are they responsible for paying their own staff? do they have things like residences provided in washington or must they get their own?  when they travel or have meals that are business related are they covered by a seperate fund?

Even if SS is still sustainable, do you know how poor the interest is on the monies paid in? 2.32% APY. That is barely enough for any retiree to live off of (and I am sure both you and I have family that live off of their paltry pensions which are certainly not enough to live off of). And again, you want to fix the problem by raising taxes. Isn't a 12.4% tax on income enough? How much more wealth do you want to destroy in a system that litterally takes the monies, invests in government debt, then taxes the populace again to pay the interest.

If Obamacare needed 'fixed' to be perfect, then why wasn't such legislation included in the 2,000 page bill that was approved? What about the fact that so many companies are requesting exemption from the bill? Methinks if it was remotely good, you wouldn't have thousands of businesses backing out of it.

What union has killed jobs? The ones that request too much wages and compensation that the business becomes uncompetitive to other businesses in the field. GM and Chrysler would be good examples. Where do you work at? I am curious what part of the employment chain you are in to make such kind of general statements that all unions are inherantly good and only provide value to the business. Certainly, not all unions are bad, but if they were 100% beneficial, you wouldn't see almost every corporation fleeing big union states in order to control costs and remain competitive.

Less regulations wouldn't hurt small companies. Are you registered with the NFIB? Do you know how they vote? The largest block of small business owners are always in favor of less regulations to ensure that big companies cannot explot massive government interventions to their favor (which happens very often with our activist government).

Your assumption about education is far off base. You argue that more money is the inherant fixer of problems, yet all data proves that to be wrong. Go look at educational statistics in America - the states with the best test scores are the ones that spend less, not more. The best way to fix education is to provide real competition through school vouchers - a school should not hold a monopoly on education just because of its location. That is an insane concept that is somehow accepted, which has destroyed many kids' educations, as schools have no incentive to improve. If parents and children were given the power to take their education where they wish, you would find that education would cost less, and scores would drasticly improve.

SO now the arguement is the interest isnt very good?  Thats funny.  As for my family, my fathers pension is currently looking well for when he retires. Couple that with what he will receive from SS and he will be doing quite alright for himself.   I wish I could say the same,  dont have one,  since my company got rid of it to maximize profits and "stay competitive".

Well, that is one of many arguments. Your initial argument is that it was self-sustaining, but then argue taxes need to be raised on it: Why? If its self-sustaining, increasing taxes on it makes absolutely no sense. But I digress, do you disagree that interest on Social Security is actually good? Furthermore, you say you will have to rely on SS for retirement - are you comfortable with such a system?

About SS, raising taxes is not needed, you obviously didnt understand that part or you are deliberately twisting the words to make it looks worse.  The maximum taxable income for SS is 90K, meaning a person who makes 90K a year, a person who makes 250K a year and people who make 2M a year all pay the same amount to SS.  Raising the maximum taxable amount to say 150K, the person who makes 90K a year wouldnt pay more,  neither would anyone who makes less,  only the people who make more.  But the difference is small on the paycheck itself.  

Could you explain why we need to raise more Social Security taxes, again? You already said it is solvent. Is 12.4% up to 90k not enough? Why is it not enough?

Obamacare needs fixing because of all the other crap that was forced on it in order for it to be passed,  its barely recognizable from its original form.  It funny that the 2nd best health care system state by state is Mass which has a state run Health care system almost identical to Obamacare.  And a Republican, Mitt Romney, is the man responsible.  Wonder where the uproar for that is.

How is Massachusettes state health care good? It is massively overbudget - $4.2 billion USD over four years. If such a system is identical, isn't it safe to assume Obamacare is going to be significantly overbudget - which agrees with the CBO after the bill was passed?

So basically your arguement is that those people didnt deserve the wages they were making because the corporations said so? The same corporations that pay their execs $20+M, and instead of looking in the mirror they blame it on the workers. As for where I work, I work for Caterpillar INC, so I see first hand how they treat unions as we deal with quite a few.  Plus my father and brother are both in unions themselves. And Im sure I will get a comment that Im baised because of this, so whatever.   Your last statement is a joke though,  corporations flee to non-union states so they can maximise profit by getting the cheapest workers possible.  Its the same reason the outsource jobs to other countries, its cheaper plain and simple.  Its cheaper to open a facility in some countries and hire over 100 engineers, with degrees not worth the paper they were printed on, than to just add 50 here. 

My argument is that people get the wages that the market dictates for their job, regardless of what it is. If workers are readily available for a given skill set, wages decrease. If workers are not readily available, wages increase. Its why doctors make more than fast food employees. Catepiller has 104,900 employees. If the average wage is $50,000 USD between income and benefits, and the CEO makes $20 million USD, which one has a much bigger financial burden on the company? The guy that makes $20m or the employees that collectively ake $5.4 billion dollars? Which one do you think has a bigger impact on the bottom line of the company?

Well i guess then our education system should be getting better and better than since it has less money now that federal funding has been cut for it,  since thats one of the reasons my taxes went up. And one of the reasons the tax cuts dont help people like me.

Education spending per capita is at an all-time high, and has been increasing for decades - far above the rate of inflation. Your argument about federal funding flies in the face of actual data on the subject:

Since the Iconograph I was trying to paste in would not work I can only paste a link to it.

http://www.totallyoffbeat.com/congress-is-richer-than-you-infographic/

My main problem with Congress is they are so rich they do not understand the people they represent.  Also as the iconograph shows congress is already so rich they do not need to be paid. They are suppossed to be public servents so I say they should be working as volunteers for our country. So I ask you VGchartz what do you think about this issue.