detailed as I would have liked, but accurate enough.

Here is my solution:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=66127435

I was going by the assumption that I was Obama and was trying to get re-elected for a 2nd term. But if it were me personally in charge, I would have just said "fuck re-election" and fix the budget by increasing taxes all around, cutting military spending and foreign aid, as well as introducing carbon taxes. Sacrifice any chance of a 2nd term for the sake of fixing the economy, basically.

[Atreides]

it's surprisingly easy to win this game if you tax rich people more and reduce defense spending, with only minimal changes to social security/medicare

[Shuvo]

Yeah, I noticed that too. To make it more of a challange try to assume you're going for re-election

[Hyan]

it's surprisingly easy to win this game if you reduce defense spending

Does it take into account the immediate assault on the American soil if you reduce it even the slightiest amount?

[Atreides]

oh whoops, forgot to link
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=83t8n5rc

[Cantih]

How I did it
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=d16j45qv

It was the last 200b that was hard

[Psion]

So why can't we just cut the military budget from it's usual 600 billion to 1 trillion + from last year and put it down to like 250 billion or so? I mean jeez, we'd not only fix the budget deficit in a few years, we'd be running a giant surplus which can be used to pay off our debt, then put into research programs and become a technological superpower again. Fucking China is gonna win against us at this rate. And while I have nothing against China, it's kind of embarrassing to your country when your textbooks harp on the evils of communism and how economies based on it fail, then have said economy based on communism kick your ass. :/

We really do not need all that money for the military, all we need is to spend maybe a couple million on an independent accountant with half a brain to rework the military budget so we aren't spending ridiculous amounts of money on contractors and the like, and rework the military to actually have more than .001% efficiency. (exaggerating, but not by much)

All this paranoia about other countries wanting to get us is complete bullshit, if we stopped pissing them off with our wars, funding of rebels in other countries, and egocentric view, maybe we wouldn't need such a big budget to keep them from pounding the shit out of us in a fight we started.

[Cream Soda]

Hurray. Can fix the budget without raising any taxes!

[Hyriu]

Does it take into account the immediate assault on the American soil if you reduce it even the slightiest amount?

I, for one, would invade the US.

[Byrthnoth]

Well, calling China Communist at this point is a little bit of a stretch. They became successful when they privatized things and allowed for personal advancement, which was contrary to "Animal Farm"-style communism.

Also, I'm a little shocked how much money there is to be saved by closing Tax loopholes and how minimal the difference between a 2013 and 2015 mid-east troop "draw down" is. The wealth inequity is great enough that I wouldn't feel particularly bad harvesting 105 billion dollars by increasing the taxes on the top 1% of the US by 2%.

[Max™]

I, for one, would invade the US.

What was the statistic again? 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the longest undefended border in the world?

"Alright ya hosers, we're here for yer women and booze, don't try anything cause we're all fucked up on hockey!"

Good thing they don't have guns, huh?

[Cantih]

If it's Tuesday, this must be the UCAS.

[Siniroth]

What was the statistic again? 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the longest undefended border in the world?

"Alright ya hosers, we're here for yer women and booze, don't try anything cause we're all fucked up on hockey!"

Good thing they don't have guns, huh?

http://i53.tinypic.com/ftenvl.jpg

We don't need guns, we got these guys

[Psion]

Well, calling China Communist at this point is a little bit of a stretch. They became successful when they privatized things and allowed for personal advancement, which was contrary to "Animal Farm"-style communism.

Also, I'm a little shocked how much money there is to be saved by closing Tax loopholes and how minimal the difference between a 2013 and 2015 mid-east troop "draw down" is. The wealth inequity is great enough that I wouldn't feel particularly bad harvesting 105 billion dollars by increasing the taxes on the top 1% of the US by 2%.

To be fair, calling the US a democracy is also a bit of a stretch, heh.

And I also don't feel bad raising taxes on the top 1%. They'll survive. I'd avoid closing the tax loopholes myself though, at least for the poorer people, since a lot of them use such things to make more money. And taking away money from people who already practically don't qualify for the term middle class, never mind the masses of lower class we have in our country, would be a bad idea and hit to the economy. We want people having some available income to spend, and have available to pay for things like bills and health issues that might arise after all.

Now if it's the top 1%... eh, let em suffer. Sorry rich folks, but until the lower 99% can actually afford basic shelter, food, and amenities along with good education, and a little cash to spend how they see fit, I don't see it as wrong to take your hard earned cash you got from underpaying your workers and overpaying your CEOs, to pay for things like medicare and the like so said workers don't expire at a young age. Get back to me when the top paid workers in almost every company are getting about 40-60 times more than the lowest paid, and we'll talk about tax breaks for the rich.

It's pretty appalling just how much people in this country have to work just to survive WITH help from the government, much less without. It's no wonder the we americans are one of, if not the most, overweight, stressed out, unhealthy, uneducated, and too stupid to realize just how much we all are slaves to the companies and government we're und... shit, this is part of their plan for a completely obedient and cheap workforce isn't it?

[Hyan]

Here the top 1% just move to some tax paradise. Can't overdo it or we'll lose 'em. But I guess the US is different.

[Shuvo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[aurik]

Heh slope=0 around 60%+

Restore the estate tax, raise the personal income taxes on the ultra-rich, drop the business tax to 25%, reduce gov't subsidies of private industry, eliminate or severely curtail the patent system, and restore funding of long-term engineering and sciences (space, health, energy)

Oh and bring our boys home from Afghanistan / Iraq.

[Olo401]

There are several options available that are NOT listed in this article, including this proposal originally laid out by Sen. Franken. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to not giving Social Security benefits to millionaires because they can easily afford not to have it. But there are ways to get around that, and I know them first hand.

Also, Social Security is not at risk of going bankrupt, and it never has been because it was designed to be self-sustaining after the initial funding was paid in during the 1940s and 50s. It currently has enough on its trust fund to continue paying out until 2037, and can continue paying out if necessary beyond that at ~70% of full benefits until 2050. The ONLY reason it's currently paying out more than it's paying in is the onset of retirement for the baby boomers - as they retire, SS pays out more; as they die off, it pays out less and the curve evens out. Anyone - no matter who they are, what credentials they have, what party they're in or what ideology they represent - who tells you that Social Security is going bankrupt is LYING OUT THEIR ASS.

[Yabby]

If you want to have some fun do this with a republican class mate looking over you. It was good fun.

[archibaldcrane]

There are several options available that are NOT listed in this article, including this proposal originally laid out by Sen. Franken. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to not giving Social Security benefits to millionaires because they can easily afford not to have it. But there are ways to get around that, and I know them first hand.

Also, Social Security is not at risk of going bankrupt, and it never has been because it was designed to be self-sustaining after the initial funding was paid in during the 1940s and 50s. It currently has enough on its trust fund to continue paying out until 2037, and can continue paying out if necessary beyond that at ~70% of full benefits until 2050. The ONLY reason it's currently paying out more than it's paying in is the onset of retirement for the baby boomers - as they retire, SS pays out more; as they die off, it pays out less and the curve evens out. Anyone - no matter who they are, what credentials they have, what party they're in or what ideology they represent - who tells you that Social Security is going bankrupt is LYING OUT THEIR ASS.

The key to your passage here is "at ~70% of full benefits".

Without a reduction in benefits, Social Security would "go bankrupt" (although that term is a little misleading).