Just tackling the 1st “simple” solution in the OP: How does raising taxes and cutting spending by the exact same percent eliminate the deficit?
Once we clear this one up I’ll address the others.
Simple problems (I am thirsty) can be resolved through simple solutions (drink a glass of water).
The trouble with simple solutions to complex problems is that these solutions, once you examine them closely, tend to be based on questionable assumptions.
These assumptions are often in turn based on ideologically-induced blindness.
Two examples, one from the left, one from the right.
-
When asked what could be done about the perennial scourge of alcohol abuse among Russians, Lenin reportedly said that people drank to escape the horrors of capitalism and that in the new workers’ paradise alcohol consumption would decline. Throughout the cold war, magazines like Time would often hint that the problem of alcohol abuse in Russia was caused by the oppression of Communism. Now, after 70 years of Communism and 20 of Capitalism, Russia still has the same problem.
-
The bumper sticker quoted in one of the postings above says “Cut government spending by 50%”. This is based on the right-wing assumption that government spending is generally wasteful and useless. The underlying assumption is that if the US government cut its spending in half, the country would enjoy wonderful tax cuts, a balanced budget and nobody would be worse off because all of that money was just being wasted on foolishness anyhow. I find it very hard to believe that a 50% cut in of government spending in any modern industrialized country would not have some very undesirable effects on quality of life, social order, peace, safety, child welfare, education, environmental protection, health, etc.
That may be true. Processes are often stalled when people navel-gaze.
But would you rather have a “full ass” with cellulite and hairy moles or a “half-ass” that looks nice and smooth.
Half-asses are useless, for all intents and purposes. They aren’t functional, even though from the side they look good.
Take the pollution thing. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we certainly have come a long way, no doubt about that. We can turn on the tap and have some reasonable assurance that the water supply is clean, for instance.
But there is a danger of becoming lulled into false comfort. The reason why we haven’t had have any disasters here on the scale of, say, the Bopal disaster in the 1980s or the melamine horror in China just a few years ago, isn’t because corporations have become more conscientious. It’s because laws and enforcement practices are now stiffer. The system is actually working. But it constantly HAS to work. There is no sitting back and enjoying the successes. The moment you do that, bad players find a way to get over. Suddenly we’ve got another oil spill out in the Gulf.
It worries me when conservatives look at environmental agencies first when they think about budget cut-backs. That’s essentially saying, “We can sit back and relax now.” Uh, no. When the economy is going haywire and people are desperate, that’s EXACTLY when you need to be watching out.
I certainly don’t think a solution has to be picture-picture to be useful. But there’s a difference between a solution not being perfect and a solution being “half-assed”. It’s way too easy to think you’re being pragmatic when really you’re just spinning your wheels and hoping no one notices.
Tribology: Friction and wear: surface mechanics, chemistry, atomic level effects, etc. Fynman took it up briefly then dropped it because it was too complicated. Got a quick easy answer to that?
I’d rather have half a solution rather than NO solution. Or hell, at least enough of a solution so that things arent getting WORSE. I agree generally with the rest of your post, though what exactly it has to do with mine isn’t exactly clear (unless you think I am one of those no environmental regs! people, which I aint).
Besides the fact that many of the “simple” solutions aren’t actually solutions and make bad assumptions about the underlying problem and efficacy of the solutions, there’s another, slightly subtle and incredibly common misconception implicit in the OP.
“Simple” is NOT the same as “easy”.
Simple solutions are not always easy solutions or even practical or achievable solutions, though apparently the OP thinks they are synonymous.
(I admit I did ramble in the last post. Forgive me.)
Half solutions often create more problems, that’s the thing. Take the illegal immigrant legislation in Alabama, for instance. Yeah, they’ve wiped out all the illegal immigrants–which was the Problem. But the source of the Problem–Industries that Have Always Relied on Cheap Labor–was not fixed at all. Now the state’s economy is even more in the balance that it was before the Solution. If the Solution had been a full one, it would have factored in both the sides of the Problem.
Or to go back to my field, the environment. Most states have the power of the law to go after point-sources of pollution–like your local car wash, for instance. Facilities have to get permits and follow compliance schedules for the pollutants they discharge, and all that jazz. But states typically have no regulatory teeth to go after non-point sources, like the suds flooding off of your street after everyone washes their cars. If there’s a lake nearby that has a pollution Problem, the Solution the state will generally come up with is to go after the point sources that have pipes discharging nearby. But it cannot do a damn thing to keep you and your neighbors from putting God-knows-what in your yards. Even if the state determines that the non-point source discharges are 99.5% responsible for the degraded conditions in the lake, the Solution will typically be to go after the point-sources and then create feel-good public service announcements to take care of the non-point sources. IMHO, that is a half-ass solution that does nothing to fix the Problem, and only generates other problems, like dealing with an angry business community and angry citizenry who think the state isn’t doing anything.
The full Solution would be to arm regulatory agencies with the power to go after both sources of pollution. But this, like illegal immigration policies, is easier said than done and requires some extra thinking (i.e., what impatient people might call “navel-gazing”).
I thought the OP was going to be a reference to the old saying “Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.” Surprisingly, it was not so.
However, the solutions that the OP is proposing are pretty much exactly what we are thinking about when we quote the above.
Hard problem: People grow old and die.
OK, what’s the simple solution to that one, smart guy?
If there were a requirement for parents to fund a trust for each child, then there could not be poverty because the fund would provide for everyone’s basic needs over their lifetime.
There are other simple solutions to poverty, which I considered briefly before rejecting them over the one above.
For example, a trillion dollars is enough money to instantly make a million poor people or households into millionaires. The US government has already spent many trillions of dollars. And I think a million dollars could help 50-100 people out of poverty. So a trillion could help perhaps 100 million people, which is probably most or all of the impoverished US citizenry.
The problem with this solution is that it might work under ideal circumstance, but there’s too many gotchas that could gum up the works and derail it. First, we want to teach people to fish, not just give them a fish. While some people just need a small one-time boost to stay out of poverty, others are too lazy / unmotivated, stupid / uneducated to be assisted without continuous aid.
Therefore, in order to solve the problem for those at the very bottom, someone has to fund their basic needs (by paying for it because at the bottom, the poor will never be able to pay for their basic needs by themselves).
The choices are “nobody”, “charity”, “government” or “parents”. While I am sure a lot of people are fine with the first choice, poverty would still exist. Charity is unreliable, because not every poor person has a benefactor. Government has the problem I outlined above. What does every person (rich or poor) have? Parents.
I know, I was thinking that this thread had to be about *mocking *those that think the world is simple and everyone else is stupid.
Of course, the OP has simply reversed the statement (variously attributed to H.L.Mencken and, with slightly different wording, to Lord Acton),
“There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.”
Personally, I’ll take the word of either Mencken or Lord Acton, both of whom I respect, over that of The Controvert, whom I do not even know. 
This is an assumption that only people who have lived very sheltered, simple lives would make.
You really can’t see the obvious and profoundly silly problem with what you just wrote there?
The one above isn’t a solution. People who are in poverty can’t afford to create trust funds.
You really don’t know that you’re offering nonsense, do you?
Since you can’t seem to appreciate my reply and yet you’re sticking around in this thread, may I ask what is your solution?
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand the problem or the earlier one about Tribology. Can you reformulate your problem or clarify?
For poverty? Education, a job market that promotes upward mobility, cheap and effective birth control, infrastructure improvements including ubiquitous high-speed internet, and a health care system that isn’t designed to cause bankruptcy.
Poverty isn’t one problem, a panapoly of issues and situations create it.
That is not how it works. You set forth a thesis in the OP. It is basically nonsense, but it is yours.
No one is obligated to come up with a better solution simply to demonstrate that your simplistic claims are in error.
I don’t know about a 50% cut, but a good start would be the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Education, Health & Human Services and the EPA. That would save a bucket of wasted money.
Rick Perry is a Doper! I had no idea.
Department of Energy? Sorry folks, we’re just going to put that “energy independence” thing on hold indefinitely. We’re too cheap and lazy to compete in this area.
Department of Education? Sorry folks. We’ll leave it up to the states to educate your kids and hope they’re at least getting equal doses of Jesus-on-a-Dinosaur stuff and the Theory of Evolution.
Health and Human Services? Sorry folks! There’s an E. coli outbreak but we don’t know where it’s coming from or how to stop it! Just spray some bleach on those hamburger patties before you cook them. That should do 'er.
EPA? Sorry folks, but you’ll just have to trust that the chemical manufacturer down the road isn’t polluting the air, water, and soil. You don’t mind a little cancer, do you? Or asthma? Or skin lesions? Or death? Right?
If you’re going to eliminate these agencies, it is incumbent upon you to propose how to solve the problems they are designed to address.