Make a deficit reduction plan

[ryacko]

http://projects.wsj.com/my-deficit-plan/

You can make your own deficit reduction plan through an application (quiz? web program?) from the wall street journal. I think it's more balanced then the sort offered by the New York Times or the Budget Hero game.

My plan:
http://on.wsj.com/UdD7V9

[Mr Bean]

Better? I say worse, it is literally impossible to cut loopholes anywhere on the WSJ version. There's no option to cut oil subsidies, ethanol or other energy subsidies. It's impossible to simply raise taxes you can only let the tax cuts lapse. 80% of the WSJ's option deal specifically with cutting benefits to those under 200k.

I can eliminate food stamps or raise the retirement age but if I want to close the loopholes that let GE pay no federal taxes by tricky accounting schemes then hell no the WSJ is not going to let you do that.

Cut cut cut the poor, the rich must be left untouched in any budget cutting deal.
For fucks sake there's not even an option for defensive cuts via ending the wars faster or switching back from expensive contractors to cheaper by contrast military personnel.

[ryacko]

This is probably realistic since you cannot deviate greatly from the Republican platform... since only the Republican Party could broker a deal to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff (it takes two to tango).

GE pays payroll taxes... and the reason for their low recent taxes is losses from the recession.

or switching back from expensive contractors to cheaper by contrast military personnel.

Actually the CBO says contractors are cheaper by unit of output.

[SirNitram]

I think it's more balanced then the sort offered by the New York Times or the Budget Hero game.

And it includes nary a chance to remove oil/ethanol/nuclear subsidies, or actually close tax loopholes for anyone, etc.

It's 'Balanced' like Fox News.

[Mr Bean]

or switching back from expensive contractors to cheaper by contrast military personnel.

Actually the CBO says contractors are cheaper by unit of output.

CBO has there heads up their ass on that. You can't do a program by program examination and come to that conclusion, it's false savings. For example if hiring X security contractors in Iraq to work at 120k per year is cheaper than a Army solider at 30k a year even with full benefits I'd love to see the math on that. It's not like the security contractor who gets injured can't apply for any of the same benefits the soldier can. More over in my own time in the military I witnessed half a dozen Bush administration initiatives to switch DoD and US military out for civilian contractors at a large cost increase without a dime of savings. Everything from switching out GS employees for temps and contractors to handing military positions to defense contractors.

And in my own career I have a direct example. There was a command I was stationed at, I was pulling 2000 per month plus full military benefits when we traded the command over to civilians. My old job was taken over by a former sailor who had retired and re-applied to the exact same job I had been doing. Except he was being payed except at 7800$ per month. You can no way shape or form sell that as a cost savings as his responsibilities were in no way expanded. Had I not had two years left in my contract I would have done the same thing.

The average Iraq base has over a dozen separate companies involved in various things and it's bit our security in the ass time and again.

[General Mung Beans]

For me ironically this budget deficit reduction plan maker forced me to include more tax increases than the one on NYT because that had a farther-off cut-off date, and thus stuff like raising the retirement age would see larger savings. Also, ryacko, you would eliminate Obamacare (unless you're planning to replace it with some other plan greatly expanding healthcare coverage, but good luck with that).

[Thanas]

This is a nice piece of propaganda. It effectively forces you to either screw the poor, the military or eliminate Obamacare. Guess what perception people will come away with?