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.

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.

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 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". 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.