Can any liberals explain to me why spending can't be reduced?

i think we've been trying your macroeconomic plan for the last 4 yrs. frank. we have more people on food stamps, welfare, below the poverty level and less people working. not to mention we are 16 trillion in debt. seems to me that plan isn't working. we're borrowing money to pay social security and medicare recipients because congress opened the lock box to spend it elsewhere. senator tom coburn has put out a booklet for the last 2 yrs. showing the amount of waste, fraud, abuse and duplication of programs that would save more money than is being proposed in spending cuts. i see no reason why the conversation can't start there. i also think social security should be means tested and the wage cap removed, if you earn a million dollars you should pay on that million. those to measures would help ease the social security problem. to lower the rate when you're borrowing the money to make the payments was a foolish idea. that's not solving the problem, it's making the problem worse.

Very well composed question and some interesting answers. You raise good points, but it is more complicated than your question and many of the answers would suggest. Here are a few holes in your logic:

"They think the government pays for tax cuts." -

You're right to state that tax cuts are merely allowing people to keep more of their money, but wrong to suggest that liberals are not in favor of tax cuts. The Obama administration issued tax cuts to spur economic growth. In fact 40% of the notorious stimulus bill consisted of tax cuts.

"If you know of a company that does hand out raises based on your spending habits and not your job duties, PLEASE send me their info. I will move across the country for such a great job!"

Move to Wallstreet and apply to JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs or any other large investment firm and if you know your stuff, you'll do very well. Just ask Donald Trump. The guy made millions investing money that he didn't have. He did not personally have the tens of millions it took to develop the Trump Tower, but the investment payed off.

Government spending is not always good, but when other sectors are lagging too far, the government can jump-start the economy. Furthermore, filling gaps that that private sector would not otherwise have addressed can also work as a catalyst for economic growth. Good examples are the 19th century investment into the railroads, the Hoover Damn, the build up to WWII, the GI Bill, the interstate system, the Nasa Space Shuttle program, many other forms of research and development, military outposts and presence that gives the US more favorable trade advantages around the globe, investment into fiber optic networks to increase the size of the high speed internet grid, etc.

All gov't spending is not so great, but you can't oversimplify this matter or you may appear to be the one who doesn't understand simple concepts Fuzzie.

I am okay with cutting spending. Tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations that export jobs. The wars, corporate welfare, foreign aid. That is about $600 billion off the deficit, $6 trillion over 10 years. Certainly a good start.

liberals indeed do want to cut spending, every budget proposal has included spending cuts. President Obama's "grand bargain" was to offer $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in tax increase.

when you cut spending, that burdens the lower and middle class families. The wealthy don't need college loans, Romney just asked dad. The wealthy don't need public schools, Romney never attended one. The wealthy don't need foodstamps, unless they are a farmer of course. The wealthy don't need unemployment because frankly they don't technically earn an income, they invest and pay only 15% tax.

The point is, spending cuts will affect one part of the nation disproportionately. liberals see tax increases on the wealthy as a way to distribute the load in a fair manner so every one participates in paying off the Bush war debts. The wealthy have been treated to a decade of the lowest taxes ever, its time to pay the piper.

It could be reduced quite easily, all the US would have to do is trim its (ludicrously high) military spending a bit. $680 billion is an insane amount to spend on the military every year.

Did you know: the 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined.

Not one will even try.

OF COURSE spending can be reduced but in as much as that COULD decrease the speed with which we are hurtling to guaranteed destruction, there are exactly ZERO Democrats willing to let it happen.

As for tax-cuts as spending:

ALL Democrats claim tax cuts are SPENDING

ALL Democrats claim SPENDING helps the economy

ALL Democrats OPPOSE tax cuts, which all of them claim is spending, which all of them claim is essential for the economy

This is just one of several rock-solid PROOFS that all Democrats oppose helping the economy.

THE ONLY PLACE LIBERALS WILL AGREE TO ANY SPENDING CUTS IS THE MILITARY AND THEY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE MAJOR CUTS THERE. THERE SOLUTION TO DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY IS APPEASEMENT

Can any conservatives explain to me why taxes can't be raised? The only spending cuts cons like are spending cuts, which they think can solve everything. They are beholden to the Great Lord Grover, who has the brain of a swizzle stick.

I can't believe cons don't understand the simple concept that if you are in debt, the solution is not to cut back to part time but to get another job. 47 million people in this country are poor enough to not be sure where their next meal is coming from, and they couldn't care less about jewelry and vacations. How do you think the conversation will go when you tell them, "Sorry, I won't raise taxes so you selfish people can eat"?

No liberal thinks spending can't be reduced. But we aren't stupid enough to think that we can solve all the budget problems that way. We know there has to be a balance of cuts and increased revenue. Why can't cons understand that?

Don't need to. We will just tax the rich. If we raise the tax rate to 4738% of their income, we can give away free things to everyone

Think of the children, the welfare mothers and government jobs!