Theres a very large portion of americans who understand 50% of $500,000 means should i buy a 40 foot boat or a 25 foot boat versus 25% of $45000 which is should pay my mortgage or gas bill.

The "american dream" is a fallacy. Its brilliant because it gives the right a failsafe excuse for the injustice in the system. They get their one token rags to riches and exploit it to "prove" the system is self driven when its not, so people stop asking for more. It's turned into people actually believeing we are all born and have equal chances.

Granted, services in place to help those who are born with disadvantages were ill conceived and poorly planned, its very hard to find someone on the left who doesnt want to fix the issues in the "entitlement" systems but we cant tackle them because of my aforementioned point and the all or none approach so we cant progress its either it stays or it goes, the same as your lack of grasp on why people who make more can in fact still afford to pay more of a percent based on the flat market costs of essential goods and services which dont move with yearly income..

Im pro choice, im not pro abortion. Im for gun control but i believe people have the right to own guns. The problem is an all or nothing approach to everything, it wont change, it never will. People still cant understand the correlation to the policies initiated under George W Bush because we are narrow minded, knee jerk reaction society in america and it makes me sick because the democrats capitalized on what emotions we had in 2008 and it was hollow, they had 2 years and they knew it but they sat around on their hands and once they lost majorities they knew itd be impossible, they were slow because of behind the scenes allegiences that they only blame republicans of having.

From the 2008 presidential election to the 2010 mid terms this country has proven we dont have the right or intelligence needed to elect officials.

Earmarks account for less than 1 half of a single percent of the debt.  They are barely 1-2% of an entire years federal budget.

First off, I would like to point out that most true fiscal conservatives and libertarians did not approve of the Bush deficits, and this was one of the few things that they agreed with Democrats at the time; until (of course) the Democrats gained power and (much like anti-war and environmental activists) the Democrats demonstrated that they didn't really have any principles, and only were angry with these policies because a Republican was in charge.

Beyond that, in defence of the people who didn't see the Bush deficits as a problem and now argue against the Obama deficits, there is an argument to be made that deficits of a certain size are not that big of a problem. If your deficit is roughly equal to or smaller than economic growth the size of the debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't increase. Under the Bush administration the public debt as a percentage of GDP remained relatively stable, and therefore the debt didn't get substantially worse under George W. Bush. In contrast, under the Obama administration the deficit is an order of magnitude greater than GDP growth, and debt as a portion of GDP is exploding.

In other words, RAISE taxes on those who have less money and cut for those who have more?

Are earmarks the only way that pork gets back to districts?  Districts bring back subsidies and also the rigging of regulations to favor a district.  Anyhow, I still stand by what i said about this.  Just see if you can get tax cuts passed with spending cuts to go along with them.  Go against AARP and say that tax rates on the top have to be lowered in exchange for less money put into Social Security and Medicaid, which are major ones that need to also be addressed.

where did you get the crazy idea, i want lower taxes for everyone

Lower taxes, even when it means a majority of people will end up worse off for this fact?  People have other expenses in life besides taxes.  See the reply to your post about the "American dream", in regards to this.

...Or recognize that the biggest earners are already paying their fair share (the top 1% pay 60% of income taxes), and that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, wealth and income has shifted so that the top have gotten an increasing percentage of the share, while the middle class and lower has gotten the same or less?  What do you think the tax structure and who pays what in taxes is like this, when income has remained flat or declined for the middle and lower classes, AND you want to maintain basic government services?  You do realize that past decade incomes have DECLINED for the average American, what the top few percent have seen very large increases in income, right?

As far as not a revenue problem, taxes as percentage of GDP is under 15% on the federal level.  This at a decades all-time low.  Saying revenue is a problem isn't only saying that taxes need to go up, but the economy stinks and there isn't enough money coming in.   Apparently tax cuts haven't been the answer either for stimulating job creation and getting things going where they matter either.

...You do realize that as the median income of the rich increase, so do their tax burden, right? The top 1% used to pay 40% of all income taxes in the 1980's. Today, its 55% and rising.

Taxes as a percentage of GDP didn't drop to 15%. It was 16% in 2010. Comparatively, the average in the last 50 years was 18.1%. Comparatively, government spending as a percentage of GDP is 26%. The average is 20.3%. Therefore, revenues are 2% below average, while spending is up nearly 6% from the average. Certainly, the tax revenue is a problem, but according to all data we have, it is only 25% of the problem. Therefore, fixing the problem means cutting spending needs to be 75% of the solution, and tax increases must be 25% of the solution.