I was able to eliminate the deficit in a single year by eliminating:

• Medicaid ($253 BILLION) - note this is NOT Medicare, just Medicaid.
• Eliminating Aid to low-income families ($206 BILLION) - not the federal goverment's job to pay for the poor, let charities do that and let those who have true compassion for the less fortunate give to charities.

That's it.  That's all I had to do in order to balance the budget. Of course, less drastic things could be done and balance the budget too. Cut some of the programs and freeze spending increases in others.

The point is, yes, you can balance the budget without raising taxes. It just means making some tough choices. But better for the government to make those tough choices on its own bloat than to fleece the American people for more money that is largely squandered.

I can't access the site right now.

I wouldn't make medicaid and welfare my first cuts. They'd be on the list, but, frankly, from what I've discovered, we need to seriously change our attitude before eliminating them. I believe that we need to cut a lot across the board.

I'll try to access the site later on tonight and share my results if I'm successful.

Try it now. (fixed link)

Well, I cut everything except veteran's benefits and SS by 10%, cut social programs by 50% (I'm for elimination as well, but the 50% threshhold leaves a "safety net" that would give transition time), and increased personal tax cuts and health care tax cuts by 20%, and came out $3 billion in the black.

It's a fun game. I'm going to tinker with it some more.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm going to run it through dumping education spending entirely. This is the federal budget we're talking about, not the state budget...where I feel education spending BELONGS.

The problem, as I've pointed out to the Col more than once, is that what they SAY this stuff goes for isn't necessarily what it goes for. I don't believe that millions spent on military museums and statues and whatnot are "defense". Go back and look at the money that is leeched away in earmarks, often going to stuff that doesn't even fit under the umbrella of what the money was appropriated for.

If we had a REAL rundown of where the money went, I believe we could cut a third or more of the budget. If we knew what they were paying for the $150 hammers and ultra top-secret toilet seats we could probably cut another third. If we could cut out the abuse of SSI and other handouts we'd cut a huge amount.

What about what we send in "aid" to other countries. We've sent 84 billion to Israel since 1949. We send over a BILLION dollars a year in "aid" to EGYPT, a nation full of people who hate us, where we can't even visit without being dragged off the bus and machine gunned to death. Bush has vowed to send 230 million to Lebanon; before Hamas took over we were sending hundreds of millions to Palestine so people like Arafat's wife could life in luxury in Paris.

We can't see all this, though, because there is no transparency, allowing people like the Col to sit around and pretend that every penny is necessary. I devoutly believe that we could cut far more than 50% of the budget if we had that transparency, and probably a hell of a lot more.

I devoutly believe that we could cut far more than 50% of the budget if we had that transparency, and probably a hell of a lot more.

I believe you're right.

Frankly, I believe even at the state level, education could be cut substantially without truly impacting the students. I think vouchers are a good first step. When a school district pays upwards of $1200 per student for curriculum, and I can get a top notch curriculum for $600 at the HIGH end (actually, I'm quite happy with curriculum that can be had for under $200, personally), then I know for a fact that our school districts are getting fleeced. Only through competition do such practices stand ANY chance of being eliminated.

I would tend to agree with Bakerstreet here also.  As was stated already, there are so many ways to cut the budget, but what this comes down to is people that essentially want income redistribution.  You will notice the pro-tax proponents here don't really give a reason why successful Americans should be taxed, except that "they can afford it". 

You will notice the pro-tax proponents here don't really give a reason why successful Americans should be taxed, except that "they can afford it".

I hate that idea, and the very idea of income redistribution. If I can make as good a living as a fry cook as I can as a Network Administrator, why should I put down my spatula and do all it takes to do the latter job? High income is usually (not always, granted), the reward for hard work.

Guess I am a scrooge at heart:

Your New Budget

---

Budget Totals

Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $3203.03 billion
($2128.2 billion in spending, $1074.83 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

You have cut the deficit by $544.33 billion.

Your new deficit is $-143.32 billion.

Oops!

I understand Baker's assertion, but the game does not allow you to be discretionary (perhaps that is an idea for another Stardock game) as doing so would greatly complicate the calculations.

But I do not agree with the so called called Economists that say a surplus will lead to a recession.

But I do not agree with the so called called Economists that say a surplus will lead to a recession.

Nor do I. I would apply the surplus to debt reduction. Sure, you don't want to go overboard with the surplus, but I think a $20-30B surplus would be manageable for offbudget expenses and debt reduction purposes.

The entitlement programs are killing us financially. We need to streamline this system and not be creating new benefits such as the senior drug benefit.

I also agree that there is a huge amount of government waste. My husband is in the military and he sees it every day. Multiply what he sees times all the U.S. bases and it's a huge amount of waste. That isn't even mentioning all the bs pork barrelling that goes on. Here is a link for Citizens Against Government Waste for anyone who is interested. Link

If I can make as good a living as a fry cook as I can as a Network Administrator, why should I put down my spatula and do all it takes to do the latter job? High income is usually (not always, granted), the reward for hard work.

But people, mainly democrats, don't see it that way.  They blame the government if they are not making a so-called "decent" income.  If they poorly manage their income and end up in debt....it's the governments fault somehow. 

I believe people are poor because of their own choice. 

The first step in reducing the deficit should be to take the point of view that no program is untouchable.

The second step should be to take the point of view that no program is untouchable.

The truth is, even the more moderate government programs have generally risen at a rate that well exceeds that of inflation. And they've been doing it for so many years that they've become vastly overinflated. I think a good rule of thumb would be a minimum 10% reduction for every program except veterans' benefits and Social Security, with higher amounts going based on priority. I think Aid for Low Income Families should be cut by 70% to leave a "contingency fund" for the transition time. If states want more welfare money, let them raise it and not rely on the fed. Privatizing would be a good rule, and 50% of all surpluses from the reductions should be applied to tax cuts, with the remaining 50% applied to debt reduction. Federal funding for education and agriculture should be eliminated entirely.

The problem is not that we need to raise taxes. The problem is, we need to reduce spending. DRASTICALLY. When per capita federal expenditures top $9000, I think we can all say we're getting mighty poor bang for our buck.

I believe people are poor because of their own choice.

In 90% of the cases, I would agree with you.

I would say, though, that they are poor as a result of the choices they've made, not that they consciously chose to be poor. What we need to do is educate them on how to find a way out. And you can't do that by offering a free lunch.

Funny how this works, by cutting defense spending a bit, unfunding the war in Iraq (which should be ended anyway), and dropping corporate tax breaks a bit I was able to induce a huge surplus while INCREASING funding for Science, conservation, and education. Problem solved.

Budget Totals
Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $3229.7 billion
($2409.15 billion in spending, $820.55 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).
You have cut the deficit by $517.66 billion.
Your new deficit is $-116.65 billion.

Funny how this works, by cutting defense spending a bit, unfunding the war in Iraq (which should be ended anyway), and dropping corporate tax breaks a bit I was able to induce a huge surplus while INCREASING funding for Science, conservation, and education. Problem solved.

You know, while your solutions are different, it does prove the point; that the budget CAN be balanced, without raising taxes (except, in your case, on the corporate side).

I wouldn't personally choose the same budget solutions as you, but it still shows it can be done. And because it can be, it should be.

What we need to do is educate them on how to find a way out. And you can't do that by offering a free lunch.

Exactly.  Welfare programs do not encourage people to make it on their own.

Of course, this is just an intellectual exercise because if you were a real politician you know that you have to answer to PAC's, lobbyist and voters. Every program that you cut is going to lose you votes and support in the next election. We know that their job isn't representing their constituents. Their job is to get re-elected.

I think you all have been playing too much Galactic Civ... "Sure, I could eliminate the budget deficit without raising taxes! I could also have everyone abandon their jobs, head to the research center, and discover the cure for cancer in two years!"

I saw a totally detailed PDF file from the Cato Institute or somebody showing like 150 actual budget items we could cut. Wish I could locate it again for some perspective on what this exercise would look like when dealing with an actual government.

I personally cut things that I thought people could live with. Cut 100% of Social Security and you'll have people starving in the streets. Cut 20% and you'll just have rolled the program back to 1980 or so -- it wasn't a bad deal then, was it?

I eliminated the Department of Agriculture and the mortage-interest deduction, which is a historical accident from interest exemptions that were written before people had mortgages. But I didn't balance the budget.

I basically increased spending on everything by 100% and this happened...

"Your New Budget

Budget Totals
Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $6735.42 billion
($4585.75 billion in spending, $2149.67 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).
You have increased the deficit by $2988.05 billion.
Your new deficit is $3389.05 billion."

Grab a drink and enjoy the party!

The game also doesn't actually make any changes o the SS amount no matter what you do to it.

First, thanks to Draginol for the link.

Dr. Guy said:

I understand Baker's assertion, but the game does not allow you to be discretionary (perhaps that is an idea for another Stardock game) as doing so would greatly complicate the calculations.

Second, I really like Dr. Guy's suggestion here and would love to see just such a game come through.  It would be cool if it went into some depth as suggested above -- allow for a line-item type veto, and other cuts that would really show everyone where we could and couldn't cut items,  perhaps with the typical "for every action...."  outcomes for some of the cuts.  (Such as cutting medicaid might wind up adding even more costs for the economy because of sick people going into work making co-workers sick, etc.)

Anyway, something of substance in this area to play and use as a teaching tool would be quite fun.  Maybe make it highly customizable via .xml files or something that would make it easy to change some of the parameters that decide if changes made would be devastating, very bad, bad, neutral, good, very good, or outstanding (to give some terms to the outcomes that might come from making changes to various budgets).

A nice Economic Simulator would be great fun for sure.

The problem is there's no possible way deal with it accurately. They earmark money and find corrupt uses for it AFTER it is budgeted quite often. The fact that this "greatly complicates" things is their modus operandi.

If it weren't greatly complicated we'd be able to see where they steal the money. When someone needs to find a job for their cousin's construction company, they decide to build a military museum and call it "defense". When someone wants to help out a crony's business, they find a way to send aid to a nation that will be spent on the crony's goods and services.

We shouldn't be spending a DIME sending money to Egypt in military aid we'll probably end up fighting when they again attack Israel, and if you asked the average person on the street they'd agree. That's why they have to hide it in the voluminous budget, and wait until the arguing is over to earmark the money they need to steal.

I agree with Dr. Guy that it spoils the fun of the little applet, but when it comes down to it you aren't addressing the spending of our government unless you CAN address that. Anything else is just a simulation without any genuine data to use.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5969653913574416150