speaking ones mind is not the same as talking out your arse imo

To add to this....

The maximum tax the US has ever collected, has been around 19.5% of GDP. Oddly, this is the same number they have collected every year sense WWII. We have had tax rates for the rich as high as 91%, and as low as 28%, and in those years, we collected the same taxes relative to GDP (19.5%).

Every economist on the planet will agree, if you lower taxes on the rich, you raise GDP. If tax revenue is fixed based on GDP, and your goal is more real dollars coming in the door, and not trying to make the rich pay a larger percentage of tax, you lower there taxes.

lowering taxes on the rich means more money for the states, because there is now more money to spend. That 200,000 you didn't take from him goes into hiring 5 more people, and those 5 peoples salaries get taxed, along with the food they buy at the store, and then salary of the extra checker the store need to hire to handle the extra business, and so on.

Rich people create the economy, not the government.

P.S. The first year this did not hold true, was 2009. 15% of GDP was collected. Way to even fuck that up Obama. So many people before you have tried and failed, but you succeeded. I guess when you give trillions of dollars away that don't need to be taxed, and people spend it, GDP raises, and tax revenue does not.

Lower taxes(ok this may increase tax revenue to help reduce the deficit), smaller government(big bad lie), less debt(foreign debt and personal debt keeps getting bigger and bigger) and lower deficits(easy to achieve: spend less than you collect in tax revenue). The last 50 years has shown the US Federal government has actually grown in size under every single government regardless of Republican/Democrat admin. 

Smaller government is a noble idea but the US government keeps getting bigger and bigger to control the growing population. More police and more military personnel to keep us safe and secure and maintain law and order. Teachers, train/bus drivers and nurses in the public hospitals are easy to fire.

The problem is that government isn't growing at the pace it is due to 'controlling the growing population'. We spend LESS money on military now than at any time since WW2.

The problem is mandatory spending. These are costs are there because they are required.

Here is a chart of all federal outlays:

Look at the chart. Its only made up of a few, but huge, items. Lets break the chart down, and how the spending could be fixed:

• Defense. Could be reduced significantly by ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and seeking a non-interventionist policy. I'd imagine that 40-50% of the budget could be eliminated by pursuing such policies. Nevertheless, 50% of it would probably have to stay.
• Social Security can and should be eliminated entirely. We spend more on SS than any other program than defense, and the big problem is that it is mandatory spending. This means that people have paid into it, and are required to be paid out. Problem is, more people are taking money out of the system than they are putting in. How the heck do you have a system that works that way? It needs to go. Entirely.
• Medicare & Medicaid is in the same boat as social security. These aren't government programs that benefit everyone. These are essentially health versions of social security. People pay in a very small amount, and older retirees demand lots of it back. Both are about bankrupt too. They need reduced, if not removed entirely. You may say 'but Americans need healthcarez!', and I agree. It just shouldn't be government healthcare. Eliminating this and SS would give every American about 11% more of their weekly paychecks, which could be invested in retirement and health care.
• Other Manadtory includes mostly unemployment welfare. The issue with this is that the government should not handle unemployment benefits, I believe. Rather, businesses should work with employees to invest in unemployment accounts, rather than have the government take their money and give it back to them.
• Other Discretionary includes all the stuff you mentioned as being what the government spends a lot more on, since the population is bigger. This includes the department of justice (courts), veterans benefits (VA), Education, Transportation, EPA, and international affairs.

What does all that mean? 65% of federal spending is towards mandatory projects. The rest is being spent on projects you think are there because of the population getting bigger. The reality is that the government is intentionally letting the money get away from them due to projects like social security, medicare, and medicaid which represents about 50% of the entire federal budget. If those programs get eliminated in favor of Americans putting the money in better programs, then suddenly, there is a huge amount of money that can be spent by taxpayers, and not the government.

Regrettably, I have to agree with Homer here. Seriously, your democrats are not left wing. They're just close enough to the centre that, in comparison to the Republicans, they seem left-wing. Obama is very very slightly left wing, I'll grant you that, but even he pales (as such) in comparison to our socialists, and he is overruled by the rest of his party, and especially the Republicans.

If anybody here thinks Obama is a socialist, please go read up on the new leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband.

Axe health: Medicare and cut Social Security? Programs that help the lower classes and people who can not afford private health insurance. Bear in mind most of the people are not multi- millionaires who own yachts, huge mansions and Rolex watches, etc. 

Military spending would be getting cut because that is waste.Withdraw the troops and cut the military budget in half would help reduce government spending. Military spending is WASTE. 

Do you even know how our medicare and social security work?

Every American puts in 8.5% of their paychecks, up to $100,000 for social security. The money is not saved back for this person, but instead is then given to a person currently on social security, meaning its a pay-as-you-go system. The issue with the system is that its not built to give anyone a return on their investment.

As of today, social security actually gives out more money than it takes in, due to demographic changes in the work force. In the 1950's, there were 15 workers for every 1 person on Social Security. Today, its 3:1 and within 15 years, it will be 2:1. This will collapse the system.

As for your argument that it 'helps the poor' is a bold faced lie.

Poor people, as well as middle class are forced to contribute to social security at a rate of 8.5%. Meaning that for every $10/hr you earn at a job, $0.85 is taken away from you and given to social security. The problem with this is that you do not earn interest on the money taken from you. Social security revenues accrue at inflation, and little more. When you compare that to ANY other system out there - state retirements, 401k's, IRA's, anything else, you are having money taken from you and mal-invested. This is hurting our poor and needy, as they could retire much better through any other system. My dad is on social security, and I know this to be the absolute truth. He gets $800/mo from SSI, and had he of been able to invest it, would be making far more to live off of.

Medicare/Medicaid is the same way. About 4.0% of your check is taken for medicaid and medicare. In the case of medicare, you become eligible at 65 *if* you qualify. Medicaid is *if* you qualify at younger ages as well. That is another $0.40 taken out of your check, for a grand total of $1.25/hr taken out of a person making $10/hr in the US.

Like with Social Security, a person could nearly pay for a private health care plan that they would get today, regardless of age or need for the same price as being forced to invest in the government programs. That would help out a lot more people that need it than whats currently in place.

If the government stopped taking so much money from people via payroll taxes, and instead required them to invest a certain portion - maybe 5% of their annual earnings - the poor would have more money to live off of, equaling a higher living standard both for themselves, but for everyone else including the middle class.

I live in New Jersy and i will not vote for Chris Christie.

Before government stepped in and "fixed" healthcare for the poor, you used to have free hospitals. 50 years ago, if you needed free healthcare, you could just go to a Catholic hospital. Those don't exist anymore, thanks to government.