[General Battuta]

Thanks, New York Times! Sorry about all those tax cuts crippling your quality!

This is a game where you cut programs and try to fix the budget deficit.

What will you do, HALPlites?

[Ghostavo]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=00kk0lr4

I have no idea what some things I've slashed are. 

[IceFire]

I used my left leaning Canadian bias and fixed the short term budget short fall with no problems. The long term shortfall is a harder one but I'm only a few billion short in the end. I focused on high wage earners, foreign military missions and nuclear arms spending (I didn't cut new or existing programs for other arms), oh and I made you guys pay a national sales tax like the rest of us in the modern world do. Problem is mostly gone.

This is actually a pretty cool tool. I hope the US get it's budget under control. It's a giant problem and it really can't continue...not if there is to be a positive outcome. Until recently Canada was the only country in the G8 who was running budget surpluses ... at least until the Torys took power and the world economy tanked. We're supposed to be back to surplus territory by 2015 which I support. Part of the reason why we came through the worst of the economy falling out with so few problems.

[Unknown Target]

Could someone explain to me what they mean when they say that there will be $X savings in 2030? Savings from the current deficit? The projected deficit? The projected deficit minus the current deficit? Plus it?

It seems like these sorts of things aren't well explained, especially in popular media.

[Nuclear1]

Take THAT, rich people and the military!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=0mtj09r7

[BlueFlames]

Oh my god!  It's like when you stop slashing revenue streams, you can afford robust public services!  Who knew?!

Good luck railing it through a Republican House, though.

[SpardaSon21]

1. Slash spending
2. ????
3. Surplus!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zxgtqj10

[WeatherOp]

 

Could someone explain to me what they mean when they say that there will be $X savings in 2030? Savings from the current deficit? The projected deficit? The projected deficit minus the current deficit? Plus it?

It seems like these sorts of things aren't well explained, especially in popular media.

Neither is the interest on the massive national debt. It's one thing to balance the budget with cuts and the like, however what is the interest by itself and how much of a surplus would you have to have to just pay for it. Then if that is the case you'd have to have an even larger surplus to start whittling down the nation debt.

[Kosh]

I did it with a combination of cuts (not so much to welfare but to many other things) and by restoring tax levels to the Clinton era levels. However I have doubts the deficeit in 2015 is going to be as "low" as they project. Too often they've made overly optimistic assumptions like this in recent years.....

[JGZinv]

How are you guys getting the link with your own cuts version...?
The share link at the bottom of the page isn't working for me.

18% tax changes and 82% spending cuts. We had a surplus by 2030, slight deficit still left in 2015.

[Nuclear1]

Right above where you select things to cut and right below the graph it should have something that says "You solved the deficit!  Share your plan..."

[BloodEagle]

I won the game by checking every box. 

[JGZinv]

Yeah that's why... I technically did solve the budget... but I didn't fix the 2015 part of it, so I don't get the link.

Ended with 361 Billion accounted for in 2015 of 418 =  57 billion deficit for 2015.

1,502 Billion for 2030, vs. 1,345 billon for 2030 = 157 billion profit.

Yeah... I think I'll take a 3x profit in the long run.

In real life the budget doesn't "have" to be balanced, but it needs to get that way.  A short term small loss
would be fine in order to fix the majority of issues in 28 years.

[Grizzly]

I decided to be agressive.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=wvyrf5qy

and by restoring tax levels to the Clinton era levels

You know, it suprsises me that nobody ever thinks of that.

[Sushi]

SLASH ALL THE THINGS!

[Grizzly]

Raise taxes. Win.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=000j75yh

[Pred the Penguin]

This actually a lot of fun...

[Herra Tohtori]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d31rnbr7

this plan will allow you to start paying off your national debt

edit: url fix'd

[General Battuta]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d31rnbr7

this plan will allow you to start paying off your national debt

'the url is not valid and cannot be loaded'

(the irony)

[MP-Ryan]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=0kjk02qz

Fixed that for you, AND brought you into surplus.

As I've said for a long while now, you can actually sustain most of your programs primarily through eliminating tax loopholes, taxing higher incomes at less-than-marginal rates, and reforming your broken health care system.  Cuts accounted for 32% of my savings, and were directed toward government contractors, some military spending (on expansion), and addressing some of the problems with US health care (malpractice reform, and medicare growth cap).

The US obsession with "evil" taxation (nevermind that low and middle earners pay the bulk of personal taxes, and the highest incomes escape through loopholes and Bush's legacy) is it's biggest fiscal problem.