Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting. Its a series of choices on the NYTimes website; you pick the cuts and tax increases to pay off the debt. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also show others your choices, here are mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=bl1prj52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically, its tough choices. I paid for most of it by letting the higher Bush tax cuts expire, decreasing troop levels in Iraq/Afghanistan, capping Medicare and raising it and social security's eligibility age by 2 years. It'd be nice if they gave you a liberal/conservative score at the end, but 28% of my savings was tax-based, 72% cut based.

Actually, looking back I basically gave the older folks a big middle finger. Sorry about that, but its not like it will ever happen.

Twenty percent across the board. Fvck, companies and school districts and university athletic departments gotta do it every year, why not Congress? Every's gonna hurt a little, but it's for the common good.

And, tax the fvck outta the greedy rich, more than half of which never create the jobs the Conks here say they do. If, as these delusional Conks say they do, the rich actually create jobs, where the fvck are they? Where have they been since 2005?

Oh, I forgot, it's Obama's fault. The march to socialism. Uh-huh.

There's no point in me going through the exercise because the premise behind the choices is staying "within the box" of current concepts of the role of government. If I had my way the entire way in which we look at the role of the federal government would change so that we would not view it as responsible for ensuring the personal well being of individuals. Under my paradigm, for instance, government would be spending next to nothing on what in 2008 was the 20% of outlays referenced in the tax form instructions at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (see page 100) as "social programs." Elminating that spending alone would cut outlays by $597 billion per year. Also, I would not be talking about adjusting Social Security and Medicare. I would be talking about phasing them out entirely.

As best I can tell limiting the federal government to the role(s) it would have under my paradigm would eliminate programs that account for something in the neighborhood of 60% of federal spending. And I wouldn't be talking about tax increases at all. Tax increases would not be necessary if the Federal government was restricted to its true Constitutional role. In fact tax receipts could be substantially reduced.

The choices are kind of lame, I would stop wasting money in the Middle East, either turn it into a parking lot or get the fuck out.

Start taxing churches

Legalize weed & prostitution & tax the hell out of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=kvf5q5qp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would have chosen differently had i could manipulate the numbers, but given what I have I think I chose wisely. In order to get back on tract and out of the red, we have to sacrifice. We have to pay for it. We have to do this.
I had 52% savings from tax increases and 48% savings from spending cuts.

31% tax increases
69% spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=rrxrpblj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

32% Tax increases
68% Spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=st4pgk69" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3:1.

For every $ in increased taxes, cut 3 from the budget. Nothing is safe. Nothing.

Man, whodathunk those socialist Europeans would've embraced fiscal austerity before us?

Grizalltheway wrote:Man, whodathunk those socialist Europeans would've embraced fiscal austerity before us?

THey don't have budgets that require 35% of every dollar to be spent on defense.


Thanks to us.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Man, whodathunk those socialist Europeans would've embraced fiscal austerity before us?

THey don't have budgets that require 35% of every dollar to be spent on defense.


Thanks to us.

Ding, ding. Winner.

Btw, I'm in favor of cutting every defense job but mine.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THey don't have budgets that require 35% of every dollar to be spent on defense.


Thanks to us.

Ding, ding. Winner.

Btw, I'm in favor of cutting every defense job but mine.

NIMBY?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Man, whodathunk those socialist Europeans would've embraced fiscal austerity before us?

THey don't have budgets that require 35% of every dollar to be spent on defense.


Thanks to us.

Sure, but that really has nothing to do with my statement. I was just pointing out the irony of the socialist Europeans deciding to cut government spending before us.

Conks have no sense of irony. See yesterday's thread with nativist.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THey don't have budgets that require 35% of every dollar to be spent on defense.


Thanks to us.

Sure, but that really has nothing to do with my statement. I was just pointing out the irony of the socialist Europeans deciding to cut government spending before us.

And I was just pointing out the fallacy in your argument.

Next.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Sure, but that really has nothing to do with my statement. I was just pointing out the irony of the socialist Europeans deciding to cut government spending before us.

And I was just pointing out the fallacy in your argument.

Next.

Europe's where it's at. Canada, too. If Mama Cat would move to either, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And I was just pointing out the fallacy in your argument.

Next.

Europe's where it's at. Canada, too. If Mama Cat would move to either, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

And most conks on this board would show up to help you pack.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Europe's where it's at. Canada, too. If Mama Cat would move to either, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

And most conks on this board would show up to help you pack.

Good, but I'm only paying you in coffee and bologna sandwiches. Fiscal conservatism, you know.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And most conks on this board would show up to help you pack.

Good, but I'm only paying you in coffee and bologna sandwiches. Fiscal conservatism, you know.

Beer and pizza or no deal. A man's got to have standards, you know.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Good, but I'm only paying you in coffee and bologna sandwiches. Fiscal conservatism, you know.

Beer and pizza or no deal. A man's got to have standards, you know.

Alright. Unemployed, may have to borrow some bux from D.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Beer and pizza or no deal. A man's got to have standards, you know.

Alright. Unemployed, may have to borrow some bux from D.

He's loaded. No ball and chain and all....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Alright. Unemployed, may have to borrow some bux from D.

He's loaded. No ball and chain and all....

Love ya, Z.

15% Tax increase
85% spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=zx9rb004" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ming01 wrote:15% Tax increase
85% spending cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=zx9rb004" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agressive.

But I like it.