Ok, smart guy. YOU solve the deficit!

[Oberon]

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

Is that only military space spending, or is it civilian space exploration?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by razark

Is that only military space spending, or is it civilian space exploration?

Military I'd say:

"Would reduce number of nuclear warheads to 1,050, from 1,968. Would also reduce the number of Minuteman missiles and funding for nuclear research and development, missile development and space-based missile defense."

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike...

"Gentlemen, for the last fifteen years, I've fought at this table alongside your predecessors in the struggle against the Soviet. Now I do not wish to seem melodramatic, but I do wish to impress upon you a lesson I learned with bitter tears and great sacrifice. The Soviet understands only one language: action. Respects only one word: force."

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

People just don't understand the need for a strong deterrent against a Soviet first strike...

Soviet?


.

[XabbaRus]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=qc5sn9kf

[Platapus]

I could not complete it as it did not list all the possible solutions.

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation.

I found it, it was later in the survey

[Castout]

Well from a foreigner's perspective, a bit heavy on tax maybe because it will not be me who's going to take it

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gj1645lm

[tater]

^^^ funny that the only option is reducing benefits for high incomes. Reduce benefits across the board.

Reduce employer tax break... how about we dump employers providing insurance in the first place, let the employees do that.

They also give an option of reducing Medicare growth, which sounds fine, but due to the way things work that also changes contractual obligations with real insurers. medicare already pays below cost in some cases, yet to save money they want to reduce payments to providers. Keep payments the same, and ration what care is paid for. The docs doing the work should get paid, and not cut-rate, but the same as real insurance. If medicare lacks the money, then medicare can tell people to pay up themselves, or not get X done. Docs should not be forced to have to PAY to work.

Also, they probably project the "cost" of tax increases and costs very simply, and do not include (how could they?) possible growth due to tax reduction, or contraction due to increases (since revenues remain pretty constant as a % of GDP regardless of tax rates).

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've enjoyed seeing most of the plans people submitted here

My "plan" - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzxph010

Of course, that's just a shadow of the plan I'd like to see, owing to the limited answers. I checked pretty much every spending cut on the list and crippled social security payments because in my plan there would be no social security, a much smaller and more privatized military, and no tax increases - though I would eliminate loopholes and subsidies and drastically cut corporate tax rates.

I'd much rather see every domestic arm of the Federal government reduced to a fraction of its current size and the role of government itself reserved primarily to the state and local governments, where it belongs.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation.

So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"

That's why they have a cap. Because the BENEFIT is capped. Raising the taxable income only helps if they simply steal that money, and don't raise the pay out.

If that person is sure to get out way less than they put in, why shouldn't any other SS beneficiary get out much less than they get in? If they do, then everyone arguing that SS is retirement, and sacred can just stfu. It will have been demonstrated to be nothing more than a charity ponzi scheme.

Cut pay outs instead.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"

Yup! That's exactly what I meant.

Social security is not a trust fund, it is an insurance fund. The official name of the primary program is "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". It is managed under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now the money, after being collected is accounted to a trust fund, but that does not mean Social Security is a trust fund. It is an insurance fund, meaning that people are expected to pay more into it in order to fund it.

[August]

Lotsa stuff either not included, too inclusive or not inclusive enough but FWIW:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzyp7jn0

[TarJak]

Good luck yanks: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gf15f011