Sure is.. graphic, huh.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.


But we should also give credit to Obama for engorging the US cock that's been giving it to Afghanistan for a couple years now. And Libya got to taste the smegma'ed runoff, too. And it looks like the rape clinics in GITMO are still the frat boy party houses they were under Bush. So that's good.
Looks like Obama and Bush are giving each other high fives over our backs as we all take one in the ass and one in the mouth.

So, these statistics are from the IRS and isn't internet hearsay. Medicare makes the percentages paid by top earners go up. So do property taxes. (Sales tax and state taxation is another discussion and doesn't involve the Federal government. In any case there's no way to enforce a progressive sales tax. So if this is unfair, then the only thing to do is eliminate it altogether. But that is a state-by-state decision.) Medicare along with Medicaid and some other mandatory taxes account for 33% of Federal expenses/budget, while social Security for 21% (even thoug Social Security is a separate Trust Fund).

Social security is capped for various reasons and it doesn't have anything to do with current tax debates or legislative proposals. Social security tax is about 15%, half of which is paid by the employer. Social Security is in theory a separate budget from the rest of the federal budget. And for 2011, the total tax is reduced with the employee paying only 4.2% of it and the employer paying 6.2%.
Medicare, as mentioned, is not capped at any income. On a million dollar income you pay about $14,500. On a 45K income you pay about $652.

Unemployment taxes are paid fully by employers not employees.

The complaint that the bottom 80% pay 13% is misleading because the bottom 50% (half the population) pay between only 0-3%.

Top 10% (not top 20%) - pay 70%
Bottom 50% - pay 3%
Everyone else - 27%

But it gets a bit more complicated because about 47% of households pay 0% income tax, a majority in the bottom 40% of earners.

Top 10% earners have to pay more (70%) for the roads, government salaries, wars, national parks, Airforce One, NPR, corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and most other government services (the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of it) but when buying goods (with or without sales tax), like coffee or an iPhone or pumping gas or a movie ticket, it does cost top earners a smaller percentage of their income.

Some other "taxes" are, in effect, flat taxation like business license, car registration, bridge toll, sanitation and flood control, parking meters, etc.

Fairness in this is a matter of opinion (and self-interest). I'm not an accountant so I can't really go into all the various loopholes in our tax code.

And I'm talking mostly about taxation at the Federal level of which income tax accounts for about half. Like I said, sales tax is a state matter and so are fees like parking meters etc. Taxation at the state level seems to draw less controversy because Democratic states will "happily" pay more and Republican states will "happily" pay less and you can select a state to live in at just the right taxation for you.

And as we all know on the Sift, you have that statists on one side who think more taxation is better because the government is here to help and anti-statists on the other who think "that government is best wich governs least" (or not at all). And also the hybrids like Lyndon Johnson, Larry King, Jon Stewart, and others, including most corporatists.

>> ^Ariane:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


Umm, no.
"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thin
gs_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.
The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.

Very good analysis.

>> ^Ariane:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


Umm, no.
"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thin
gs_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.
The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.

>> ^Trancecoach:

The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/



Umm, no.

"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.

It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.

The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.

fairly certain the interviewer is Andrew Ross Sorkin, journalist, columnist, and author of the book, Too Big To Fail.

>> ^shponglefan:

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.

>> ^shponglefan:

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.


True enough, but also important to answer if you like that particular piece of legislation as well. You can support immigration reform and think McCain Reform bill sucks donkey balls, without in turn thinking immigration reform is a bad idea.

Ugh, horrible interviewer. Just fishing for soundbites, good for Buffett not to bite.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.



But we should also give credit to Obama for engorging the US cock that's been giving it to Afghanistan for a couple years now. And Libya got to taste the smegma'ed runoff, too. And it looks like the rape clinics in GITMO are still the frat boy party houses they were under Bush. So that's good.

Looks like Obama and Bush are giving each other high fives over our backs as we all take one in the ass and one in the mouth.

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come.

Oh, where to begin? There's probably more than we agree on about Iraq and even Afghanistan than you'll concede. Both wars appeared to be poorly planned and managed and the goals ill-advertised. Both were rife with the same business-as-usual waste, fraud and abuse found in our social welfare programs.

Now I hate to leave you behind, but Iraq was and is a VICTORY and the left will never admit it. Whether the Iraqis ultimately succeed or not is now up to them, but they seem to have embraced freedom even above islamist theocracy; their future is theirs to decide. Bush saw a threat which the rest of the world agreed was legit, including the American left, and he made the call. History will be the final judge.

Afghanistan is more of a mess due to a lack of clearly defined goals; if the goals were wiping out the Taliban and/or killing Been Hidin', then the job was somewhat done. Rebuilding the place is a waste of time. Again, history will decide.

BTW the left seems to support these other "uprisings" to overthrow Arab dictators and yet they have no idea who or what will replace the original turds, and though I doubt you or anyone else on the left will admit it, it's the birth of a free Iraq which spawned a demand for freedom in other Arab lands.

If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe.

As the last three years have AMPLY proven (more if you count Congress being controlled by taxocrats since 2006) leftists in power are FAR worse. Odumbo has spent more money we don't have in 3 years than Bush did in 8, so there's really no comparison. Now you may balk at Bush being labeled 'a liberal with a few conservative tendencies' but that's what he was. I'm well aware the SOB rubber-stamped everything on his desk, including all the social programs the left loves so much, and as I state from time to time, the original scamulus and GM failout on his watch tips the scales of his legacy to FAIL.

We can only speculate on what Bush might have done/gotten away with had there been no 9/11. His spending sprees, had they taken place, might have been more roundly criticized by the right, or the prosperity of those years without the hit of 9/11 might have left everyone in a dream state like in the 90s.

Had Odumbo been a slithering socialist like President Hillary, there likely would be no Tea Party, but he made the same mistake Cankles did with the original full court press for socialized medicine. Now the Giant is awake.

I do read your other posts, and I really don't know what to tell you, Dude. You mark capitalism/free markets/deregulation as being failures or even nonexistent. My response to that is, "Compared to what?" Some utopian ideal that has never existed?




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:

Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.

Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.

As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

Buffet's very strange tax argument...

And some background.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Why can't there be legislation that enabled people to vote on where SPECIFICALLY their tax money goes? Lobbyists would have a much harder time, people would feel better about big government, and voting would have real power.


Because that could very well end the representative system altogether. For better or worse, the US is not a direct democracy. That is the assumption the whole system is built upon.

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?





You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.

No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.

Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.

It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.

Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.

Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.

Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.