Archives

The NYTimes has a fun distraction where you can fix the federal budget deficit in the medium- and long-term. Go to town (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=weekinreview). Apparently, you can post your results, but I had no luck with that. I'll explain what I did if a few other people post and/or figure out how to make the link.

Booferama,

Great exercise and article. Not much response here. I was able to do it without raising the Medicare or SS age. I was not shy about cutting military things. Like since we have ~700 overseas bases surely some are not needed in this century.

How much deficit would be eliminated if they eliminated the child credit? Why are we subsidizing kids at all? My carbon footprint stops with me. :eyebrow:

Looks like capping medicare growth is the big elephant in the room.

I can't seem to make the thing work properly, or there is a lot more subtlety built into the simulator than I fathom. For example, when I select certain spending cuts the size of the deficit gets bigger ????

I would like to just point out that these choices are not simple and enacting any of the choices is very difficult in practice. For example, we have had legal caps on Medicare already, but they haven't worked. The outcome has been that the medical establishment has made it clear that if they faced caps their response would be to treat fewer medicare patients. So, given the lobbying power of the ARRP and their ilk, the congress has chosen to delay the law every year for the last 3-4 years. Old folks vote in disproportinate numbers. Not saying that something should be done, but it isn't easy.

It is clear that something must be done, or we are going to run ourselves, and particularly our children, into bankruptcy. But I still see a lot of political will be buy votes with taxpayer money, witness health care "reform," and little will to make any hard choices. Not an optimistic scene.

How much deficit would be eliminated if they eliminated the child credit? Why are we subsidizing kids at all? My carbon footprint stops with me. :eyebrow:

Looks like capping medicare growth is the big elephant in the room.

I also notice a few missing elephants:
- Raise social security contributions
- Raise medicare contributions
- Raise income taxes

Living longer means higher retirement costs
Living longer and improved* healthcare means higher healthcare costs.
Wars mean higher spending

Step one is to pay for what's happening now.
Step two is efficiency and cuts.

The problem is people assume you can jump to step two and it'll be easy. Besides, step one helps you get peoples attention.

* Where improved = able to do more

I also notice a few missing elephants:
- Raise social security contributions
- Raise medicare contributions
- Raise income taxes

Living longer means higher retirement costs
Living longer and improved* healthcare means higher healthcare costs.
Wars mean higher spending

Step one is to pay for what's happening now.
Step two is efficiency and cuts.

The problem is people assume you can jump to step two and it'll be easy. Besides, step one helps you get peoples attention.

* Where improved = able to do more

Its a very simplistic "game". That having been said, they do allow capping SS/Medicare benefits and raising taxes (sort of).

I can't seem to make the thing work properly, or there is a lot more subtlety built into the simulator than I fathom. For example, when I select certain spending cuts the size of the deficit gets bigger ????

Sorry, I figured it out :o As Roseanne Roseanna Danna used to say - never mind.

I also notice a few missing elephants:
- Raise social security contributions
- Raise medicare contributions
- Raise income taxes

Yeah, I spotted some big missing elephants myself. The really big one I noticed was Medicaid. From personal experience watching what is happening in nursing homes I noted that there are huge expenditures of Medicaid dollars dedicated to caring for those who pay little or none of the cost. That system doesn't seem just to me. That problem is just going to get bigger and bigger over time.

Quick note about the retirement age: while life expectancy has gone up dramatically for the highest earners, it's only gone up very slightly for the lowest earners (see Table Four (http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html)). So raising the retirement age becomes a defacto punishment for not earning as much to begin with.

There are a lot of elephants in the room--I think the budget is all elephants. I was able to balance the budget--short and long term--with tax increases and cuts to the military that don't impact soldiers' benefits and pay. But it's worth noting that budget estimates over ten years are, at least according to the economists I've read, shots in the dark.

Has anyone ever played the computer-simulation game Civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV)?

You start with a village and accumulate tech at 4000 BC, and progress to more advanced forms of government as you expand.

This part of the game is relavant to the thread - you must allocate how much you tax, put in research & development, keep the people happy. ;)

Has anyone ever played the computer-simulation game Civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV)?

You start with a village and accumulate tech at 4000 BC, and progress to more advanced forms of government as you expand.

This part of the game is relavant to the thread - you must allocate how much you tax, put in research & development, keep the people happy. ;)

Except its highly simplified. Personally i prefer the simcity series for all the budgeting stuff; much more in depth in terms of balancing costs and taxes.

Then again if you were a republican in simcity, your city would collapse in a few hours cause you wouldn't want to raise taxes while spending costs are lowered =P

Then again if you were a republican in simcity, your city would collapse in a few hours cause you wouldn't want to raise taxes while spending costs are lowered =PThe outcome would be the same in Civilization, unless maybe you changed the government from a productive Democracy to a Dictatorship with a nosedive in GNP.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zxfkmj10

I mostly cut spending. Only when I had exhausted most of that did I begin raising taxes.

I mostly cut spending. Only when I had exhausted most of that did I begin raising taxes.

You're dead on with that statement.

This country is broke and anyone that thinks we need to borrow more money to keep it running is a fool. One there is no more debt borrowing. We are at as of yesterday
13,794,645,743,594.58 in debt.

Does anyone else think this is insane?

1. We walk away from the U.N. and our financial support.
2. No more subsidies to countries that dislike us and cut back on those who like us.
3. No more subsidies to any group or industry in or outside the U.S.
4. 10% cut off the top from 2008 Federal government employee levels.
5. From that point we cut down to 75% of 2008 federal employment level through attrition.

6. Cut the House and Senate as well as the White house support staff by twenty five percent and limit all wages to the average of private industry for those position.

7. Get rid of base line budgeting.

Offer employees reward bonuses for finding waste and fraud with in their departments.
Also reward them with a percentage for cutting budgets and personal with out cutting services.

Hey the IRS will pay you a 10% reward for what ever they get from someone your turn in for Tax fraud. Who says you can expand the program in the Government to individual departments. You find 200K in fraud in the department or agency you get a $20K reward.

I'm betting you could cut 25% out of the Government operating expenses and no one would notice. Between the city of Pittsburgh and the County of Allegheny they cut over 5,000 employees in the last five years or so and nothing has really change. City still runs and so does the county with few problems.

One of my Friends is the last person in her department with the county. When she retires in the next few years her position will be eliminated. At one time about fifteen years ago there were 8-10 people doing the job she is doing today.

Lastly there is no new programs with out eliminating 125% out of the budget. You say there is no where to cut then the is no way we can afford this new program or entitlement.

For example you want a new 100 Billion dollar a year entitlement then you have to cut 125 billion from somewhere else in the budget.

The budget is frozen at 2008 levels with a yearly cut of 100 billion from the previous years budget until we get back to debt level of 10 Trillion or less. If the debt rises the budget freeze goes back on until we see surpluses to pay down our outstanding debt. There has to be a 100 billion debt reduction per year from now on, no excuses. 1 trillion per decade at the minimum. At that rate it would take 138 years to pay down our debt.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/EntitlementSpendingChart.jpg

Hi All:

$700 Billion would have been removed if the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% were allowed to expire.

It just goes to show you how the US Congress is bought and paid for.

Wayne

I didn't see any spending cuts either. :rolleyes:

$700 Billion? This simulation calculates $54 Billion through 2015 and $114 through 2030.

Hi WW:

Only $54 Billion for the wealthiest 1% who today own 34% of the nation's assets? What la la land do you live in? The Republican's let alone the dem's when they had control were told to leave this where it is so those with the staggering incomes pay less on a % basis then you or I. To leave $700 Billion on the table for those that are not employees yet the Government protects that % of their assets, is simply ludicrous!

In addition, the last time I looked, the US Government employs not only more people than the private sector manufacturing but has more people “under Arms” than we did in WW-II. The Gov pensions give away the store vs. the average Joe who is lucky to have a job nowadays. Other than Teachers who receive an outrageous level of benefits and giveaways nowadays!

Wayne

Hi WW:

Only $54 Billion for the wealthiest 1% who today own 34% of the nation's assets? What la la land do you live in? The Republican's let alone the dem's when they had control were told to leave this where it is so those with the staggering incomes pay less on a % basis then you or I. To leave $700 Billion on the table for those that are not employees yet the Government protects that % of their assets, is simply ludicrous!

In addition, the last time I looked, the US Government employs not only more people than the private sector manufacturing but has more people “under Arms” than we did in WW-II. The Gov pensions give away the store vs. the average Joe who is lucky to have a job nowadays. Other than Teachers who receive an outrageous level of benefits and giveaways nowadays!

Wayne

I'm just stating what this posts original link claims is the cost of the Bush tax cut extension for those over $250K. I pay less on a percent basis that those making more than $250K.

That the US Government employs more than the private sector is a total disgrace and goes against everything this country was based on. Do you think the government had a hand in making themselves so important to our employment base?

Hi All:

$700 Billion would have been removed if the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% were allowed to expire.

It just goes to show you how the US Congress is bought and paid for.

Wayne

Wayne-

The figures I've seen from the papers put the cost of the entire compromise package at ~$700 Billion. This includes the cost of 13 months of extending unemployment benefits, 2 years of tax cuts for all incomes levels, only partial estate tax reinstatement, and 12 months of cutting workers' payroll taxes by 1/3.

Only ~$50-$100 Billion is due to tax cuts for those making above $250,000/year.

Hi WW:

Keep reading…

You do not pay less on a percentage basis than those making over $250K unless of course you are earning less than a poverty wage. It’s called Cap gains and dividends and those making the big $’s are currently being taxed at 15%. The same 15% that those on the poverty line are being taxed at. At risk $'s? Bull $***.

We are $13 Trillion in the hole and those that have the $’s are the ones that have to pay up. How 1% of the population continues on with a tax rate less than you or I and the Congress continues to protect that 1% when the country is $13 Trillion in debt is both immoral and insane! Those making $250K stopped paying SS at just over $100k whereas you and I kept paying and ¾ of it was wasted on “General” spending. My $250,000 input over the past 25-years is now under water and so is Warren Buffett’s $250,000 he put in the past 25-years. And those general funds protected some very interesting assets over the past 25-years. A lot more of his then mine.

When 35 + % of the assets in this country are owned by 1% of the people and the $13 Trillion was spent providing those assets protection from everything under the sun including taxes, you tax where the tax money is available.

Wayne

Hi WW:

Keep reading…

You do not pay less on a percentage basis than those making over $250K unless of course you are earning less than a poverty wage. It’s called Cap gains and dividends and those making the big $’s are currently being taxed at 15%. The same 15% that those on the poverty line are being taxed at. At risk $'s? Bull $***.

We are $13 Trillion in the hole and those that have the $’s are the ones that have to pay up. How 1% of the population continues on with a tax rate less than you or I and the Congress continues to protect that 1% when the country is $13 Trillion in debt is both immoral and insane! Those making $250K stopped paying SS at just over $100k whereas you and I kept paying and ¾ of it was wasted on “General” spending. My $250,000 input over the past 25-years is now under water and so is Warren Buffett’s $250,000 he put in the past 25-years. And those general funds protected some very interesting assets over the past 25-years. A lot more of his then mine.

When 35 + % of the assets in this country are owned by 1% of the people and the $13 Trillion was spent providing those assets protection from everything under the sun including taxes, you tax where the tax money is available.

Wayne

I enjoy the benefits of low capital gains tax too Wayne.

A billionaire gets the same SS check I will, too bad it was built around a pyramid scheme, not the wealth transfer scheme you want it to be now. I could do much better with my money than this plan.

We agree General Spending is a waste.

Hi WW:

Then you go ahead and pay the $13 Trillion... Regarding wealth transfer, I already donated and guess where it went? Yeah, lower taxes and in many cases, less taxes than I paid for those making many more $million per year than I. Time to wake up from the fantasy world you are living in.

Wayne