Go ahead and balance the budget

[structured]

I thought this was pretty fun.

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

See, ANYBODY can do it!

[Dozyproductions]

didnt know saving 500 billion dollars could be such a breeze.

[Kershaw]

Click click click click done!

[e30e]

all you have to do is randomly click options, too bad politcally this would never happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vxptql70

[CorvallisBMW]

56% cuts, 44% taxes. I think it's pretty well-rounded.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gmnk76r0

I'd like to see federal workforce cut by 10% but at times of record high unemployment laying off 200K+ people isn't the best idea. They'll just turn around and go straight to the unemployment office, which will cost $, which will increase the debt.... You wouldn't see the full savings, probably not even half. While at the same time there's now hundreds of thousands of more people looking for work.

[z31maniac]

^There is some truth to that.

I wonder though, if we wait til the economy is good and booming............how much harder does it become to justify those cuts?

[Restoman]

56% cuts, 44% taxes. I think it's pretty well-rounded.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gmnk76r0

I'd like to see federal workforce cut by 10% but at times of record high unemployment laying off 200K+ people isn't the best idea. They'll just turn around and go straight to the unemployment office, which will cost $, which will increase the debt.... You wouldn't see the full savings, probably not even half. While at the same time there's now hundreds of thousands of more people looking for work.

Did you read the parts you clicked on? You just raised taxes by a ton! You think that the spending levels are honky dory?

[CorvallisBMW]

Did you read the parts you clicked on? You just raised taxes by a ton! You think that the spending levels are honky dory?

Of course. I read every word of everything on there.

Define a 'ton'. If you take a close look, less than half of the money saved was from taxes. The rest (56%) was from spending cuts. So the answer is no, I don't think spending levels are 'honky dory'.

Like I said it's a pretty balanced plan, and probably the only type of plan that would have any hopes of coming to fruition. You want 100% of the savings to come from spending cuts? Good luck getting that through Congress. Same thing goes for large tax increases. It has to be a thought-out and balanced attempt that can find support among both liberals and conservatives, or it has zero chance of going anywhere.

^There is some truth to that.

I wonder though, if we wait til the economy is good and booming............how much harder does it become to justify those cuts?

Exactly. It's a rock/hard place situation. Laying people off in a recession only makes things worse, but will you be able to justify doing it when things get better?

[Joey Link]

This ought to be simple for any principled person.

15% & 85% for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxtr018

[joshh]

It's really not that tough, they just have to be willing to ignore the drivel from the special interests...and that's also why it will never happen.

[Joey Link]

Special interests as in corporate interests on the right and babysitter-seeking liberals on the left.

[Ryan Stewart]

Damn, that was easy. Reduce the federal payroll, increase medicare and SS ages (those were HUGE) reduce the non-combat military and clean up the tax code (eliminate loopholes).

But Ive always known that the entitlement programs were always the worst (with military waste being a close second). BY waiting later and later to retire you could keep SS going for a few more decades. People act like they could never retire and die at work but its not different than 40 years ago, just that people retired early because they (especially men) died a hell of a lot earlier.

Now, thanks to that "evil" medical, insurance and drug industry you have people like my granddad; who despite cancer and being 87 could probably land a knockout punch on half of r3v.

[ck_taft325is]

Damn, that was easy. Reduce the federal payroll, increase medicare and SS ages (those were HUGE) reduce the non-combat military and clean up the tax code (eliminate loopholes).

But Ive always known that the entitlement programs were always the worst (with military waste being a close second). BY waiting later and later to retire you could keep SS going for a few more decades. People act like they could never retire and die at work but its not different than 40 years ago, just that people retired early because they (especially men) died a hell of a lot earlier.

Now, thanks to that "evil" medical, insurance and drug industry you have people like my granddad; who despite cancer and being 87 could probably land a knockout punch on half of r3v.

Really not a bragging point... ;)

[Ryan Stewart]

Really not a bragging point... ;)

You arent allowed to read my posts.

[Dozyproductions]

Special interests as in corporate interests on the right and babysitter-seeking liberals on the left.

yeah because thats how it is. The left panders to special interests and the right also does 'babysitter' shit.