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?

SS was one program I didn't touch. While I think it's a pyramid scheme that should be phased out, I do not at all believe that includes harming current recipients and forcing them back into the workforce. Common sense HAS to apply here.

I DO think, however, that if you forced every department to find 10% to cut and cut the "nonessential" programs more deeply, you'd find yourself in the black rather quickly. I agree, this game is oversimplistic, but it does make one think. The fact is, we can and should find ways to make the government live within its means, and we should make those means a little less extravagant.

in the short version, i cut a little over 70 billion off the budget.

in the long version, i cut 173 billion off the budget.

i didn't balance it yet, but i imagine if i could get into more detail, i could find more waste.

That makes sense, Gideon. I was thinking philosophically of cutting Social Security, but cutting it this year only hits one group of people. Gotta cut it in the 2020 budget instead.

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.

If only our politicians were bold enough to do this. If only they had the budget-mindedness of the last President of Turkmenistan:

"Reports from Turkmenistan say President Niyazov has ordered the closure of all the hospitals in the country except those in the capital, Ashgabat... President Niyazov apparently took the decision to close the hospitals at a meeting with local officials on Monday. "Why do we need such hospitals?" he said. "If people are ill, they can come to Ashgabat."

And hey, if they don't even have the personal responsibility to get themselves to the hospital when they're sick (in a country with few paved roads), it's not the government's job to take care of them.

let charities do that and let those who have true compassion for the less fortunate give to charities.

I really can't imagine any charity or collection of charities having the resources and reach to provide housing assistance to every needy family in America. The United Way is the biggest charity and its budget is $4 billion. So saying "let it be the charities' job" is basically saying "let's see if all the charities can become 500 percent bigger overnight" (the $40 billion they raise now, plus another $200 billion.) Actually, what am I saying? I know you don't care if the charities can or will pick up the slack. What's important is that you won't have to.

I really can't imagine any charity or collection of charities having the resources and reach to provide housing assistance to every needy family in America. The United Way is the biggest charity and its budget is $4 billion. So saying "let it be the charities' job" is basically saying "let's see if all the charities can become 500 percent bigger overnight" (the $40 billion they raise now, plus another $200 billion.) Actually, what am I saying? I know you don't care if the charities can or will pick up the slack. What's important is that you won't have to.

Our current entitlement programs didn't exist until charity couldn't carry the load during the Depression. Then FDR and the government stepped in. And of course, LBJ kicked it up a notch with his great society. I don't know what would happen if we eliminated these programs now. Yes, the charities would have to help more people than they currently do but maybe some of these people will start taking care of themselves. I just would hate to see the kids going to bed hungry because of stupid decisions their parents made. Yep, my heart is bleeding.

Gotta cut it in the 2020 budget instead.

Thank you from the bottom of my retirement!

Better yet give every citizen taxpayer a secure link with a quarterly proxy vote (similar to this game).....then we can eliminate congressmen and senators and save that money as well. I'd love to see Ted Kennedy ask me if I want to super size my burger order.

I figure for every 10% ($70/month?) we cut social security it would take $21,000 saved at retirement to replace it. By 2020 you could probably swing that, and even if not nobody would starve.

Our current entitlement programs didn't exist until charity couldn't carry the load during the Depression. Then FDR and the government stepped in.

I joke that I'm probably the only "New deal" Libertarian that evger existed...lol! I don't believe in government programs, but I believe FDR reacted to a remarkable and an exceptional set of circumstances, and while his reaction was less than perfect, it was understandable. As a result of the New Deal and spinoff "social" programs, dams got built, electricity was delivered to the homes of many Americans, roads were built, schools were built, post offices were built. Not all of the New Deal jobs were makeshift jobs. The net effect of the New Deal was an improved standard of living for the poorest of Americans, who never would have been able to otherwise afford to pave their roads, built their schools, or wire their homes for electricity. The Great Society is another story, entirely.

The problem is, there was no plan for obsolescence when the need for these programs was over. Emergency circumstances are just that; emergencies, and you don't continue to maintain funding for emergencies long after the emergency has been eliminated. The New Deal programs should have phased out in the late 40's.

I just would hate to see the kids going to bed hungry because of stupid decisions their parents made. Yep, my heart is bleeding.

As would I, Loca. As would I. Which is one reason I left my aid for families with a 30% "safety net" until things could be put in place to plan for a phaseout.

But a couple of things to ask: even if it's the government's job, should it belong to the federal or the state government? One of the problems of the welfare program as it exists (as I see it) is that the administration necessary to oversee these programs exists at the state level, and is replicated at the federal level. By making states responsible for welfare programs, you could eliminate the redundancy, increase efficiency, increase accountability, and allow for greater flexibility to address the needs of different regions. One of the upsides of high oil prices, for instance, is that right now, in the panhandle of Texas, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to be out of work. That's not going to last forever, of course, but it is the way things are today.

In my "perfect world", social programs would not be funded AT ALL by the government. But that would take intensive cooperation from the private sector, and it's something that I believe should be phased in gradually and not brought about immediately.

One thing I have to take issue with you on about the Great Depression, though. I don't believe the private sector COULD NOT care for the poor. I believe they WOULD NOT. I firmly believe that government welfare came about because the church abdicated its responsibility.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=789464047096284071

I joke that I'm probably the only "New deal" Libertarian that evger existed...lol! I don't believe in government programs, but I believe FDR reacted to a remarkable and an exceptional set of circumstances, and while his reaction was less than perfect, it was understandable. As a result of the New Deal and spinoff "social" programs, dams got built, electricity was delivered to the homes of many Americans, roads were built, schools were built, post offices were built. Not all of the New Deal jobs were makeshift jobs. The net effect of the New Deal was an improved standard of living for the poorest of Americans, who never would have been able to otherwise afford to pave their roads, built their schools, or wire their homes for electricity.

ahem,,,i believe i was the one defending this a few weeks ago...

The problem is, there was no plan for obsolescence when the need for these programs was over. Emergency circumstances are just that; emergencies, and you don't continue to maintain funding for emergencies long after the emergency has been eliminated. The New Deal programs should have phased out in the late 40's.

and i agree with you on much of that, i believe where we parted was on soc. security, where i have yet to see an alternate i like, thus, still don't want to get rid of it. of course, that was interpreted as my "great love and support" for SS, which is not the case. social security may not be the most efficient thing in the world, and it certainly is flawed, but the good it has done in my opinion is so great that hastily chucking it aside in favor of any plan i have seen would be a mistake. maybe someday when someone comes up with something better, but i want a little more than a fleecing of taxpayers by wall street or an incomplete plan that deals with nothing but retirement benefits, which is hardly what social security is all about.

merry christmas gideon:)

btw, this simulation almost gives us a power i believe every president should have (constitutioally done, of course), the line item veto.

Line item veto is a huge double edged sword, though. On one hand, it would help to cut down on some of the more ridiculous congressional spending. On the other hand, it would give the president a lot of power over congress, and would seriously tilt the balance of power towards the president. I'm not altogether sure that would be a good thing.

Oops. Looks like I accidentally double posted. Sorry about that.

My understanding is that the Pres. already basically writes the budget, because he presents it for submission and Congress only tinkers around the edges a little. I read that the reason the Republicans left all those spending bills unpassed is that Bush kind of screwed them by submitting a budget with actual cuts in it. They couldn't afford to vote for it and they didn't feel independent enough to change it.

ahem,,,i believe i was the one defending this a few weeks ago...

I've always defended the New Deal as being right for the time...just not THIS time. It was far from a perfect solution, but it did address the needs of Americans at the time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciXi1d4Oi1M&NR