On-Line Federal Budget Simulator .... ... Take your best shot

[divvy]

I posted this a long time ago and it never got any traction. It is an on-line calculator that lets you cut whatever programs you want to and then it displays your Federal Budget savings at the end.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

The chart directly below is intended to be an aid to help plan your cuts. The one below that details how many federal dollars go to red vs. blue states. Some rebalancing may be necessary there as well. Also (a question) does anyone know of a serious economic report which investigates the impact of taxing religious organizations?

[dkf]

1. We should also be able to simulate the impact 20, 50 years down the line.

That is the only way people will understand the true impact of Medicare, Medicaid and social security. Right now very few people understand their impact. When anyone says they can't be touched all I can think is that they haven't looked at the numbers.

[divvy]

2. The numbers are decieving

You will notice that "Social Security" is lumped under one heading and not divided into sub-catagories. Look at the military expenses .... they are divided into little pieces so the whole does not seem as large as it really is.

[dkf]

3. That is probably so you can cut little pieces out of the military budget.

But Social Security is one chunk and will be cut or increased on a percentage basis.

[divvy]

6. Shouldn't we be able to cut specific pieces from Social Security?

I am not sure how the payments are actually divided up. There are disabled people, retired people, death survivors, and so on. Also, maybe it would be possible to limit the future uses of it (slush fund).

edit: The social security taxes actually credit an account with your name on it. The super rich do not meaningfully pay into or rely on Social Security or Medicaid.

[dkf]

7. Yikes now that would be a sensitive issue.

Talk about a third rail!

Should we cut funds to the disabled, to survivors? I have never heard anyone try to touch those.

[divvy]

8. Well, that is really what the republicans are proposing under the "cloak"

[dkf]

13. Good luck for them on that.

[JHB]

4. The host of the calculator might explain the lack of traction...

Experience shows that an organization with a name like "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" is likely only going to be "responsible" in certain ways. And that calculator leaves quite a few options off the table.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a bipartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public about issues that have significant fiscal policy impact. The Committee is made up of some of the nation's leading budget experts including many of the past Chairmen and Directors of the Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, and the Federal Reserve Board.

http://crfb.org/about-us


Paul Krugman, from last month:

March 21, 2011, 9:15 am

Peacocks on Parade
I haven’t written much about the grandly styled Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; but it’s become more and more clear that the committee’s real purpose isn’t to balance the budget, it’s to provide additional plumage for deficit peacocks.

First there was the award to Paul Ryan, whose contribution to reducing the deficit is that he, well, talks a lot about the need to reduce the deficit; never mind that his actual proposals are a mixture of magic asterisks and concrete actions that would actually make the deficit bigger.

Now there’s the fervent praise for the letter by 64 Senators whose plan to reduce the deficit is to … call on President Obama to come up with a plan. If you believe that this letter means that Republicans will actually support any plan that involves the slightest tax increase, I’ve got several bridges you might want to buy.

So, I guess I’ll now declare myself a deficit hawk. After all, all it take to become one, as far as I can see, is to say “deficits bad! deficits bad” while continuing to insist that all of my priorities remain exempt from any kind of restraint.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/peacocks-on-parade/

[divvy]

5. Thank you, I did not know that ....

[dkf]

9. I don't understand why Krugman is so uncaring on the debt.

Has he become so emotionally involved that he sees to danger in deficits as far as the eye can see? I understand now is a vulnerable time but where are his comments for how to fix this after we start recovering?

[Incitatus]

12. Yes, there options are limited.

It wouldn't let me gut military spending, among other things.

[retread]

14. However, this bullshit piece of propaganda will let you gut social programs and foreign aid,

among other things.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. but you can get there without cutting social programs or foreign aid

I did it, pretty easily too.

[Incitatus]

16. The options on changing taxes are also very limited.

definitely propaganda

[Old and In the Way]

10. I'd have whacked the Defense Budget harder and focused my revnue enhancements

on the top 2%. I have to agree with the above comments that the framing of the decisions are within a boundry determined by the survey designers. Not many options on cutting the defense budget.

[Modern_Matthew]

11. You reduced the debt to 58% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030. nt

[hunter]

17. If it doesn't let me chop 95% out of the military budget...

... tax the uber-wealthy class out of existence, establish a single payer national health plan, raise the minimum wage and implement a 30 hour work week... etc., etc...

what's the point?

My fantasy economy is a whole lot better than their fantasy economies.