Old Tool Let's You Solve the Budget Problem

[OmaHusker]

16/84

[McKinneyTXHusker]

21/79

[Inflation]

46% - 54%

Went back to the tax policy and military policy of the 90's, plus some base broadening. The only "new tax" I picked was the bank tax.

[RedPhoenix]

39/61

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=7cx7g5qs

[RedPhoenix]

Should note how much savings was accumulated with percentages and shortfall by 2030.

I don't think the shortfall ever changes.

[Sonuvahusker]

Old Tool Let's You Solve the Budget Problem

I thought this was going to be a thread about Jimmy Carter.

[Squatchsker]

56-44

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html

[Big Red Rick]

[Big Red Rick]

40/60

[ChitownHusker]

Fair Tax.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Fair Tax.

Quick, reset your password, 57 has gotten into your account!!!

[Huskerwirejay]

So far, we haven't seen a suggestion that didn't include tax revenue increases.

Oops.

Medic and RBL both did it with 100% tax cuts.

[OmaHusker]

So far, we haven't seen a suggestion that didn't include tax revenue increases.

Oops.

Medic and RBL both did it with 100% tax cuts.

The NYT may think so, but reducing benefits is not a tax increase.

[Huskerwirejay]

So far, we haven't seen a suggestion that didn't include tax revenue increases.

Oops.

Medic and RBL both did it with 100% tax cuts.

The NYT may think so, but reducing benefits is not a tax increase.

i don't think the NYT thinks that. The only way to get a % of the fix to come from taxes is to check one of the tax code change questions. IIRC

[OmaHusker]

i don't think the NYT thinks that. The only way to get a % of the fix to come from taxes is to check one of the tax code change questions. IIRC

Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan) = +13% tax increase

Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households = + 4% tax increase

Together is 16%. Their math, not mine.

[nems]

I X'd all the cuts to domestic and foreign aid, made no cuts the military, reduced troops in Afghan to 60,000 by 2015, enacted malpractice reforms, increased the medicare age eligibility, capped medicare growth, eliminated the health insurance deduction, and made all the necessary changes to Social Security.

That left us a little short by 2015, but $200 billion in the clear by 2030.

No income tax increases.

I'm sticking with that.

[Red_in_Blue_Land]

i don't think the NYT thinks that. The only way to get a % of the fix to come from taxes is to check one of the tax code change questions. IIRC

Do you believe that the NY times showed all the available options for this excercise???
I would bet that they carefully selected the options that they wanted in this article to get a somewhat pre-determined result that the over whelming majority of selections results in a tax increase of some type.

[BasilLongfellow]

49% in tax increases, 51% in spending cuts.

Edti: Link broke.

Recap:
Cut foreign aid in half.
Cut aid to states by 5%
Reduce military to pre-Iraq war size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe
Reduce noncombat military pension and overhead
Reduce number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
Increase medicare eligibility to 68.
Raise social security retirement to age 70
Tighten eligibility for disability
Lincoln-Kyl proposal
Return Investment rates to Clinton era levels
Allow Bush tax cuts to expire for income above $250,000.00 a year
Payroll tax, subject some incomes above $106,000.00 to tax
Millionaire's tax on income above $1,000,000.
Bowles-Simpson Plan


Gave me a 2015 surplus of $65 Billion

And a 2030 shortfall of $1,199 Billion

[Huskerwirejay]

Eliminate loopholes, reduce rates (Bowles-Simpson plan) = +13% tax increase

Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households = + 4% tax increase

Together is 16%. Their math, not mine.

That is not "THEIR MATH". They aren't saying there will be a 13% tax increase with Bowles-Simpson. The ARE saying that 13% of the shortfall will be made up through enacting Bowles-Simpson. It is a tax increase that helps make up the shortfall, but it is NOT a 13% tax increase.

I X'd all the cuts to domestic and foreign aid, made no cuts the military, reduced troops in Afghan to 60,000 by 2015, enacted malpractice reforms, increased the medicare age eligibility, capped medicare growth, eliminated the health insurance deduction, and made all the necessary changes to Social Security.

That left us a little short by 2015, but $200 billion in the clear by 2030.

No income tax increases.

I'm sticking with that.

Sounds like sound solutions. Many of your fellow HuskerMax posters haven't shared their results. For the most part a mix of tax increase and cuts have been chosen. I think you are 1 of 3 that didn't increase taxes.

Do you believe that the NY times showed all the available options for this excercise???
I would bet that they carefully selected the options that they wanted in this article to get a somewhat pre-determined result that the over whelming majority of selections results in a tax increase of some type.

Not/ There are not 'all' the available options. They don't have any of the Perry cuts like eliminate the departments of education and a few others. There are an infinite number of ways to cuts spending.

IMHO, the suggested options that are pretty straight forward and can be explained in a few sentences and to so extent, were being suggested at that time.

However, you might be right. They might have cherry picked the list a available cuts.

So what? Based on the options, readers can solve the problems many different ways. I think that is what the exercise shows us.

[Huskers57]

blow up DC (for those who take me literally, it means vote out the stupid career politicans out) and start over.