You Fix The Budget |
||
You Fix the Budget
@ Chaos: I assume it's something simliar to wellfare. I'm not certain.
Another option would be increasing tax revenue by 20%
and decreasing spending by 20%: So it would look like this: Total Taxes: 2,381,000,000,000 + 476,200,000,000 = 2,857,200,000,000 Total Spending: 3,550,000,000 - 710,000,000 = 2,840,000,000,000 We'd have a surplus while still being able to keep every government program just at a weaker level. Phoenix.Excelior said: @ Chaos: I assume it's something simliar to wellfare. I'm not certain. Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: @ Chaos: I assume it's something simliar to wellfare. I'm not certain. A lot of that ***is supplemented with federal money too. I'm not sure how much, or where in the budget. Phoenix.Excelior said: Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: @ Chaos: I assume it's something simliar to wellfare. I'm not certain. A lot of that ***is supplemented with federal money too. I'm not sure how much, or where in the budget. Lakshmi.Jaerik said: Typical Independent soap box. Leviathan.Chaosx said: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=wc1245qk Fixed! You're Welcome! All without losing any existing jobs too. I have two proposed plans based on what people think the main purpose of a government budget right now should be.
1.) If you want to erase the deficit and start paying down our national debt asap so that the interest payments don't start eating tons of tax revenue, then you should push massive spending cuts as well as tax hikes. The National debt is standing at: My plan is 606 Billion surplus by 2015 and 1,680 Billion surplus by 2030 So by 2030 we might be a Debt free nation considering nothing changes in the world for 20 years. Yeah good luck with that. 2.) If you just want to stop adding to the national Debt, but don't want to hurt job growth in the U.S. (this is most politicians) Then you can't cut back on spending too much or you lay off a lot of workers that get payed by Uncle Sam. This includes government workers from soldiers to private contractors and everything in between. At the same time you don't want to tax everyone to death or you'll cut back on consumer spending which negatively effects job growth. This is what I have for my second solution. Balanced Budget with 50% tax increase 50% spending cuts. Surplus of 87 billion by 2015 and 99 billion by 2030 This tries not to effect job growth too much and still maintain a balanced budget along with global perspective. Not too much wiggle room here though so change can throw a wrench in the plans pretty easy. Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: I have two proposed plans based on what people think the main purpose of a government budget right now should be. 1.) If you want to erase the deficit and start paying down our national debt asap so that the interest payments don't start eating tons of tax revenue, then you should push massive spending cuts as well as tax hikes. The National debt is standing at: My plan is 606 Billion surplus by 2015 and 1,680 Billion surplus by 2030 So by 2030 we might be a Debt free nation considering nothing changes in the world for 20 years. Yeah good luck with that. 2.) If you just want to stop adding to the national Debt, but don't want to hurt job growth in the U.S. (this is most politicians) Then you can't cut back on spending too much or you lay off a lot of workers that get payed by Uncle Sam. This includes government workers from soldiers to private contractors and everything in between. At the same time you don't want to tax everyone to death or you'll cut back on consumer spending which negatively effects job growth. This is what I have for my second solution. Balanced Budget with 50% tax increase 50% spending cuts. Surplus of 87 billion by 2015 and 99 billion by 2030 This tries not to effect job growth too much and still maintain a balanced budget along with global perspective. Not too much wiggle room here though so change can throw a wrench in the plans pretty easy. You still haven't solved the problem. You're trying to support something that isn't supportable. You're going to have to cut most government programs and not tax if it's avoidable. The government is just like a business. If they business is built upon failed budgets and failed spending policies then it's going to go bankrupt. Right now you're not changing the policies you're just prolonging them while forcing people to pay more. First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not.
Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not. Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? The size of the government's involvement. You're plan here while balancing the budget is making government even bigger. Big government with committment to things like SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other benefits are what got us in the deficit. The solution is downsizing not upsizing. Upsizing does not take inflation and growth into consideration. Downsizing is safer because it is a smaller ratio of government committment vs availiable resources. Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: Leviathan.Chaosx said: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=wc1245qk Fixed! You're Welcome! All without losing any existing jobs too. I increased government's size? What programs did I create in these pretend budgets? Both Plans actually had spending cuts. Did you even click on them?
Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not. Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? The size of the government's involvement. You're plan here while balancing the budget is making government even bigger. Big government with committment to things like SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other benefits are what got us in the deficit. The solution is downsizing not upsizing. Upsizing does not take inflation and growth into consideration. Downsizing is safer because it is a smaller ratio of government committment vs availiable resources. Quetzalcoatl.Moonsshadow
Offline
Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not. Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? Thank you for reaffirming EXACTLY why we are in this problem. Kudos. As long as we believe that statement you just made we are ***. Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: I increased government's size? What programs did I create in these pretend budgets? Both Plans actually had spending cuts. Did you even click on them? You taxed more while giving the people less. That would be like: Mcdonalds raised the price of the Dollar Menu to $2 and now you get half the food. It increases the size by increasing demands, and it also *** people over. The people have spent in the red for years now. I don't consider it "*** them over" to expect them to pay at some point for the benefits they have received.
I also don't consider the government collecting taxes to pay down the national debt as big government. The big government, small government argument is simply a wedge issue. The size of government largely stays stagnant. What the government spends it's money on changes, but that's about it. Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: The people have spent in the red for years now. I don't consider it "*** them over" to expect them to pay at some point for the benefits they have received. I also don't consider the government collecting taxes to pay down the national debt as big government. The big government, small government argument is simply a wedge issue. The size of government largely stays stagnant. What the government spends it's money on changes, but that's about it. Oh really? Might want to take some history classes. You're really out of touch. Care to name who in the past 100 years has been a small government hero?
He writing some long response or is he having trouble answering that I wonder?...hmmmm.
Phoenix.Excelior said: Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not. Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? Thank you for reaffirming EXACTLY why we are in this problem. Kudos. As long as we believe that statement you just made we are ***. I haven't taken a look at the app or w/e but I will probably do so on Monday at work...but I'd say eliminating SSI, Medicare, Medicaid may not work for the ones who previously had it but you can always just stop it for X generation.
like babies from X date no longer have that option...something like that maybe? just so it's not removing stuff from people in real time and such lol. Quote: Here's an interesting interactive app that shows all of the various proposed cuts to spending and increases in taxes currently on the table, and how much they are projected to save or contribute. Your goal is to fix the US federal budget gaps for both 2015 and 2030. I'm interested to see how people choose to do it. "Cap Medicare growth starting in 2013"..The easy out for $562 billion, which doesn't really describe how its accomplished, is just one of many many problems with this thing. Others are explained in a way that makes them seem more appealing than most would find them if implemented for real. People hate tax and we've all wanted the government to stop wasting money for years..So it would look like you should cut things and not increase taxes right(ignoring for the moment a lot of those "increases" are actually just reverting to what they already were)? One thing not accounted for is how fast your decisions would be undone. You wanna pull troops? Surprise not long after your budget passes someone will be starting the process stopping/reversing/sending more to make up for those you are about to pull out. The reality is as soon as you balance it, someone else will begin work to unbalance it. Even so, I can make a mostly stable* budget with what they have on that webpage that makes a surplus. And even without the "easy out" and even make it look alright on paper. But it wouldn't be pleasant to actually live with out in real life. Way more complicated than just multiple choice. *stable being define as less likely to be ripped to shreds immediately. edit: Lakshmi.Jaerik said: The point of the exercise is to show that the one-issue soap boxes people climb up on in Politics threads do not come anywhere close to solving the budget crisis on their own. It's not as easy as "spending cuts!" versus "more taxes!" Neither the official party platforms of Republicans, Democrats, not the Tea Party can close the budget gap solely via their proposals currently on the table. Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Leviathan.Chaosx said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: First off government is not just like a business. The government has access to many financial tools that a business does not. Second of all what problem would you specifically be addressing? It is certainly a big problem. Unfortunately it's the one we must overcome or succumb to. Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: Care to name who in the past 100 years has been a small government hero? Ronald Reagan We definately need more :/ Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: Care to name who in the past 100 years has been a small government hero? Ronald Reagan We definately need more :/ You must know a lot about Ronald Reagan. Do you remember what his Government spending as a percent of GDP looked like? Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Blindphleb said: Care to name who in the past 100 years has been a small government hero? It was mostly defense spending which was required because of the cold war. I hope you arent really gonna insult the man for fighting a war. In terms of government aid and spending on entitlement programs he cut everything by a shitload. Or how about his war on drugs? That's small government is it?
|
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|