I was able to eliminate the deficit in a single year by eliminating:

• Medicaid ($253 BILLION) - note this is NOT Medicare, just Medicaid.
• Eliminating Aid to low-income families ($206 BILLION) - not the federal goverment's job to pay for the poor, let charities do that and let those who have true compassion for the less fortunate give to charities.

That's it.  That's all I had to do in order to balance the budget. Of course, less drastic things could be done and balance the budget too. Cut some of the programs and freeze spending increases in others.

The point is, yes, you can balance the budget without raising taxes. It just means making some tough choices. But better for the government to make those tough choices on its own bloat than to fleece the American people for more money that is largely squandered.

I can't access the site right now.

I wouldn't make medicaid and welfare my first cuts. They'd be on the list, but, frankly, from what I've discovered, we need to seriously change our attitude before eliminating them. I believe that we need to cut a lot across the board.

I'll try to access the site later on tonight and share my results if I'm successful.

Try it now. (fixed link)

Well, I cut everything except veteran's benefits and SS by 10%, cut social programs by 50% (I'm for elimination as well, but the 50% threshhold leaves a "safety net" that would give transition time), and increased personal tax cuts and health care tax cuts by 20%, and came out $3 billion in the black.

It's a fun game. I'm going to tinker with it some more.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm going to run it through dumping education spending entirely. This is the federal budget we're talking about, not the state budget...where I feel education spending BELONGS.

The problem, as I've pointed out to the Col more than once, is that what they SAY this stuff goes for isn't necessarily what it goes for. I don't believe that millions spent on military museums and statues and whatnot are "defense". Go back and look at the money that is leeched away in earmarks, often going to stuff that doesn't even fit under the umbrella of what the money was appropriated for.

If we had a REAL rundown of where the money went, I believe we could cut a third or more of the budget. If we knew what they were paying for the $150 hammers and ultra top-secret toilet seats we could probably cut another third. If we could cut out the abuse of SSI and other handouts we'd cut a huge amount.

What about what we send in "aid" to other countries. We've sent 84 billion to Israel since 1949. We send over a BILLION dollars a year in "aid" to EGYPT, a nation full of people who hate us, where we can't even visit without being dragged off the bus and machine gunned to death. Bush has vowed to send 230 million to Lebanon; before Hamas took over we were sending hundreds of millions to Palestine so people like Arafat's wife could life in luxury in Paris.

We can't see all this, though, because there is no transparency, allowing people like the Col to sit around and pretend that every penny is necessary. I devoutly believe that we could cut far more than 50% of the budget if we had that transparency, and probably a hell of a lot more.

I devoutly believe that we could cut far more than 50% of the budget if we had that transparency, and probably a hell of a lot more.

I believe you're right.

Frankly, I believe even at the state level, education could be cut substantially without truly impacting the students. I think vouchers are a good first step. When a school district pays upwards of $1200 per student for curriculum, and I can get a top notch curriculum for $600 at the HIGH end (actually, I'm quite happy with curriculum that can be had for under $200, personally), then I know for a fact that our school districts are getting fleeced. Only through competition do such practices stand ANY chance of being eliminated.

I would tend to agree with Bakerstreet here also.  As was stated already, there are so many ways to cut the budget, but what this comes down to is people that essentially want income redistribution.  You will notice the pro-tax proponents here don't really give a reason why successful Americans should be taxed, except that "they can afford it". 

You will notice the pro-tax proponents here don't really give a reason why successful Americans should be taxed, except that "they can afford it".

I hate that idea, and the very idea of income redistribution. If I can make as good a living as a fry cook as I can as a Network Administrator, why should I put down my spatula and do all it takes to do the latter job? High income is usually (not always, granted), the reward for hard work.

Guess I am a scrooge at heart:

Your New Budget

---

Budget Totals

Old budget was $3747.36 billion
($2672.527 billion in spending, $1074.833 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $3203.03 billion
($2128.2 billion in spending, $1074.83 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

You have cut the deficit by $544.33 billion.

Your new deficit is $-143.32 billion.

Oops!

I understand Baker's assertion, but the game does not allow you to be discretionary (perhaps that is an idea for another Stardock game) as doing so would greatly complicate the calculations.

But I do not agree with the so called called Economists that say a surplus will lead to a recession.

But I do not agree with the so called called Economists that say a surplus will lead to a recession.

Nor do I. I would apply the surplus to debt reduction. Sure, you don't want to go overboard with the surplus, but I think a $20-30B surplus would be manageable for offbudget expenses and debt reduction purposes.

The entitlement programs are killing us financially. We need to streamline this system and not be creating new benefits such as the senior drug benefit.

I also agree that there is a huge amount of government waste. My husband is in the military and he sees it every day. Multiply what he sees times all the U.S. bases and it's a huge amount of waste. That isn't even mentioning all the bs pork barrelling that goes on. Here is a link for Citizens Against Government Waste for anyone who is interested. Link

If I can make as good a living as a fry cook as I can as a Network Administrator, why should I put down my spatula and do all it takes to do the latter job? High income is usually (not always, granted), the reward for hard work.

But people, mainly democrats, don't see it that way.  They blame the government if they are not making a so-called "decent" income.  If they poorly manage their income and end up in debt....it's the governments fault somehow. 

I believe people are poor because of their own choice. 

The first step in reducing the deficit should be to take the point of view that no program is untouchable.

The second step should be to take the point of view that no program is untouchable.

The truth is, even the more moderate government programs have generally risen at a rate that well exceeds that of inflation. And they've been doing it for so many years that they've become vastly overinflated. I think a good rule of thumb would be a minimum 10% reduction for every program except veterans' benefits and Social Security, with higher amounts going based on priority. I think Aid for Low Income Families should be cut by 70% to leave a "contingency fund" for the transition time. If states want more welfare money, let them raise it and not rely on the fed. Privatizing would be a good rule, and 50% of all surpluses from the reductions should be applied to tax cuts, with the remaining 50% applied to debt reduction. Federal funding for education and agriculture should be eliminated entirely.

The problem is not that we need to raise taxes. The problem is, we need to reduce spending. DRASTICALLY. When per capita federal expenditures top $9000, I think we can all say we're getting mighty poor bang for our buck.

I believe people are poor because of their own choice.

In 90% of the cases, I would agree with you.

I would say, though, that they are poor as a result of the choices they've made, not that they consciously chose to be poor. What we need to do is educate them on how to find a way out. And you can't do that by offering a free lunch.