Click on the following link, federal budget. Your job is to eliminate both the 2015 and 2030 shortfall. How did you do it? Did your primarily rely on cutting programs or by increasing taxes? What had the biggest impact? Pick one item, what as the opportunity cost for your decision? Who would not like your plan? Why? Who would be for it? Why?
46 Comments
Michelle Menegon
1/14/2014 10:52:11 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls primarily through spending cuts, which made up 62%. Tax increases took up the remaining 38%. Cuts I decided to make were on foreign aid, troops in foreign countries, nuclear weapons programs, and tightening social security spending. Capping Medicare and military spending had the largest impact on the shortfall. One item I decided to tighten was social security eligibility for the disabled. Many people are taking advantage of their disabilities, especially if they're as simple as a learning disability. But, the opportunity cost would be that truly injured or disabled people will have a harder time finding work and receiving the aid they need.
Reply
Celeste Gonzalez
1/15/2014 01:07:18 am
When I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortcuts by 44% of saving through tax increases and 56% from spending cuts. First I cut 250,000 government contractors, and other cuts to the federal government, then I reduced military to pre-Iraq war size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe, and reduce the number of troops by 60,000 in Afghanistan in 2015. I then reduced social security to those with high incomes, and tighten eligibility for disability. Then i agreed to Obamas proposal to taxes. And we raise taxes on people that make more then $1 million and introduce the carbon tax.
Reply
joshua fisher
1/15/2014 02:58:37 am
if i was planning the budget for 2015- 2030 i would first cut military spending by 50% take all the troops out of the middle east. My next step would be to increase taxes with people who have high income people who make a million plus, i would reduce the amount of social security people would have to pay. i agree with obama's proposal for existing taxes on income this would be good for the people who make over 250,000 a year in income the tax would increase to 20% than the normal 15%. this would not be a perfect budget but it sound better than what the goverment is proposing.
Reply
Ignacio Gonzalez
1/15/2014 06:14:43 am
I got rid of the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls by cutting more programs than increasing taxes. The spending cuts made up 58% of my plan while the tax increases made up the remaining 42%. I made certain cuts to earmarks, the troops in foreign countries, medicare, and restrictions on social security. The cuts that would have the greatest impact on our deficit would be the reduction of troops in foreign countries, the cap on medicare and raising the age eligibility for social security. Their impact isn't projected in a short-term, rather, we can see the impact of these cuts in the farther future. However, the opportunity cost to raising the eligibility age for Social Security will be that it won’t be favorable among those low income workers who need the Social Security support.
Reply
Anahy Hernandez
1/15/2014 08:24:14 am
I decided to eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortcuts through spending cuts by 52 percent. I decided to cut programs such as aid to states by 5 percent, reduce military to size to 50,000 personnel, tighten social security spending. I decided to tighten social security eligibility for the disabled. We can't support people if they don't have major learning deficits. On the other hand, the opportunity cost will be that people will have a difficult time being employed and receiving benefits.
Reply
Katrina Kennedy
1/15/2014 12:48:24 pm
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls mainly through cutting spending (71%) but with assistance of tax increases (29%). I mainly selected cuts on the military and anything in relation to that spending. This made a large difference. I also selected the removal of tax beaks on, or increase in taxes on the wealthier class. These are both areas which I feel could more readily take the hit from cuts or increases. Cutting military aid made the most difference simply because I selected all of those sections; I am a strong advocate of cutting military spending and power in all aspects. By taking funding from the military, the opportunity cost may be the United States missing their chance to selfishly imply their control and ideas onto communities and countries that may not have any interest in them.
Reply
Maddie Duckhorn
1/15/2014 02:08:42 pm
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfall primarily through cutting programs, which made up 56% of the savings. Tax increases made up the other 44% of the savings. My total projected savings was $2,052 billion. I was able to eliminate the shortfall mainly through my reduction of the nuclear arsenal and space spending, reduction of the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, by increasing both the Medicare eligibility age, and the Social Security retirement age, to 68, and my returning of investment tax rates to Clinton-era levels. My decision to cap Medicare growth starting in 2013 made the biggest impact on my savings.
Reply
Vanessa Gomez
1/16/2014 02:51:53 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfall primarily through limiting the spending of some of the programs that made up roughly 58% of the savings. I started off by cutting down military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by 30,000 by 2013 that made a huge difference already, i also limited the use of nuclear and the troops in Asia and Europe. By doing that we got some billions back already. I also raise the retirement age to 70 because i saw the difference it made in the scale i think that some people might enjoy that but the rest would be unhappy due to the fact that the retirement age was raised drastically. I also tightened the eligibility of social security.
Reply
Samantha Martin
1/16/2014 04:21:58 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfall primarily through cutting or limiting the amount of spending we put towards disability applicants roughly by 5 percent of so, the reason I say that is because that money could be put towards so many other things in our government.By cutting the spending of disability by 5 percent would help save money in order to pay off our national debt, which in some ways help us repair some type of relationship with our surrounding countries that we own money to.In order to pay off the debt I wouldnt only cut spending for disability ,I would also reduce the number of troops in Iraq as well as Afghanistan because of the fact that I believe that most families that have a loved one would want there family members home and by doing that it will cause a huge increase in money that the government will have to focus on so many other aspects of the United States that need funding.This will enable the United States to economically grow over an extending period of time.
Reply
Eric Hernandez
1/16/2014 04:40:12 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfall by cutting different programs that are not necessary for the US well-being. This makes up 58% of the government savings. Military spending would also be reduced by half because it's not a necessity and it's costing the US a lot of money. People with high incomes would have their taxes increased and people with social security benefits would receive the same amount of money, but health care and disability programs would be more difficult to receive, only if it was a must. Welfare and other programs that help families would only go to the families that actually need it. Not families that earn high income. Government spending is 62%, so that would also be decreased to 50% to limit ourselves from getting in more debt with other countries.
Reply
Amairani Hernandez
1/16/2014 05:20:31 am
My decision was to eliminate 2013 and 2030 shortfalls mainly through cutting programs which made up 52% of the savings. I started by cutting domestic programs such as aid to states by 5 percent, it would persuade states to spend more efficiently and reduce waste. Cutting the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 personnel. Reducing Social Security benefits for those that make high incomes, and tighten eligibility for disability, in this case it will affect to those who take advantage of their disabilities because they won’t be able to get economic help from the government. Reducing the number of troops that are located in foreign war countries will help the country to eliminate the shortfall because the extreme amount of money spent can be given back to be used for more beneficial things such as public schools, student scholarships, etc .People with high incomes will not like my plan because it would affect their interests and would be harder for them to get benefits. Those who would see this plan as good alternative are middle and low class families.
Reply
Christian Komes
1/16/2014 06:58:41 am
I primarily eliminated the shortfalls of 2015 and 2030 through Tax increases, 69% to be exact, while attempted to cut what programs I felt were unnecessary, which ended up being 31% of the total. To begin with I downsized the military in every aspect to free up as much money for butter as possible. Then I decided to revert to primarily Clinton based policies as during his presidency there was a surplus of some 236 billion dollars. I felt cutting aid to foreign countries was also something that needed to be done at least until the United States could remain in the green with its own budget. I created a carbon tax to increase pressure to use and find new energy sources, as well as I created a national sales tax solely to gain more taxes. I reduced mortgage deductions on high income house holds and remove loopholes. Lastly I removed earmarks.
Reply
kimberly juarez
1/16/2014 08:31:43 am
primarily eliminated the shortfalls of 2015 and 2030 through Tax increases, 69% to be exact, while attempted to cut what programs I felt were unnecessary, which ended up being 31% of the total.Then I decided to revert to primarily Clinton based policies as during his presidency Reducing the number of troops that are located in foreign war countries will help the country to eliminate the shortfall because the extreme amount of money spent can be given back to be used for more beneficial things such as public schools, student scholarships.also raise the retirement age to 70 because i saw the difference it made in the scale i think that some people might enjoy that but the rest would be unhappy due to the fact that the retirement age was raised drastically
Reply
Hope Hendricks
1/16/2014 09:26:39 am
I thought that cutting foreign affairs in half isn't really necessary since we've been pushing them further and further away and not making a huge deal about them in the present or past that much. I mean its going to stay the same in 2030, but other businesses like reduce the federal workforce by 10% isn't going to help the economy get better same with cutting the sates aid by 5% and civilian workforce to. All the military things need to be brought down same with social and health, although health is important.
Reply
Carlos Lara
1/16/2014 09:31:37 am
In order to reduce the 2015 and 2030 projected shortfall I cut down on programs, giving me 68% outcome. The additional 32% savings were made through tax increase. The major cuts I decided to detract from were military spending, reducing the amount of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with weaponry spending. Some of the larger cuts that created a bigger impact came from cuts on foreign aid, troops in foreign countries and social security to potentially reduce the budget. Social security, serving as a back bone of financial stability to the elderly and disabled will change over this period, benefitting the spending budget but making it harder for those with disabilities, including the elderly, harder to apply fort these benefits.
Reply
Brianna Haug
1/16/2014 09:51:15 am
I primarily relied on raising taxes (65%), but also made a few spending cuts (35%). The two changes that the greatest impact was to cut military spending and troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to introduce a national sales tax. I believe that state sales taxes should go down and that a national sales tax should be instated. The recalling of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq made a large difference, as did the sales tax.
Reply
Shabaz Khan
1/16/2014 11:47:19 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfall mainly through spending cuts. Spending cuts contributed 54% while tax increases made up 46%. The biggest impact was mainly cuts on military spending; for example, reducing the amount of troops in foreign countries. Other programs cuts, such as those in relation to social security, also had a big impact. Though reducing the amount of troops in foreign countries contributed the most, the opportunity cost would be less control for the United Sates, as well as, possible mayhem in foreign countries. Those that could be in favor of this plan might be any individuals that are heavily in favor of cutting military spending and those that meet the age restrictions in social security. People that may disapprove this plan would be those who are supportive of the military as well as elderly individuals that don't meet social security requirements.
Reply
Patrick Hough
1/16/2014 12:11:56 pm
I completed both the 2015 and 2030 Preliminary by eliminating earmarks reducing military arsenal and space pending canceling or delaying some weapons programs reducing number troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013 knocking medical malpractice reform presidential Obama's proposal presidential Obamas investment taxes proposal allowing expiration for incomes above 250,000 payroll tax subject to incomes above 106,000 millionaires tax on incomes above $1,000,000 eliminate loopholes but keep taxes slightly higher national sales tax carbon tax
Reply
Miguel Jimenez
1/16/2014 12:17:02 pm
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 short fall through making 60% saving in tax increases and 40% in spending cuts. By redusing the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013,I managed to save 165 billion dollars by 2030. Although this is great I found it necessary to make some tax increases which made up 60% of the saving. Raising the national sales tax made the most impact with a wopping 281 billion in deficit savings. I would imagine the American population would not be too happy with this decision but in the long run if they want to have a happy successful stress free life then this sacrifice would be worth it. I would hope the family's of the soldiers who would be coming home from over seas would be the happiest with this plan because they would be getting their sons or daughters back for good, and although most Americans would not be to exited about tax increases I'm sure they would appreciate the possitive long term effect it would have on their life's.
Reply
Lili Gilpin
1/17/2014 09:58:16 am
I primarily eliminated the shortfalls of 2015 and 2030 by increasing taxes by 69%, especially in the areas of real estate tax along with the millionaire tax in order to balance the economic standing of the individuals in the country along with eliminating some of the debt shortfalls. Secondly, I cut down spending by reducing military to pre-Iraq size, reducing nuclear and arsenal/space spending, and cancelling or delaying some weapon programs. By saving money by cutting back on in obscene amount of spending that goes into warfare, the nation would be able to develop a more peaceful standing amongst other countries and the foreign aid would go much farther. I have no problem supporting noncombat military forces, so that under emergency situations the U.S. will have back up. A noncombat military force would also help the job market, which indirectly helps to raise the economy also. Military supporters, and those opposed to taxation would likely strongly disagree with my plan, but it would eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortfall.
Reply
James Decker
1/17/2014 12:04:28 pm
I decided to eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortcut through spending cuts of 57%. A lot of where the cuts made had to do with the military,social security, healthcare and new taxes. The largest spending cut was to Cap Medicare growth by 2013 this would crack down on hospitals and doctors with high costs. I would also revert also of rates back to the Clinton era levels making it same for everyone except for low income households. Also adding a national tax and carbon tax to put our country into the future and like the rest of the world.
Reply
markley lapointe
1/20/2014 12:52:46 pm
I eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortfall by 50%. I did this by reducing Military spending in multiple departments, such as reducing the amount of troops in Iraq, the reduction of troops on foreign soil by doing this we could focus more on education and medical advancements. I also added tax reforms for carbon and national sales, also I would tax upper class to create somewhat equal taxation for all classes. The rich would not find my decision kindly to their wallets because the rich want to stay rich and my plan would help the lower class pay less taxes. The wealthier would not support this because they would be loosing money and may cause them to not fund for future technologies and medicines due to the taxation. I was able to reduce the 2015 and 2030 shortfall by 50%
Reply
Zaina depina
1/22/2014 11:54:16 am
When I eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls by cutting spending of some programs that made up 52% of the savings. I cut the military and any money in relation or funding to that spending. Also I cut down the amount of troop by 40,000. I raised the retirement age to 72 because it made a difference of the scale and it made more sence and also it would make people more happier in there lifetime. I tighten up the eligibility of social security just by alittle. Cutting down on military and tighten up social security would not be a good plan for the us because we need soldiers out there fighting. I'm not saying war is a good thing but if we cut down on soldiers I believe that things would just get messed and and thousands of people would get killed. And we need to provide for our elderly with social security they deserve the money that they worked hard for all these years.
Reply
1/22/2014 03:28:56 pm
I was able to successfully eliminate the projected 2015 and 2030 shortfalls by tax increases. 52% of my savings were from tax increases, while 48% of the savings were due to spending cuts. The options that had the biggest impact on my plan were the changes to benefits for the elderly, as well as eliminating tax loopholes while keeping taxes high and imposing a 5% national tax. Having cut spending for the advancement of some weapon programs, we can expect the opportunity cost of this decision to be having those products that would result from these development programs. We would not have any advanced, but expensive “toys” such as F35 fighter jet and MV-22. However, we would still have access to other weapons of similar capability.
Reply
Jeremy Melka
1/23/2014 12:52:21 am
To eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls, I mainly cut spending. 63% of my cuts were from spending while the other 37% were from tax increases. Some cuts that impacted the shortfalls immensely were increasing the Medicare eligibility age to 70 and capping Medicare growth starting in 2013. If we were to reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013, it would create a visible hand, guiding the U.S. to where troops should be; at home. The opportunity costs to bringing troops back to the U.S. would be to reduce the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,00 by 2015. Though we would be saving less money, the moral value is still present. The federal government could be upset about the cuts to their department including the excessive amount of people who work for the federal government. On the other hand, citizens would be more optimistic in my decision in that we could do without them. Biologists and other scientists would agree with my decision to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 70 because people are living longer, but this could upset the elderly who have recently plan on receiving Medicare at age 65.
Reply
Ryan Marcum
1/23/2014 04:58:29 am
In order to disperse and perhaps eliminate the prospective years of 2015 and 2030 shortfalls, I will budget and eliminate areas of major spending. More specifically a 55% reduction of government spending in certain fields, such as medicare and military cost. With a reduction in medicare costs, citizens will withhold more income to be used to help the economy stave off the near future economic downfalls. This will be provided nationwide, pertaining to all individuals who utilize this or private medicare. A decrease in military spending will allow the government to be able to stand a proceeding tax reduction. This beneficiary will help ward the unpleasant predictions of 2015 and 2030 by a tax decrease nationwide by 3%, but will provide a substantial amount of money to be utilized to improve citizens economic status. The opportunity cost of these will be the government will be less militarily powerful, but will maintain a steadied economic increase. Many supporters with political views acclaiming military spending will oppose this for they see it as a sign to the world as weakness. Individuals favoring an economic increase and more cash in the publics pocket, would like this plan to further the United States economically.
Reply
Paulette Monroy
1/23/2014 07:00:01 am
I was able to eliminate the 2015 and 2013 shortfall through a decrease in taxes by 68%; thus, the remaining amount was 32%. The federal government along with the idea of bringing the troops back home, ideally served for a cut in taxes; furthermore, both the bank and home taxes where reduces to a more affordable way of keeping the economy on a balance. However, I increased the Medicare eligibility and Social Security retirement age to 70. This will allow for a healthier nation, and a more reliable government for those who are grown of age. One issue that served as an impact in the government was the Cap Medicare Growth. The name itself explains how there would be limitations on the health plan.
Reply
Juan Nava
1/23/2014 07:00:47 am
I eliminated the shortfalls of 2015 and 2030 by increasing taxes by 58%, notably in the areas of real estate tax along with the millionaire tax on income above 1 million. Furthermore, I cut down spending by reducing military troops in Afghanistan by 2015, reducing nuclear and arsenal/space spending, and cancelling or delaying some weapon programs. By cutting back the military expense, we do have a loss in nation security, but it would help with more jobs and focuses on other important issues. Military supporters, and anti tax protester would strongly disagree with my plan, but it would eliminate the 2015 and 2030 shortfall.
Reply
Bryan Peralta
1/23/2014 07:11:51 am
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortcuts by spending cuts. The spending cuts contributed 49% while tax increases made up 51%. The main impact was cuts on military spending. For example, reducing the troops in foreign countries. however, reducing the military troops in foreign countries contributed the most, but there might be a possible chaos, disorder, or mayhem in foreign countries because of this. Other cuts like in social security also had a big impact. Those that might support this plan could be individuals that are strongly in favor of cutting military spending and those that meet the age restrictions in social security. But also there might be people that may disapprove this plan because they are supportive of the military or are elderly individuals that can't get a social security.
Reply
Carleigh Long
1/23/2014 09:02:36 am
I eliminated the shortfalls 2015 and 2030 primarily through cutting various programs. The majority of these cuts were made to programs that aren't making a large difference as some other programs. The percentages came out at about roughly 65% for tax increases and 35% from spending cuts. Reducing the amount of troops we have over seas helped raise the percents a lot and i think its important to have less men over seas when the threats aren't large. The opportunity costs to bringing troops back to the U.S. would be to reduce the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,00 by 2015. For our elderly especially our war veterans i tried to avoid cutting or limiting it, its important to take care of the men and women who took care of our safety. Areas where i really was able to make a significant change in the percents was in the real estate area and the millionaire takes.
Reply
Jose Mendoza-Huijon
1/23/2014 09:13:05 am
In order to decrease the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls, I would cut programs by 84% which was what I primarily relied on for removing the shortfalls. Furthermore, I would increase 16% of taxes. It was difficult making many of the choices selected. However I removed and included a plethora amount of aspects to our national budget that I felt were somewhat reasonable and possible to adjust. Although I am greatly against war, I had great trouble eliminating some military and foreign aid budgets. Despite the difficulties I faced, I found it sensible to cut 250,000 government contractors, private companies that produce goods or services under contract for the government. The reason for this decision was that, under the description, it was stated that, although the contractors may be useful, “[the] numbers are simply too high in light of the current budget deficit.” Therefore, I believed it would be the right choice to cut the contractors. Unfortunately, it would impact lives by leaving them jobless. Additionally, I cancelled weapon programs and reduced 30,000 troops in Middle Eastern countries by the year 2030. The reason for the reduction of troops is that we are already a powerful nation with, in my opinion, an unnecessary large amount of troops in the Middle East. I felt it would profoundly beneficial if we reduce our troops in order to save $20 billion and, most importantly, the health and lives of our soldiers. Furthermore, I included a carbon tax. I feel it is important to keep our planet safe and clean. Therefore I would tax carbon emissions, starting at $23 per ton of CO2. This would help our nation by keeping our world cleansed and increase our nation’s economy at a constant annual rate of 5.8 percent, from 2012 through 2050. Ultimately, I would cap Medicare because Medicare is already well off as it today. By capping we would be able to retain the benefits of Medicare and reduce our spending. Eliminating the shortfalls was, indeed, a difficult task considering that a surfeit amount of options offered, either removing of programs or adding taxes, would have put a great impact on our country. More specifically, it was grueling to decide what would be the best options for, not only the nation’s economy, but also the citizens of the United States. #RealTalk
Reply
@YungNava
1/23/2014 09:59:00 am
http://www.vineroulette.com/v/Blackpeople-in-a-fire-drill-Lmao-hPdXvwL1FPl
Reply
JE$$E OCHOA
1/23/2014 10:38:41 am
My plan for decreasing the shortfall is divided as such, 60% from tax increases, and 40% from spending cuts. The tax increases that cause the largest fall, are the Carbon and Millionaires tax. The Carbon tax is necessary not only for the cash benefits, but also for the well being of the earth. Also, the extra 5.4% tax on millionaires may not go over so well with them, but they're millionaires so they should be willing to help the economy for a measly $54K.
Reply
Paige Johnson
1/23/2014 11:14:01 am
Large budget deficits and even greater increases in that debt are expected to occur in the near future, that is, unless we can figure out a way to cut our spending drastically. Unfortunately, this means that we must be willing to make sacrifices or even shell out a few extra bucks. My solution to eliminate our 2015-2030 shortfalls was comprised of 62% spending cuts and 38% savings from tax increases, with my savings totaling $1,659 billion. My strategy to get rid of our shortfall was to primarily focus on cutting down on government spending, rather than increasing our taxes. I cut down on spending in three main ways, through reducing the number of troops to 30,000, by reducing the tax break for employer provided health insurance, and other cuts to the federal government. For tax increases, I focused primarily on closing tax loopholes and slightly raising rates, and putting into effect a carbon and bank tax.
Reply
Tito Rios
1/23/2014 11:15:22 am
My plan for reducing the deficit was almost at a 1:1 ratio with respect to tax increases and spending cuts, 44% and 56% respectively.
Reply
Jake Pelosi
1/23/2014 12:06:16 pm
The way I divided up the shortfalls was 59% from tax increases and 41% from spending cuts. The tax increase that caught my attention the most was the carbon tax, mostly for the protection of the environment. The millionaire tax also needs to be put into place because they have more money than half the planet and need to give a little more back. I cut spending in foreign aid as the US needs to focus on itself and the well being of its citizens. I think that some military programs need to be delayed/shut down. We should reduce the number of troops we have deployed to 30,000 by 2014.
Reply
Miraldelli lopez
1/23/2014 12:25:06 pm
The deficit in 2015 will be about $400 billion larger than the level that economists consider sustainable. where countries can run small deficits forever, because one year's economic growth effectively pays for the previous year's budget shortfall the deficit puzzle focuses on the year 2030 because it is far enough that the boomers' retirement will weight heavily on the budget but near enough that reasonable budget estimates exist. by 2030 , the needed deficit cut will equal about 5.5% of annual economic output. But just imagine if democrats and republicans somehow came together and agrees on a grand bargain to cut the deficit. if so they could decide to cut the pay of federal workers over the next several years, close military bases reduce foreign aid, eliminate earmarks, expand the payroll tax and cut social security benefits for high earners as the chairmen of a bipartisan commission recommenaded last week.
Reply
Savanna
1/23/2014 12:42:18 pm
I eliminated the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls primarily through spending cuts, which made up 62%. Tax increases took up the left over 38%. The cuts that I chose to make were to eliminate foreign aid, troops in foreign countries, nuclear weapons programs, and tightening social security spending. The biggest cuts that I made were directed at military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a huge divide between veterans' views post-service and before deployment. Tightening Medicare and military spending was my choice that had the largest impact on the shortfall. One item that I decided to apply more restrictions was social security eligibility for the disabled. Many people are taking advantage of their disabilities, especially if they're as simple as a learning disability. But, the opportunity cost would be that truly injured or disabled people will have a harder time finding work and receiving the that aid they need but the elimination of the shortfall is more beneficial.
Reply
Mariah Moreno-Crump
1/23/2014 12:45:47 pm
In my attempt to eliminate both the 2015 and 2030 federal budget shortfalls, I comprised a plan that will both cut government spending by 51% as well as save 49% from tax increases. The bulk of my budget cuts come from military spending. I decided to reduce our military’s size to that of pre-Iraq war and further reduce the number of troops stationed in Asia and Europe. This cut will save 25 billion dollars in 2015 and 49 billion dollars in 2030. Along with military cuts, the bulk of my government savings came from raising the social security age to 70 years old. This move does not necessarily help as much in 2015, as it only saves 8 billion dollars, but it saves an outstanding 104 billion dollars in 2030. The strategic move to reduce our military has both negative and positive sides to it. Our opportunity cost is that our country will have a smaller military force overseas which will lead to uneasy feelings in regards to security, but this reduction will save billions of dollars.
Reply
Chris Kewell
1/23/2014 12:53:51 pm
For me, solving the projected shortfalls came primarily from cutting back on the current programs in place. Obviously, since we spend a large portion of our budget on our military as it is, that is where the majority of my cutbacks took place. Just by simply reducing the amount of troops overseas, it takes a large chunk of debt away for 2030. If there are any concerns over military control in middle eastern countries, that is why we continue funding for navy fleets and weapon researching. Technology alone can be enough for our military to have a presence overseas. The cost benefit is much more in our favor because we increase our military output by continuing focused research in weapon development, all the while decreasing our debt and saving troops' lives.
Reply
Miguel Macias
1/23/2014 02:06:20 pm
To eliminate the 2015-2030 shortfall I primarily increased taxes, 59% to be exact. The remaining 41% came from spending cuts.
Reply
Daniel Kuleto
1/23/2014 02:17:55 pm
Through this New York Times simulation of the national debt crisis, I was able to eliminate both the 2015 and 2030 shortfalls primarily by raising taxes, but also by cutting many government programs. The majority of my tax increases, making up 75% of the total deficit reduction, come from raising taxes on the upper class. The tax increases I suggest do not impact the lower tax brackets, but are able to drastically increase tax revenue from increasing rates on the upper class tax brackets alone. The implementation of a "millionaire's tax" and the modification of the Bush tax cuts will upset the upper class, but will have little effect on the lower and middle classes and would increase the quality of life for the majority of United States citizens. The opportunity cost of this new tax program is essentially that upper class citizens will not be able to maintain quite as high of an income, but this cost is greatly outweighed by the economic benefits the rest of the country will reap.
Reply
Jessica Neal
1/23/2014 03:37:47 pm
My focus on how I would fix the budget of the 2015 and 2030 shortfall, would be to increase taxes, primarily on the upper class. The Millionaires Tax would greatly effect the income of $1 million that would alleviate the middle and lower classes of America. It is not fair for the middle class to try to get by day-by-day with paying more taxes than the upper class.
Reply
Nellie Rodriguez
1/23/2014 03:48:31 pm
I plan to eliminate the 2015 and 2030 federal budget shortfalls essentially by cutting the spending for foreign aid and reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 and increasing tax on millionaires which turns out to be 38% savings from increases in taxes and 62% savings from spending cuts. We spend a great amount of money towards our military and various programs concerning of other world countries that are not necessarily in need of help. By reducing the amount of spending, we can surely eliminate some debt that will be present in 2030. Increasing taxes should only be upon the higher-income citizens. The millionaire's tax income above $1 million would very likely be beneficial. I also believe that it is morally right to tax more on those who generally have the money to spend and give.
Reply
Spencer Pearson
2/2/2014 01:41:03 pm
My plan for cutting the short falls for the fiscal years of 2015 - 2030 was to, for the most part, increase taxes rather than cut programs. With the tax increases (spread across banks, social security, and investment), I found that the likeliness of avoiding the shortfall was much larger, leaving the plan with total of 53% saved via taxes. I found that, by increasing taxes, mainly to the rich and to banks and other institutions similar, I made the largest impact on the possible shortfalls for 2015 - 2013.
Reply
Thomas Montalbano
2/4/2014 01:56:40 pm
**GOOF**
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2014
Categories |