Budget Hero 2.0

[Haakzilla]

FREE computer game gives people shot at managing budget...

http://www.budgethero.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — Think you might do better than President Barack Obama and congressional leaders in picking and choosing what government spending to cut — or taxes to raise — to stave off a debt showdown that could wreck the economy? A new computer game gives you, too, the chance to play "Budget Hero."

"Budget Hero 2.0" is an update of an original version that came out in 2008. It shows players just how difficult it might be to carry out their grand policy objectives — universal health care, extending the Bush tax cuts or ending foreign aid — and still keep the government from either becoming irrelevant, or going broke.

Continued: http://news.yahoo.com/computer-game-gives-people-shot-managing-budget-070951562.html

...for all of the "experts" in the forum!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Ya know, with how well kids are at video games, there's some merit in this...

 

[PapaG]

FREE computer game gives people shot at managing budget...

http://www.budgethero.org

...for all of the "experts" in the forum!

Does the game included an unlimited budget option? I ask because we haven't had a federal budget for 2+ years.

I think I could manage an unlimited budget. Well, maybe not "manage" it, but certainly abuse it. Then, when I get up against the debt ceiling, I'll start playing politics with Social Security payments and blame Bush!

 

[Klinky]

Does the game included an unlimited budget option? I ask because we haven't had a federal budget for 2+ years.

Don't you mean 10 years?

 

[PapaG]

Don't you mean 10 years?

What are you talking about? We had budgets during the Bush years.

 

[Klinky]

What are you talking about? We had budgets during the Bush years.

So you're being literal & not metaphorical in a "they set a budget, but then they spend more than they intend or estimate causing more debt" kind of way... hmmm...

In that case, I am not sure what you're talking about since there have been budgets from Obama as well.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html

 

[PapaG]

So you're being literal & not metaphorical in a "they set a budget, but then they spend more than they intend or estimate causing more debt" kind of way... hmmm...

In that case, I am not sure what you're talking about since there have been budgets from Obama as well.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html

I still don't know what you're talking about with the "10 years without a budget" thing.

Of course, I rarely understand what you're talking about in the OT forum.

 

[Klinky]

I still don't know what you're talking about with the "10 years without a budget" thing.

Of course, I rarely understand what you're talking about in the OT forum.

I am not sure what you were talking about with the 2 years thing?

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I still don't know what you're talking about with the "10 years without a budget" thing.

The Faux ignorance of the right is tiresome and played out. You know very fucking well what he meant. Act like you graduated elementary school.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget

President's budget sinks, 97-0
By Alexander Bolton - 05/25/11 06:15 PM ET

The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.

Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint.
McConnell said Obama’s budget “continues the unsustainable status quo.”

He noted during a floor speech Wednesday that Democrats initially applauded the plan.

The president’s budget called for ending tax cuts for the wealthy and a three-year domestic spending freeze, saving an estimated $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democratic senators at the time called it “an important step forward”, “a good start” and a “credible blueprint.”

No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.

The White House Office of Management and Budget declined to comment on the president's budget receiving zero votes in the Senate.

The Senate also rejected the House-passed budget sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which failed on a 40-57 vote.

 

[Denny Crane]

GDP was $10T and the budget was $2T when Clinton left office and the budget was balanced.

Now we have about $14T GDP, a gain of 40%, and govt. spending is proposed at $3.8T, or nearly a 100% increase.

As a % of GDP, $2T was 20%, and $3.8T is 27%. For comparison, 20% of today's GDP would be $2.8T, or $1T less than the president wants to spend. At $2.8T, the political discussion would be about getting the budget in balance instead of how to cut the deficits by 1/3 and still running $1T deficits.

Why is GDP important? It's the theoretical max the govt. could tax if the rates on everything were 100%.

 

[PapaG]

The Faux ignorance of the right is tiresome and played out. You know very fucking well what he meant. Act like you graduated elementary school.

I thought he was talking about the budget. I thought this because I referenced the budget.

I'm many things, but a mindreader isn't one of them. I was literally posting about there being no federal budget.

 

[maxiep]

The Obama Administration is missing the point. They need to stop worrying about how the pie is sliced and start focusing on the size of the pie. If they wish to have a ridiculous level of spending, then they need to allow the GDP to grow. The tax receipts will take care of themselves.

Of course, that approach is anathema to this current administration, because it would put the levers of growth out of their control. And that's what the Obama Administration has shown itself to care about most: Control.

 

[Klinky]

I was literally posting about there being no federal budget.

In what way is there no federal budget?

I have a feeling you're still playing Pickup 52 while we've all moved on to a nice game of Bridge...

 

[Ed O]

In what way is there no federal budget?

I have a feeling you're still playing Pickup 52 while we've all moved on to a nice game of Bridge...

The last time the Senate passed a budget was in April of 2009. They didn't pass one in 2010 nor 2011 (yet). That's over two years of no budgets being passed.

Ed O.

 

[Klinky]

The last time the Senate passed a budget was in April of 2009. They didn't pass one in 2010 nor 2011 (yet). That's over two years of no budgets being passed.

Ed O.

The cut-off for the 2011 budget was Sept 30th, 2010, which it didn't meet, but in April 2011 it was passed as Public Law 112-10.

There was "no budget" for 6 months, not 2 years.

 

[blazerboy30]

The Faux ignorance of the right is tiresome and played out. You know very fucking well what he meant. Act like you graduated elementary school.

Looks as though you're so tired of the fighting that you want to punch somebody. (Props to mobes23)

 

[PapaG]

The cut-off for the 2011 budget was Sept 30th, 2010, which it didn't meet, but in April 2011 it was passed as Public Law 112-10.

There was "no budget" for 6 months, not 2 years.

There is no official federal budget, passed by Congress, and signed by the President. The Dems didn't even offer a budget for FY 2009 or FY 2010, because they knew they would get creamed in the 2010 elections if they did. Unfortunately for them, they still got creamed, after two years of no budget, and not budget for FY 2011 on the table, either (except for the Obama budget that the Senate defeated 97-0).

PL 112-10 is simply a continuance formality, and doesn't account for specific new programs or spending. There had to be some sort of continuance, otherwise the government would not be operational and would have zero funding.

 

[Denny Crane]

The government has been running on "continuing resolutions" since Pelosi first became speaker.

This whole debt limit fight is about enacting a budget with spending cuts - at least cutting spending seems to be agreeable to both sides.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

did anyone play the game?

as far as i can tell there is no way to "win" only delay the inevitable decline, but thats going to be president justin timberlakes problem in 2047

 

[PapaG]

did anyone play the game?

as far as i can tell there is no way to "win" only delay the inevitable decline, but thats going to be president justin timberlakes problem in 2047

I got frustrated when WOPR said it was a silly game, and that both sides losing is the only outcome.

 

[Klinky]

The Dems didn't even offer a budget for FY 2009 or FY 2010

Don't you mean just FY 2010, as FY 2010 would have started in Oct 2009?

Unfortunately for them, they still got creamed, after two years of no budget

"Two years"... So do they usually pass a budget one day & then pass another budget the very next day? Heck maybe they should just do a decade worth of budgets in a span of 10 days...

PL 112-10 is simply a continuance formality, and doesn't account for specific new programs or spending.

Technically it's the budget they're going off of. Not an "official official" federal budget, but not as doom & gloom as saying there is no federal budget at all.

 

[jlprk]

Who cares. The country is doomed. Only a fool would fight the inevitable. It's over. Fini. Or finis.