You beleive the goverment needs to extract more money from the people who work, so they can spend it on the people who dont?...So you aren't actually interested in reducing the deficit. Your only interest is actually in spending? Why? Spending money is what drives an ecomomy. When money is spent, some kind of good or service is being provided. People spend money to buy that service or product. The more money that is spent, the more demand is placed on the company that provides the goods or service. When that demand is strong enough, the company hires more people to serve the demand for the goods or services. Those people in turn have more money in their pockets and they buy goods or services as well, placing more demand at more companies to hire people to service those demands. If money isn't spent, then goods and services aren't being moved, and people get laid off. When you cut spending, you cut jobs. Why do you want to cut jobs?
When you cut spending such as cops, teachers, fire fighters, first responders, you're cutting jobs. When these people have no jobs, and you cut programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants, Medicare, what are these people suppose to do to live and keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and pay for school for their kids?
You're an economic reductionist. You believe in economism. Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. Human lives are secondary in your considerations. In other words, all facts, interests, and goals can ultimately be defined in economic terms—or, in still other words, that economic facts, interests, and goals are the only ones that really exist.
The difference in our views is striking. What is at issue between them is the relative value of freedom and economic prosperity. It is a matter of priority, or what comes first. The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end. I see freedom as valuable for it's own sake, not for its economic potential. It's obvious you don't agree.
thats a winning formula... not..