Government Spending - try your hand at it

[mmmarvel]

Okay, so we all know that government spending and the deficits are out of control. We see this in our federal government, our state governments and at the local level; which effects many/most of us. Ever wonder what can be done about it? All of us (certainly me) yell that 'if I could just get my hands on the budget' - well, here is a chance ... sort of.

This website http://budgetreform.org/stabilizethedebt/?=DMN allows you to go in and make choices to see what the feds are up against. It's a daunting task, I did fairly well at it but I made one revenue choice that I didn't want to make, I let the tax cuts expire, but I got to chop the heck out of LOTS of programs that I disliked. I found it to be a good excercise and a bit enlightening.

 

[north star]

* * * *

Thanks Michael for this link / exercise. It is enlightening to say the least!

FWIW, I got it down to 59%.

* * * *

 

[raider1]

I was able to get it down to 60% but also had to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

This is a good exercise to help people understand the daunting task of getting the deficits under control. No one thing either increasing taxes or just spending cuts will do it. It will take a very hard decision to use a mixture of tax increases and large spending cuts to really get the government back on track.

Chris

 

[ewenme]

Excellent exercise. Getting to reduce spending on programs that are not 'my pet project' felt good. Everyone should try a hand at this! Thanks for the link.

 

[jj1289]

I got it to 59% also with no regrets

 

[Coug Dad]

Why does everyone assume that raising the tax rates will increase revenue? If that were true, I would raise my hourly rate to $1,000 per hour and only work part time. Huge increases in taxes collected occured when tax rates were cut. The problem is that the Feds spent all that new income and then more. The "rich" are not stupid. If you raise the tax rates, they will find investments that will be taxed less. Unfortunately, that is usually in areas where jobs are not created. Less job created, less people paying income taxes. That would result in both lost revenue and increase cost for unemployment "insurance", EITC and other costs.

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

 

[steveray]

I got it to 56%...but I am a heartless bastard...Cut it all...big business will take care of us...we don't need no stinkin government interference (regulation)!

 

[FredK]

Cut everything and got it to 39%. I can live with that. Of course you guys will have to work longer and pay more.

 

[Alias]

Got it down to 55% by making some rough (heartless) decisions.

Sue, in budget adverse CA.....100 days, geez guys.....................

 

[dbrown]

It is an interesting exercise, but I did not see any options for the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Post Office, Amtrak and the EPA. I did notice how much we would save by imposing cap & trade. No mention of increased revenues due to lower taxes. Coug Dad is right. Seemed a little one sided to me.

 

[globe trekker]

Sue,

What's the ' 100 days ' reference? Are you getting read to retire and start your next

career? Yeah, I'm inquisitive!

.

 

[Big Willie]

mmmarvel,

Interesting link. Regardless of your preferences / emotions / thoughts,

this country's debt load will affect everyone. If we have all benefitted

from the various programs / tax cuts / services, then we will all have to

endure the reductions. It doesn't matter what your social or economic

standing is, or has been. If the debt does not get drastically

reduced; and very soon, then we will all suffer the consequences. To

endure now means that it is going to be painful to everyone.

Unfortuntately, more painful to the lower end of the economic ladder.

Everyone else will shuffle around as the reordering is begun and continues.

The wealthy will still find or pay for exemptions / loopholes. They have

the knowledge and financial power to make it so.

To those that opted to reduce miltary spending / pay freezes, do you have

someone else in mind to protect your assets when the next large scale

terrorist event occurrs, or if the National Guard is expected to go in to

a devastated area /city to clean out the drug lords who won't leave their

turfs [ does anyone remember the Marines going into New Orleans after

Hurricane Katrina ] and the National Guard is underfunded / under-equipped

to remove the threat. Are any corporations going to step up... ? Does

anyone on here know of any corporations that are developing plans to police

the entire country, and our overseas embassies, or the national infrastructure,

or just themselves?

Just think for a moment... the " 9-11 " attack brought the country nearly to

a standstill. The financial mismanagement on Wall Street nearly caused

another "Not So Great Depression". And you want those same corporations

to now protect you?

 

[Alias]

Sue,What's the ' 100 days ' reference? Are you getting read to retire and start your next

career? Yeah, I'm inquisitive!

.

globe -

Oh I wish I could retire!

It took 100 days for CA to pass the budget this year. This is the second time in the past three or four years that this has happened. The county where I reside still hasn't passed a budget which was due by July 1 of this year, just like the state of confusion, ah CA.

This little federal budgetary exercise was at least educational.

Sue

 

[KZQuixote]

I got to 57% with no apologies, or regrets. I'm pretty sure that the Pew Trust doesn't get much conservative support. Proally could'a done better if'n the field was level.

Bill