Right. And SNAP, for a household of 4, allows the entire household to earn no more than $2498 a month. You suggest living, yourself, on just under HALF of that. You are nowhere near living on the kind of budget that the people SNAP is targetted at have access to.

Can you entertain me a reasoning as to how they are unable to earn that much? Because 1200 a month is what you will earn full time even at a minimum wage job...and let me tell you, minimum wage jobs are available. Or are you suggesting that it is somebody's inherent right to live in a home on their own?

Also, you are suggesting it as if I had a family of 4 I would be living on 1200*4=4800 per month...that is in NO WAY whatsoever the truth. Many things on my budget would be the exact same if I had 4 people (I actually probably wouldn't own a car at all and would be taking the bus to places).

I lived off of $1500 for three months. That's pretty easy to do. My expenses were: $300 /rent +  $75 utilities (it was a sublet though) and $150/month on food. I didn't starve or anything either. I had snacks in addition to two meals a day. 

The cuts would be incremental, just as the increase in spending was/is incremental. 

Just wondering... is it really possible to cut spending in a non-incremental way besides completely getting rid of it?  What I say still stands, because he wanted to cut costs on everything.  If you cut too little from everything, it does nothing.  The only logical conclusion that a chunk would be taken off where it would be noticeable.  If you do that, you create a big problem.  Why do you think it's so hard to change our budget?

The way I see it now, we're only bleeding money so it makes sense to cut alot of costs and expenses while lowering taxes too so that congress doesn't abuse it by increasing their own paychecks. :P

I'm not going to put it against you for not knowing this, but higher taxes and spending don't go to increasing Congressmen's paychecks.  Almost all, if not all, of the members of Congress (more specifically the Senate, the more powerful of the two) are rich.  Rich as in millionaires.  The pay that they get, even if you were to decrease their pay to almost nothing... it would account for a negligible part of our debt.  And even if you believe we are overspending in some areas, since the money is already dedicated to those areas someone is going to see the consequences of the cut pay.  I know that an argument against this is that the economy will be spurred by the cut taxes.  That idea, however, is just a theory on what could happen.  If it doesn't happen, things just get much worse.

Put source of how much the senate and congress spend on their wages and functional costs... here it costs a small fortune (some Billion Dollars each house).

Don't know about "functional cost" (that would be one that can't be helped), but their wages on average put together is somewhere around $100m total for a year.  Source?  
You can easily find online there are 535 members of Congress, and this source tells you the average pay they get http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

Here's a chart from 2010 to help people understand exactly how little $100m is in the grand scheme of things