›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Solve the Deficit

AprecheApreche
edited November 2010 in Politics
You think you're so smart? You fix it.

Can you do a better job than me?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3tj55qv

Comments

  • progSHELLprogSHELL
    Here's mine.

    Summery:
    No spending cuts to Domestic Programs and Fourgin Aid
    Cut the Military to pre-Iraq war levels and cut funding to military research programs.
    Enact Medical malpractice reform.
    No cuts to Social securaty except reducing benefits to those with high incomes.
    Return the estate tax to Clinton levels.
    Return the investment tax to Clinton levels.
    Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those who make above $250,000.
    National Sales tax, Carbon Tax, Millionare Tax.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited November 2010
    Would cutting millitary spending leave places like Iraq worse off than when this mess began?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • progSHELLprogSHELL
    Would cutting millitary spending leave places like Iraq worse off than when this mess began?
    No matter what we do, places like Iraq will be worse of than when this mess began. If we stay, we become an occupying force and then we invite Battle of Algers style gurrula warfare. If we go, there will be a stuggle for supremacy between the people we placed in power and the masses.
  • MattMatt
    Would cutting millitary spending leave places like Iraq worse off than when this mess began?
    I know it's a dickish stance but I can't say I care anymore. I used to be in favor of "get the job done right, clean up your mess" but this financial mess is a lot scarier. We haven't been on a sustainable path for a few decades and it will eventually come back to bite us.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited November 2010
    Can you do a better job than me?
    Apparently so, though you're probably going to tell me why I'm horribly, horribly wrong.

    Ze Plan - 777 Billion by 2015, 2051 Billion in 2030, 62% from Tax increases, and 38% from spending cuts.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • NuriNuri
    Wait... so we just get to check and uncheck boxes for options that have already been suggested? No option to submit new suggestions = pointless.
  • JasonJason
    Wait... so we just get to check and uncheck boxes for options that have already been suggested? No option to submit new suggestions = pointless.
    Indeed. And no real, substantive look at pros and cons of each selection.
  • progSHELLprogSHELL
    @Churba I insist that farm subsidies are nessesary because of the unpredicabitlity of the results of farming. Also it allows for market sensitive price control that allows the farmers to get a good price for their crops without having to set price floors or ceilings that cause deadweight loss.
  • MattMatt
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=xztpl010

    14% tax increases, and that is just through tightening loopholes while lowering rates. I am opposed to raising taxes but eliminating a loophole is only fair.

    One thing I wish was there alongside the reduction of tax benefit for businesses providing health care would be a shift of that tax benefit for individuals to buy their own insurance. When you have middle men shopping for your options, they're not playing with their own money and shit just gets more expensive. Let the people shop for their own insurance rather than having their employers do it. When you're spending your own money and companies have to answer directly to a customer, economics can work.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    @Churba I insist that farm subsidies are nessesary because of the unpredicabitlity of the results of farming. Also it allows for market sensitive price control that allows the farmers to get a good price for their crops without having to set price floors or ceilings that cause deadweight loss.
    Farm subsidies in the US only work to benefit the government and not the farmer; the farmers would probably be better off without them. Michael Pollan covers it pretty thoroughly in The Omnivore's Dilemma.
  • progSHELLprogSHELL
    I chose to use "farm subsidies" in the theoretical sense of the word. However, could you explain how the government giving money to farmers benefits the government?

    Here, have a (slightly related) chart:
    image
  • ChurbaChurba
    @Churba I insist that farm subsidies are necessary because of the unpredictability of the results of farming. Also it allows for market sensitive price control that allows the farmers to get a good price for their crops without having to set price floors or ceilings that cause deadweight loss.
    I disagree, but on the basis of what I've personally observed, and it's local, not in the US.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I chose to use "farm subsidies" in the theoretical sense of the word. However, could you explain how the government giving money to farmers benefits the government?
    Goddamn, it's been a while since I read that book. I want to say it was something about being able to artificially manipulate the corn market, but I can't precisely recall.
Sign In or Register to comment.