| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| DEficit reduction game https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4676 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | DEficit reduction game |
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zw1t500j My solution above. To get to a reset version, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html --Stathol I solved it with only one tax "increase", namely closing tax loopholes and reducing rates, but less than the Bowles Simpson plan. This plan gives me $23 billion a year starting in 2015 to begin reducing the debt, and all without any cuts to the military (I don't consider reducing troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan a cut to the military even though its a cut in military spending. The cuts I'd have preferred weren't really available as a choice.) I might have cut the troop levels in Europe and Asia to meet the goal if I'd had to, but.. I didn't, and if I were going to do that I wouldn't put the savings from that towards the deficit anyhow unles there were no other way to eliminate it. I'd put that spending towards a change to a more strategic force, just directing war spending to the deficit, and keep military spending on activities other than the current two wars at the same level. edit: thnks Stah, should have thought of that myself. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
The WSJ isn't usually as biased as that test is ... I unchecked everything and went for the most aggressive military cuts ... And it said I solved the deficit. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
Yeah its a bit jacked up, but I thought it would be interesting to play with. Wasn't there another one we played with a while back? I could only get to 191 billion/349 billion with all military cuts and nothing else. How did you do that? |
|
| Author: | Dash [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
This is what I did to "solve" it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=zz1tk010 But if I had my choice I'd just pick the following which would be short about 24 billion in 2015 but I'm at 1,361 Billion by 2030 which is over the mark. Cut foreign aid in half Eliminate earmarks Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent Cut 250,000 government contractors Other cuts to the federal government Cut aid to states by 5 percent Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 Enact medical malpractice reform Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 68 Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 Raise the Social Security retirement age to 68 Use an alternate measure for inflation * Not sure about this one, sounds kinda like a stealth tax. Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan) Done. 396 billion of the 418 billion shortfall in 2015 and 1,361 savings by 2030, which is 6 billion more than I needed. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Increase SS eligibility to 70, Dash, and reap even more surplus by 2030. Get rid of the alternate measure of inflation -- the CPI already underestimates inflation by a frightening margin. (that said, if you want to nerf SS payouts, be my guest; but doing so by monkeying with inflation numbers is shady and has broader reach on economic pontificating) |
|
| Author: | Dash [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It kinda sucks working within the constraints of this chart, but suppose they cant account for everything. If I had my choice I'd love to see some kind of partial, opt in privatization of SS. I dont like the thought of saying "give me your money, and you cant have it til 65. No 68. No 70." The inflation thing I admit ignorance. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
Putting space and nuclear deterrent in the same category is rather shady; that was one of my biggest beefs with the game. The two are sort of related, but they're hardly the same budget item. I also notice that they left Gate's overhead cuts out of the defense cuts options, as well as cuts to military contractors, unless they lumped those into general government contractor cuts. |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Dash wrote: It kinda sucks working within the constraints of this chart, but suppose they cant account for everything. If I had my choice I'd love to see some kind of partial, opt in privatization of SS. I dont like the thought of saying "give me your money, and you cant have it til 65. No 68. No 70." The inflation thing I admit ignorance. It's more like "Give me your money and we'll give it to someone else. Then maybe when you turn 70, you'll have a chance at taking someone else's money." |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was really annoyed they lumped space exploration in with nuclear arms reduction. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: I was really annoyed they lumped space exploration in with nuclear arms reduction. Technically they didn't. They lumped in space-based missile defense, but that's intertwined with space explortion since you need some way to launch it, Constellation is cancelled, and they don't mention space anywhere else that I noticed. It's a cute way to dodge the issue that Obama managed to spend more on NASA while weakening the space program. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: It's a cute way to dodge the issue that Obama managed to spend more on NASA while weakening the space program. Classic leftism -- spend more for less through government! |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where are the options to eliminate entire departments? |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Where are the options to eliminate entire departments? I'll bite. What would you cut entirely? |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The IRS, I'm sure. |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hopwin wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Where are the options to eliminate entire departments? I'll bite. What would you cut entirely? Department of Energy. Department of Homeland Security. Department of Education. Combine the FBI and CIA into one department or move the CIA into MI. IRS is another you could get down to virtually no people if you had a consumption tax or a flat tax system as Kaffis said. That'd be for starters. I know I'm not Elmo, but that's a start for me. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Ienan wrote: Hopwin wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Where are the options to eliminate entire departments? I'll bite. What would you cut entirely? Department of Energy. Department of Homeland Security. Department of Education. Combine the FBI and CIA into one department or move the CIA into MI. IRS is another you could get down to virtually no people if you had a consumption tax or a flat tax system as Kaffis said. That'd be for starters. I know I'm not Elmo, but that's a start for me. I wouldn't ever allow foriegn intelligence and law enforcement to be the same department. What I'd do in that regard is eliminate BATF and DEA and roll the personnel into the FBI, Marshalls, Border Patrol and Secret Service, and roll the CIA, DIA and NSA into one agency. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Ienan wrote: Hopwin wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Where are the options to eliminate entire departments? I'll bite. What would you cut entirely? Department of Energy. Department of Homeland Security. Department of Education. Combine the FBI and CIA into one department or move the CIA into MI. IRS is another you could get down to virtually no people if you had a consumption tax or a flat tax system as Kaffis said. That'd be for starters. I know I'm not Elmo, but that's a start for me. Doesn't the DOE(nergy) hold the keys to the nukes? |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
I'd be okay with DE's plan. And maybe so Hopwin, but other departments could handle the responsibilities equally well. You don't need 75% of the agencies (maybe more) that we currently have. Responsibilities could be rolled into smaller, more efficient departments. And many of the responsibilities should be given back to the states. Of course, I never imagine this happening in my lifetime. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is so easy. I solve the deficit long before i get to the taxes section, and long before i finish my cuts. And I don't end up objecting to any of them! |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
Ienan wrote: I'd be okay with DE's plan. And maybe so Hopwin, but other departments could handle the responsibilities equally well. You don't need 75% of the agencies (maybe more) that we currently have. Responsibilities could be rolled into smaller, more efficient departments. And many of the responsibilities should be given back to the states. Of course, I never imagine this happening in my lifetime. I am fine with all of your picks except Energy. The more I think about it (besides controlling nuclear power and fissile materials) the more problems I have with it. I think back to the blackout that covered the Northeastern US a few years back. Power lines cross multiple state lines and considering what a cluster-eff the Great Lakes States have made out of managing the lake system I think we need oversight there rather than trusting states to create interstate departments to manage them. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hopwin wrote: Ienan wrote: Doesn't the DOE(nergy) hold the keys to the nukes? DoE technically owns the nuclear warheads, but not the missiles or planes that carry them. There's really no reason it needs to be that way, but even if you wanted it to remain as a check against some part of the DoD attempting to take over the rest of the country with some of the nukes (which is tinfoil-hat-hall-of-fame-worthy) you could trim the DoE back to just the portion of the agency responsible for nukes and get rid of everything else. Personally I'd still want them to monitor and regulate nuclear power plants because we just can't take chances with that ****. Same thing with the power grid; we lose the power grid and we essentially lose the country. That's why EMP is a threat, but really it doesn't matter if we lose it to EMP or to power companies **** it all up. Lose power for too long and the ability to recover starts to deteriorate. However, I'd trim the EPA back considerably, majorly neuter its enforcement power and put it under the DoE just to get all that sort of **** in one place. Things like the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services would have to go. I'd look at cutting Transportation way back and possibly combining it with Energy. Interior and Homeland Security would probably become one department. |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
In your example Hopwin, I'd combine those functions into the Department of Interior and Defense, which absolutely should exist. Defending the nation's power supplies is a function of our military and infrastructure should be handled by Interior. Transportation should be rolled into Interior as well and limited greatly. The EPA, FDA, and other regulatory agencies should be cut back a lot. Labor should be eliminated and the few issues it deals with could be handled by other agencies. HHS should be eliminated and important health functions should be rolled into a new agency that would include NASA, such as a Department of Science and Public Health. It could even be combined with other departments. This would eliminate many government jobs along the way. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: DEficit reduction game |
Ienan wrote: In your example Hopwin, I'd combine those functions into the Department of Interior and Defense, which absolutely should exist. Defending the nation's power supplies is a function of our military and infrastructure should be handled by Interior. Transportation should be rolled into Interior as well and limited greatly. The EPA, FDA, and other regulatory agencies should be cut back a lot. That's an interesting approach. I could go for that. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just checked anything over 100 billion and saved the world pretty quick. I kid. Went through pretty quickly and ended up with 22% from tax, 78% from cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=s753800j |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Eliminated: DEA, IRS, BATFE, DO Education, DHS, NASA, EPA to start |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|