Deficit puzzle: YOU balance the budget

[Palin Rider]

Enough with the whining, what's your solution?

The puzzle (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html)

[fj1200]

Well that's just a pointless exercise as far as a useful tool goes and it's loaded against tax cuts by using a static analysis before you even start.

How about we limit spending to the rate of inflation, make the Bush tax cuts permanent (and allowing revenues to return to their long-run norm), and one big fat corporate tax cut.

[abso]

i may not understand all the issues, but thats my opinion :salute:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=j3tldbl6

[fj1200]

i may not understand all the issues, but thats my opinion :salute:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=j3tldbl6

Congratulations you've successfully clicked enough boxes to "solve" the deficit. I also notice you gutted the military and taxed the rich... that always works. :rolleyes:

[abso]

Congratulations you've successfully clicked enough boxes to "solve" the deficit. I also notice you gutted the military and taxed the rich... that always works. :rolleyes:

cutting the military spendings is what should happen even if there is no economic crises, i think spending on military should be less, and spending on health care should be more.

and cutting foreign aid in half, is important too, or even cutting all of it for now.

[Mr. P]

The puzzle is flawed, many pieces are missing.
There are many social programs that could be eliminated that aren't even there. This so called puzzle is nothing more than a very transparent exercise to prove (without all the pieces on the table) tax increases are a must. What a surprise coming from the liberal NY slims.

[Palin Rider]

cutting the military spendings is what should happen even if there is no economic crises, i think spending on military should be less, and spending on health care should be more.

and cutting foreign aid in half, is important too, or even cutting all of it for now.

Don't waste too much time on FJ. :)
He's like the bratty 10-year-old at the dinner table who always says "Yeah but..." regardless of what the adults are saying, because he thinks it makes him look smart.

[fj1200]

Don't waste too much time on FJ. :)
He's like the bratty 10-year-old at the dinner table who always says "Yeah but..." regardless of what the adults are saying, because he thinks it makes him look smart.

Someone gets pissy when he loses arguments. :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

The puzzle is flawed, many pieces are missing.
There are many social programs that could be eliminated that aren't even there. This so called puzzle is nothing more than a very transparent exercise to prove (without all the pieces on the table) tax increases are a must. What a surprise coming from the liberal NY slims.

It's very possible to balance the budget on this puzzle without selecting any tax boxes.

But go ahead and fill in the missing pieces, Sherlock. Just make sure you add the correct costs. (Good luck with that. :laugh: )

[Mr. P]

It's very possible to balance the budget on this puzzle without selecting any tax boxes.

But go ahead and fill in the missing pieces, Sherlock. Just make sure you add the correct costs. (Good luck with that. :laugh: )
Sure it's possible but NOT realistic. Admit it, it's loaded to prompt raising taxes. Instead of cutting waste in Government that's not even mentioned, among other things.

[Palin Rider]

Sure it's possible but NOT realistic. Admit it, it's loaded to prompt raising taxes.

That's not at all obvious. (You probably wouldn't be saying that if it weren't the NYT.) Explain to me how it's loaded.


Instead of cutting waste in Government that's not even mentioned, among other things.

I asked you to "show me the money," Slick. Are you going to do so, or just chicken out as usual?

[Nukeman]

Enough with the whining, what's your solution?

The puzzle (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html)

Ok I was close on the 2015 but I have to say are we to really believe that only 14 billion would be spent on earmarks. REALLY the only savings from earmarks would be 14 billion more like 14 billion EVERY YEAR!!!!!!!


Also we would spend more than 17 billion dollars of foriegn aid in 20 years as well. hell in the years from 2003-2008 we spent 17 billion dollars alone in foriegn aid to Isreal ONLY.... here's the link

http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

So I have to say the numbers DON'T pan out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a bullshit test/puzzle!!!!!!!!!!

[Nukeman]

Here's another one for the years of 2001-2004 we spent globaly on foreign aid alone 30 billion dollars thats

30,000,000,000.00

So PR your puzzle is bullshit........:poke:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

What did they do pull these numbers out of Obama's ass??????????????????

Ohh Ijust have to add the earmark totals as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/27/GR2006012700168.html

from 2000-2004 alone there was 230 billion dollars spent..

That is
230,000,000,000.00

[Kathianne]

The options are inflexible, so I couldn't cut all I wanted, but to 'solve' it within parameters given:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzbqg02j

[Mr. P]

That's not at all obvious. (You probably wouldn't be saying that if it weren't the NYT.) Explain to me how it's loaded.
First it doesn't reflect all the spending does it ,Einstein? Do you see the department of education in there anywhere? Hell no, only some HOT button issues many people would have a difficult time cutting. See how that works? That's loaded. Many other non essential departments are just not in there. You can't effectively cut a budget without "all" the parts. By design this "puzzle" must reflect increased taxes to solve without guilt. That is after all the liberal agenda. Raise taxes on those rich bastards. And yes, I would say the same regardless of who composed this exercise for those without two brain cells to rub together.

BTW we haven't seen your solution now have we. Whats a matter, to difficult for ya?

I asked you to "show me the money," Slick. Are you going to do so, or just chicken out as usual?You asked no such thing. If you do I'll tell ya the same as I have in the past, I'm not here to educate you. Google is yer friend.

[darin]

Gawd - the choices in this puzzle are...puzzling...

where's the 'ELIMINATE Social Security' option?


That thing is stupid. Way too many stupid options. Not enough reasonable options.

[fj1200]

... chicken out as usual?

:laugh:

[Palin Rider]

Gawd - the choices in this puzzle are...puzzling...

where's the 'ELIMINATE Social Security' option?


That thing is stupid. Way too many stupid options. Not enough reasonable options.

Then give me a list of reasonable ones and their savings.

(BTW, eliminating SS without replacing it with something is a transparently stupid option.)


First it doesn't reflect all the spending does it ,Einstein? Do you see the department of education in there anywhere? Hell no, only some HOT button issues many people would have a difficult time cutting. See how that works? That's loaded.Lots of people have been talking about cutting these HOT button issues for a while, now. Maybe that's why they need to be in there.

You can't assume that just because every line item in the budget isn't included, the puzzle has to be loaded. It could be, but your case just ain't convincing, gramps.


BTW we haven't seen your solution now have we. Whats a matter, to difficult for ya?
Since you're interested, here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=u199jjl9


You asked no such thing.The hell I didn't: the quote was "go ahead and fill in the missing pieces."

And you can forget the Google BS: it's your argument, which means you have to back it up.


Here's another one for the years of 2001-2004 we spent globaly on foreign aid alone 30 billion dollars thats

30,000,000,000.00

So PR your puzzle is bullshit........:poke:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

What did they do pull these numbers out of Obama's ass??????????????????

Ohh Ijust have to add the earmark totals as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/27/GR2006012700168.html

from 2000-2004 alone there was 230 billion dollars spent..

That is
230,000,000,000.00

Okay, what would your solution be with those two adjustments?

[Mr. P]

Lots of people have been talking about cutting these HOT button issues for a while, now. Maybe that's why they need to be in there.

You can't assume that just because every line item in the budget isn't included, the puzzle has to be loaded. It could be, but your case just ain't convincing, gramps.


Since you're interested, here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=u199jjl9

The hell I didn't: the quote was "go ahead and fill in the missing pieces."

And you can forget the Google BS: it's your argument, which means you have to back it up. Sorry kid, I don't play games with children.

[Palin Rider]

Sorry kid, I don't play games with children.

Chickened out again, I see. Just as I expected.

[Psychoblues]

Gawd - the choices in this puzzle are...puzzling...

where's the 'ELIMINATE Social Security' option?


That thing is stupid. Way too many stupid options. Not enough reasonable options.

Don't you belong to the Civil Service Retirement Plan, dimples? If so then what are you bitchin' about? You don't pay Social Security anyway. And if you belong to the new FERS, Federal Employees Retirement System I can see how you might be jealous of those that came before you but is that any excuse to end the most successful old age survivors insurance plan in the history of the world?

It doesn't surprise me though. GS3 clerk typists are not known for their big boy level ciphering skills.

Love :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[avatar4321]

Don't care about the puzzle. but balancing the budget would be rather easy:

Eliminate:

Department of Homeland Security
Department of Education
Department of Energy

Eliminate "mandatory" spending and make all spending something that has to be legislated each year rather than automatic.

Make people accountable for the money they spend rather than having a nebulous account that no one is really watching.

Have an independent panel audit the books and find out where the government is duplicating efforts and wasting money.

Repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate to the States.

Cut DoD spending and increase military efficiency by eliminating the waste and making people accountable.

Anything else that's left over, cut 40%

[avatar4321]

Then give me a list of reasonable ones and their savings.

(BTW, eliminating SS without replacing it with something is a transparently stupid option.)

In other words, you don't have an argument against eliminating it so you have to resort to name calling.

And there is a great alternative to SS. Work.

[DragonStryk72]

Enough with the whining, what's your solution?

The puzzle (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html)

Sadly, it's a biased test. There is no way to implement any true reforms, just dick around with the current shitty system that isn't working now. Way to go, there's a wonderful test.

[darin]

Then give me a list of reasonable ones and their savings.

(BTW, eliminating SS without replacing it with something is a transparently stupid option.)


Off the top of my head...
Eliminated SS without replacing it is transparently LIBERATING. Allowing folks to be responsible for their own retirement is empowering. If you MUST advocate for a Nanny-state, allow me to opt-out IF I put that same amount into, say, 401k.

Where's the option to cancel medicare? Where's the option to at least privatize medicare?

Where's the option to switch to a flat or fair tax?

Why the HELL would 'carbon tax' be there as viable option? It's a scam! Why the HELL would good people allow the Gov't even MORE control over their wallets - especially for a fake environmental issue.

[chloe]

Enough with the whining, what's your solution?

The puzzle (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=0n0r140p

[chloe]

http://balancethebudget.com/


The one you posted gives pretty limited choices, but basically I eliminated the healthcare and the tax breaks to corporations for healthcare cuz I'm evil like dat:laugh2:

[jon_forward]

most government programs have a set amount of funding that raises slightly ever year based on the amount left over[really?] from current year end. all of the funding WILL be spent [read that wasted] because if there is any left over the next years funding will be less because a larger amount is not needed to fund needs. this is happening on every level of government from city,county,state and fed levels. stop the insanity and we will all be better off. how to do this is the next question, maybe some sort of year end SMALL bonus for saving the taxpayers their hard earned dollars. pork is everywhere. no one likes it but no one wants to loss their slice.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn111910dAPR20101117024634.jpg

[Palin Rider]

In other words, you don't have an argument against eliminating it so you have to resort to name calling.What do you want to do with our elderly, genius? Make them sleep under bridges?


And there is a great alternative to SS. Work.Sure. Hire an 85-year-old granny to operate your forklift, then let me know how that works out for you.

[Palin Rider]

Off the top of my head...
Eliminated SS without replacing it is transparently LIBERATING. Allowing folks to be responsible for their own retirement is empowering. If you MUST advocate for a Nanny-state, allow me to opt-out IF I put that same amount into, say, 401k.

Where's the option to cancel medicare? Where's the option to at least privatize medicare?

Where's the option to switch to a flat or fair tax?

Why the HELL would 'carbon tax' be there as viable option? It's a scam! Why the HELL would good people allow the Gov't even MORE control over their wallets - especially for a fake environmental issue.

I'm still not seeing numbers. Just more whining.

[fj1200]

What do you want to do with our elderly, genius? Make them sleep under bridges?

Well after you tell people for 70 years that they don't need to worry about their own retirement you get people who are dependent on a government program. Amazing how that works.