No, You Fix It...

Its a very nice tool but (0.00 / 0)

they missed some chance for deeper understanding of this issues... for instance one of the options is

Use an alternate measure for inflation
Some economists believe that the Consumer Price Index overstates inflation, giving Social Security recipients larger cost-of-living increases than necessary. This option would use a different, lower inflation measure both for Social Security and in the tax code (thus pushing more households into higher brackets over time). Supporters say the lower measure is more accurate. Opponents say it is less accurate for the elderly, who buy a different mix of goods and services than other households.

Would have been great to have links to news stories, columns, etc. about this concept.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 14:56:21 PM CST

I stand somewhat corrected (0.00 / 0)

I missed this link in the intro
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

Still would be better to have them inline/in-context. Even better? Include links to other organizations as well.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 18:23:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I solved the puzzle (4.00 / 2)

without cutting Social Security or Medicare!  Of course, I cut defense and raised taxes on the rich, which is not allowed.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:16:46 PM CST

The problem with increasing the rate of taxation on the rich (0.00 / 0)

is that the rate has no effect on people who pay no taxes to begin with.  
Republicans would have us believe that the reason rich people pay no taxes is because the rates are too high.  There's no evidence to support that rationale, especially since when the rates were lowered, the amount of taxes paid did not increase.

The rich don't pay taxes for the simple reason that they don't want to and not paying their fair share lets them get richer.  The accumulation of monetary wealth seems to be as liable to compulsive behavior as the addiction to mind-altering drugs.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:40:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clintonomics n/t (0.00 / 0)

Annie 2012!

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:41:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Balancing the budget has been a faux issue for a long time. (0.00 / 0)

First of all, a budget is a plan for what's to happen in the future and, while it's good to think about the future, an anticipated or imaginary balance has little or no practical significance.  If, for example, income was much greater than outflow, the budget would be out of balance, just as it is when outflow is greater than income.  Since the former is presumably negative and the latter positive, balance is not important.

Secondly, budgets are routinely balanced with debt.  There is nothing in the "balanced budget" mantra to preclude increasing deficits and debt.

Thirdly, the logical alternative to debt is theft.  If someone doesn't have everything he (nation, state, individual) needs to survive and thrive, he either takes it by force or promises to give something in exchange -- i.e. recognizes a debt.  Never mind that the majority of the U.S. debt has traditionally been owed to citizens of the U.S. and the holders of that debt count on the interest income to keep them in the pink.  It is generous to call people who live off interest income on bonds disingenuous when they inveigh against the public debt.  "Hypocrite" would be a more accurate description.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:25:37 PM CST

projecting out to 2030 is fools errand (0.00 / 0)

To many things can change in that sort of time period.

But shorter term deficits are obviously a concern for many folks, I think a lot of them went the polls a couple of weeks ago.

Particularly in the current macro-economic climate, we call this a "Faux Issue" at our own peril.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:39:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Most earmarks don't affect the deficit at all (4.00 / 2)

They're carved out of money that would otherwise be distributed for a purpose by executive branch agencies. Carve-outs don't increase the overall appropriation. Even if they did, it's less than 1% of the budget. And not every example of the people's representatives playing a hand in the distribution of public funds is negative.

Earmarks are a distraction issue.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 15:28:18 PM CST

The Under Informed Voter (4.00 / 2)

There are 2 sides to this issue.
1 How is the money spent
2 How is the money raised
The uninformed believe Welfare and Foreign aid are 60% of the budget and the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes.
The Democrats lost this election because they do not know how to talk to Joe Average. At least he is still average now,but for some they are hanging on by a thread.
We will pay for this lack of skill in the future if we do not learn how to talk to the folks that will not read and do math!
The Democrats need to tell everyone what their party has done for Americans now and since 1925.......or get used to losing elections

---

by: tchair @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 16:28:17 PM CST

51% Taxes Increases, 49% Spending Cuts (0.00 / 0)

My choices.*

*First swipe. If it was really up to me, I'd spend some time learning some more, but you get my drift.


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 11:35:44 AM CST