I solved the deficit!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=drutp5q3

[politicallefty]

44% tax increases, 56% spending cuts

$243 billion surplus in 2015, $301 billion surplus in 2030

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=xvtk06qc

I wasn't afraid to go after domestic and military spending. While I did cap Medicare growth in order to lower costs and produce huge savings, I am adamantly opposed to raising the eligibility age. If anything, one of the biggest failures of Obamacare was not lowering the age (at least as a buy-in). The only change to Social Security was lifting the payroll tax cap. Tax increases were primarily on higher incomes, as well as carbon and bank taxes.

[Bacon King]

A couple of other neat interactive budget solver things:

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/budget-hero

http://federal.budgetchallenge.org/pages/overview

[Svensson]

Correction to my earlier post: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zvxm44r9

I do not know how to link, apparently.

[CatoMinor]

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?

I don't mind earmarks. They are not as bad as John McCain makes them out to be.

[stegosaurus]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=js8tr159

A balanced approach, 60% cuts and 40% revenues. The bulk of the savings were had from redistributing a portion of senior entitlements to the nation at large.The tax increases are modest and mostly effect the wealthy.

[k-onmmunist]

65% tax, 35% cuts.

[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?

If you bothered clicking on the link...

...pat yourself on the back.

I actually bothered clicking the link.

I stopped patting myself on the back long ago.

I'm aware of these little gimmicks.  In fact, it isn't the first time a thread was created with exactly this sort of tool.  Several years ago, and I think that one was also from NYT, a similar user-friendly "solve the deficit yourself" feature appeared.  (Maybe that's the two year old data muon was referring to.)

I just don't think it's as simple as "take 30 percent off the military budget..." etc.

Yes, we probably ought to take 30 percent off the military budget, but it's exactly that sort of thinking--the kind that gives us responses like "how the hell do I know what the bill says?  I didn't read it!" from legislators--that get us into such messes in the first place.

These guys make far more money than I.  Maybe even more than you.  I don't think it's asking to much to have them go line-by-line and decide what is important and what isn't.  What the NYT is doing is selling papers.  Well, selling ad space on line, as it amounts to these days.  It's a catchy gimmick, but I sincerely hope this isn't what congress is doing when it comes time for austerity measures.

[opebo]

Dirty little secret - the 'deficit' isn't a real problem.  It is jus undertaxation.  In fact spending is far too low.

[Alcon]

Angus, I don't think anyone, including the Times, is claiming that the process is this simple or that it should be.  I think it's a tool meant to give people a general idea of what the U.S.'s budget is like, something virtually no one has any decent understanding of.

[Paul Kemp]

Not sure if it makes any difference but the link is from 2010.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's easy if you apply common sense. Of course that is completely lacking in Congress, so it won't happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3x065qv

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

http://federal.budgetchallenge.org/respondents/summary
60% Spending Cuts     
40% Revenue
SUBTOTAL Spending Reduction    $3207.2 B
SUBTOTAL Revenue Increase    $2130.0 B
Total Deficit Reduction $5.3 T
You finished with a $3.1 Trillion Surplus

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like so far I'm the one with the highest % of savings from raised taxes.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Looks like so far I'm the one with the highest % of savings from raised taxes.

TNF beat you, with 77% tax increases.

Also, I forgot to link mine properly (let's make a club, Townsend!):
 
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3xj45qm

68% tax increases, 32% spending cuts.

I remember my first plan had 72% tax increases, but I forgot what it was and can't seem to get that amount now going on my general policy ideas.

[Supermariobros]

solved it easyly by

-Raising the Medicare age
-Raising Social Security Age
-Cutting the government pay of government workers
-Raising Taxes and a Bank Tax
-Military cuts
-Cutting Foreign Aid

I Taxed and Cut basically everything.

56 percent savings from spending cuts
44 percent savings from tax increases

[Supermariobros]

http://federal.budgetchallenge.org/respondents/summary

Total Deficit Reduction $7.2 T
You finished with a $5.0 Trillion Surplus


Spending
Spending Choices    My Adjustments
Social Security    Cut $769.0 B
Medicare and Health Care    Cut $928.0 B
Affordable Care Act    Spend $124.0 B
Defense and Security    Cut $40.0 B
War Spending Estimates    Cut $852.0 B
Overall Spending Levels    Cut $673.0 B
General Government    Cut $145.0 B
Investments    Cut $17.0 B
Interest Adjustment    Cut $941.7 B
SUBTOTAL Spending Reduction    $4241.7 B
Revenue
Revenue Choices    My Adjustments
Other Revenue    Raise $449.0 B
Tax Expenditures    Raise $1520.0 B
2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts    $0.0 B
Tax Reform*    Raise $1300.0 B
SUBTOTAL Revenue Increase    $2978.0 B
Total Deficit Reduction $7.2 T
You finished with a $5.0 Trillion Surplus

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=031005qr

82% tax increases
18% spending cuts

What was that about "starve the beast", Tea Partiers? Especially since I got a $379 billion surplus.

[John Dibble]

By no means do I consider myself educated on the potential ramifications of many of these choices, but just from the description here's what I picked.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d31105k9

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

SPENDING

Spending Choices   My Adjustments
Social Security
Cut $649.0 B
Medicare and Health Care
Cut $400.0 B
Affordable Care Act
$0.0 B
Defense and Security
Cut $49.0 B
War Spending Estimates
Cut $852.0 B
Overall Spending Levels
$0.0 B
General Government
Cut $55.0 B
Investments
Spend $30.0 B
Interest Adjustment   Cut $431.6 B
SUBTOTAL Spending Reduction    $2406.6 B

REVENUE

Revenue Choices   My Adjustments
Other Revenue
Raise $449.0 B
Tax Expenditures
Raise $453.0 B
2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts
$0.0 B
Tax Reform*
$0.0 B
SUBTOTAL Revenue Increase    $902.0 B
Total Deficit Reduction $3.3 T
You finished with a $1.1 Trillion Surplus

[angus]

Angus, I don't think anyone, including the Times, is claiming that the process is this simple or that it should be.  I think it's a tool meant to give people a general idea of what the U.S.'s budget is like, something virtually no one has any decent understanding of.

I think you're right that the NYT is trying to give a general idea.  I also think you're right that folks have no decent understanding about it.  I include a good many of the Honorable Gentlemen and Honorable Gentlewomen gracing the halls of the US capitol building when I mention these "folks."  But it makes me feel better to imagine that they do. 

[Torie]

When the Dems start copping to admitting that entitlements need to be cut back, get back to me. So far, it is all about raising rates on the rich by 4.6% ("solving" 8% of the deficit hole), and embracing the Bush tax cuts for everyone else until the supernova. It is all a joke really. D.C. must think we are all dumbs.

[angus]

When the Dems start copping to admitting that entitlements need to be cut back, get back to me. So far, it is all about raising rates on the rich by 4.6% ("solving" 8% of the deficit hole), and embracing the Bush tax cuts for everyone else until the supernova. It is all a joke really. D.C. must think we are all dumbs.

I was listening to an interview with the Tennessee senator, Corker, tonight on the public radio station on the way home.  Yeah, yeah, I know, NPR is bad for your head.  "The world is a terrible place, and there's nothing you can do about it..."  All reasoned in a soothing voice till you believe it.  Still, it's noise for the journey.  Anyway, Corker was saying some pretty smart things.  Yes, he's willing to raise taxes to pre-2001 levels for folks making 250K or more, and maybe a little for the 100K+ crowd, but he also wants some considerations on the entitlements.  Specifically, he was talking about scaling back automatic increments for Social Security and raising the ages for partial, half, and full benefits.  It's a start.

[LastVoter]

When the Dems start copping to admitting that entitlements need to be cut back, get back to me. So far, it is all about raising rates on the rich by 4.6% ("solving" 8% of the deficit hole), and embracing the Bush tax cuts for everyone else until the supernova. It is all a joke really. D.C. must think we are all dumbs.

But, you see non-military public spending needs to be increased.

[Del Tachi]

I couldn't solve the deficit...so no link for me