I solved the deficit!

[Antonio the Sixth]

And so can you, with NYTimes.com's interactive feature (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html).

That's very instructive. In particular, I managed to balance it out until 2030 without cutting any welfare program (you know, those that "absolutely need to be cut"...), almost only by taxing the rich and cutting military spending. Here's my proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x006qv

Of course, that's not going to happen...

[Donerail]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxrh000

This is how it'd be solved, if it ever is.

[Redalgo]

This seemed less difficult than with other deficit-solving pages I've seen before:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=dmkq85y2

Hurray for surpluses!

[TNF]

Solved it, though of course I wouldn't do it this way IRL. The only way to reduce the deficit in a way that won't destroy the country's social fabric is through economic growth.

And reducing the trade deficit, of course.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=0kt005rf

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zztk0014

[LastVoter]

Wealth tax of at least 1%.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's mine: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=ypxq805b

31% from tax increases and 69% from spending cuts.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxrh000

This is how it'd be solved, if it ever is.

You have a fair amount of excessive cuts there.

[morgieb]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=z3yrf5nz

That's how I solved it. Now America will be on a future of surpluses!

[Maxwell]

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

2 Dollars of Spending Cuts to every Dollar of Revenue increase to fix the deficit.

[Donerail]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxrh000

This is how it'd be solved, if it ever is.

You have a fair amount of excessive cuts there.

I know; I said it's how it'd be solved, if it ever is, not that it's my proposal. It's probably the only budget-solving plan the House Republicans would accept. No new taxes and all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxrh000

This is how it'd be solved, if it ever is.

You have a fair amount of excessive cuts there.

I know; I said it's how it'd be solved, if it ever is, not that it's my proposal. It's probably the only budget-solving plan the House Republicans would accept. No new taxes and all.

Why would they cut more than they had to?  I'd guess that they'd only cut what they had to to get it balanced.

[Donerail]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxrh000

This is how it'd be solved, if it ever is.

You have a fair amount of excessive cuts there.

I know; I said it's how it'd be solved, if it ever is, not that it's my proposal. It's probably the only budget-solving plan the House Republicans would accept. No new taxes and all.

Why would they cut more than they had to?  I'd guess that they'd only cut what they had to to get it balanced.

I believe this only goes up to 2030; I'm assuming it sounds better to talk about how you solved it till 2040 or 2050 without raising taxes.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The CFRB also has a more comprehensive and up-to-date one.
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
I reduced the debt to 54% from 67% of GDP in 2020, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030.
My Results
Savings Relative to Current Law in Billions$
2,930
Savings Relative to Current Policy in Billions$
6,880
My Plan in PDF

[angus]

And so can you, with NYTimes.com's interactive feature (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html).

That's very instructive. In particular, I managed to balance it out until 2030 without cutting any welfare program (you know, those that "absolutely need to be cut"...), almost only by taxing the rich and cutting military spending. Here's my proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x006qv

Of course, that's not going to happen...

Nor should it.  It's a cute toy, and it sells ad space, but solving the deficit needs to be done not with across-the-board spending cuts, but with some forethought.  Any child with a computer can say hey, let's do a ten percent on this program and a 30 percent on that.  If it makes you feel better, pat yourself on the back.  The NYT actually sells ads with these gimmicks.  What's your excuse?

[CatoMinor]

Well that was easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=rzxtr008

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=hzxl45r0

[King]

2015 should be the only concern.  Situations change too much to bother trying to balance the thing in 2030.  

The political capital generated by balancing the budget in 2015 and 2016 will be enough for the next administration to deal with the long-term problem better.

[Donerail]

My actual plan: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=pcxqdj3b

[King]

Well that was easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=rzxtr008

Why didn't you check earmarks when you did every other spending cut?

[muon2]

I would be nice to see this with numbers that aren't two years old. I suspect many of these parameters have changed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And so can you, with NYTimes.com's interactive feature (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html).

That's very instructive. In particular, I managed to balance it out until 2030 without cutting any welfare program (you know, those that "absolutely need to be cut"...), almost only by taxing the rich and cutting military spending. Here's my proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x006qv

Of course, that's not going to happen...

Nor should it.  It's a cute toy, and it sells ad space, but solving the deficit needs to be done not with across-the-board spending cuts, but with some forethought.  Any child with a computer can say hey, let's do a ten percent on this program and a 30 percent on that.  If it makes you feel better, pat yourself on the back.  The NYT actually sells ads with these gimmicks.  What's your excuse?

If you bothered actually clicking the link, you'd notice that:

1. The NYT tool is based on actual proposals formulated by political figure, not "across the board spending cuts"

2. It's not like I'm cutting much, actually my proposal consists by 3/4 of revenue increases.

But if summarily dismissing people's opinions without even knowing what they are makes you feel smarter, pat yourself on the back.

[jaichind]

I am for

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zzxphk38

Mostly spending cuts, Simpson-Bowles, higher taxes on dividends, and some reduction in mortgage deduction.

And if Obama or Buffet complains more about income inequity, I say have a wealth tax then.  How does Buffet like that?  I feel that Buffet is for higher taxes on high income is to make sure rising rich and productive people cannot catch up to him.  I personally would turn the tables on him and say that to reduce inequity taxes should be on wealth and not income.  Why punish those who are generating wealth as opposed to guys that sit on wealth.

[Frodo]

That was an interesting exercise.  Having:

-eliminated earmarks and farm subsidies,
-reduced the military back to levels last seen at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency,

-canceled or delayed some Cold War-era projects,
-reduced non-combat military compensation and overhead,
-enacted medical malpractice reform,
-increased the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age to 70,
-reduced the tax break for employer-provided health insurance,
-capped Medicare growth beginning FY 2013,
-tightened eligibility for Social Security disability benefits,
-indexed Social Security benefits to inflation as opposed to wages,
-returned the estate tax to Clinton-era levels,
-adopted President Obama's proposal on investment taxes,
-raised the payroll tax until 90% of all incomes are once again covered by it,
-adopted the Bowles-Simpson tax reform plan,
-reduced mortgage deduction and other deductions for high-income households,
-adopted the VAT at 5%, as well as the carbon and bank taxes,

...what is the likelihood my proposal -which gave us a $170 billion surplus for FY 2015, and a longer-term surplus of nearly a trillion- being adopted?  Or at least some elements of it?  

[Svensson]

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

As did I. Have fun, upper 2%!