Can any of us claim ourselves a Budget Hero? Do you account for a prosperous future?

I only want to leave my kid with the knowledge that he is quite capable to do what he needs to have a successful life, with his family and to provide adequate support for them.

But that's not all. As I also want to leave the country on a good footing with all the other countries of this earth.

Which means what?

Well I would like the country to be very similar to how it functions now, and to be able to manage problems all that stuff.

For as you know I believe in the individual and the power that individuals currently have. For it's the people that do things.

But that is not to say that the communities and the regions of this country don't need management skills to also be able to solve problems, which also means that they will also need a revenue stream to solve the problems in the things and institutions that they manage. In other words a balanced taxing, fee and licensing set of methods.

That's about all for now.

Um, is Budget Hero anything like Guitar Hero? Seriously, is it a real game? I was quite lost with your article, initially.

First, Susan: Yes, it is a real game. You can even play it on Gather at http://budgethero.gather.com/ I had a hiccup while publishing and pushed my draft live. Will edit.

Skills + revenue, a good combo, Richard. I didn't even think about an experience legacy. What good is a revenue stream without the skills or confidence to manage it? I'm curious about your last sentence, "In other words a balanced taxing, fee and licensing set of methods." Should we consider the potential evolution of those methods?

My vote for a budget hero would be China. They are currently spending about 10% of their budget on rail transportation, which sends a mental picture of if they didn't. Everybody get in a car and go to work, good luck.

Then add millions of new drivers to oil production limits.

I played the Budget Hero game. I was expecting Gene Simmons to be on the site and he wasn't there. Oh well...

Anyways, I did played the game. Here's my score. Good thing I'm not running for public office anytime soon.

The biggest thing missing is the "chance of getting re-elected" probability. Everyone wants someone else to pay, or, want to pay a little while someone else, pays a lot. Then I can say I'm doing my part. It missed the point that the goal of today's government is to get more people dependant on a government program at the expense of others so that the politican or party can stay in power.

I don't think the cons to raising taxes was spelled out clear enough. But then, this game was made with a company that gets a governement handout.

We elect and re-elect people who legislate for today not tomorrow. There is lip service given to Posterity, but no thought is given to how legislation will effect it. We live in a Today, Today, Today - Me, Me, Me society -- a society of our making. Quentin We is, sadly, correct.

Think of the burden we are putting on our future generations. Think of the vast amount of people that are part of the baby boom generation. Think of all those baby boomers who lived beyond their means and didn't save for retirement. Think of all the baby boomers who instead of saving spent money on $3 coffee, $1 bottled water, huge flat screen TV's, Wii's, eating out instead of preparing food at home, getting thier finger nails detailed, the list goes on. And now, because that generation has the voting power, wants more medicare, free drugs, free healthcare, and more government services. And the policiticans will give it to them because they want their vote.

Well Julia I don't know how to play that game, however, there are many fees, like Plat fees, Recording fees, Title fees, copying fees. There is research that needs to be done at times and just plain old paperwork at other times. These type of fees are easy to determine what value should be imposed.

Then there are the licences, for autos. Trucks, busses, Hunting, practitioners such as medical doctors, for one to do business and such. These can all be reasonable assessed based upon weight, usage and numbers. For example the weight of a vehicle is probably the most important factor in licensing vehicles as the weight of the vehicle is what impacts the roads and the bridges the most.

Then there are those taxes to get the necessary revenue to run the government. Therefore a bloated government will cost the person that is being taxed to pay more taxes than a non-bloated government. Also automation that is done correctly will reduce the cost of government, however, if not done properly will cost more, thus more taxes also.

maybe not quite what you were asking, but two musicians who create individual examples of leaving economic, skiils, and spiritual legacy -- including the legacy of asking good questions: adrienne young and carrie newcomer.

Maybe some of that trend in answer had more to do with people's feelinging of ability to genuinely leave something to the future. It seems almost whatever we do in certain areas it's taken by Crown Party politicians for their own ends, even leona helmsly's little dog had 10 million taken from his 12 mil trust fund by a judge. People leave land to cities for parks and greenspace and they use it for commercial developments.

Maybe what we share in life, our actions and knoweldge, is the most enduring "stuff" people feel they are able to leave the future so if I use all the gas now, they'll just have to deal with it then and it won't be any different than when I had to deal with working for less than my parents made, and not having health care for so long in my life.

People seem to survive somehow. Values are the currency of generations, everything else tarnishes or get stolen by Crown Party leaders and their significant contributors anyway. As Dr. Seuss said "Maybe Christmas, in fact, doesn't come from a store?" Sussean wisdom rocks.

I was able to win all my badges, but my badges have more humanitarian focus than merely being "fiscally responsible." By focusing my cuts on the military and being willing to only raise taxes on the very wealthy, I was able to have a smaller government than most "conservative" players--by comparing myself (a female Green in my mid-40s who lives on the lowest income level) to Republican males older than myself living in the higher income brackets. And my budget would not be busted within my own daughter's lifetime.

It's not rocket science to actually balance a budget when you do nothing but budget balancing every single day of my adult life. Only those who seem to be wealthy who hire others to manage their money don't seem to have a clue. I hope I'm not relying too much on stereotypes, but for certain I don't exactly meet the stereotype of a single mom living on a fixed (disability) income.

Why can't the wealthy share some of that wealth? It seems rather selfish to want only for one's inner circle and that alone. Will it honestly diminish them in the eyes of the world if they actually pay 20% of their obscenely wealthy income in taxes? And cutting the military budget will actually shrink the government because there is so much waste in the Pentagon budget already...and it has pretty much always been this way. There is a term for this: profiteering.

I suppose that such common sense ideas are not all that common to begin with. Silly me. I have no choice but to live in the "real world" without someone giving me a tax break.