The argument I was responding to was that those who are vested in paying more or any taxes will vote for candidates who support tighter controls on spending. This is a common fallacy.

You are right that we have spent more than we take in at an incredible rate, however, it is the tax revenue that has dropped at a greater rate than the spending has increased. The tax revenue has dropped due to reduced economic activity and the massive tax cuts provided to the top income earners.

The reason that blue states tend to spend more in taxes than they take in federal funding is that they have a larger middle classes due to higher wages and benefits. This directly correlates to anti-union right to work states vs union states. As jobs flow to more non-union states, expect the number of people not paying taxes to increase, as companies move to a cheaper labor pool.

Just like the last two wars, none of the tax cuts were offset in the budget by spending cuts or other revenue increases. This leads to deficits. The Laffer curve has never realized the increased revenues predicted, which has left our country with massively escalating deficits every time we cut taxes. Maybe it is just too good to be true...

Back to the original point, raising taxes on the poor will have much more adverse economic impact than reversing the tax cuts on the wealthy.

The issue is not the percentage of people who don't earn enough to pay taxes, but rather why do so many earn so little that they are considered in poverty? Maybe the stagnation of the middle class and the massive migration of wealth from the middle class to the uber-wealthy has something to do with our growing poverty rate.

As americans we are all invested in the system.

The poorer people who don't pay any income taxes are overwhelmingly residence of red states and congressional districts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all

Part of this is due to the lower wages and lower cost of living in many of these conservative states.

Similarly, the ratio of government spending to tax receipts is tilted heavily in favor republican districts and states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Lastly, taxing poor people has little economic benefit. When such a large portion of their income is spent on goods, increased taxes only reduce their economic consumption and also reduce the amount they might be able to save. Similarly these people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes than wealthier people. This is why sales tax and flat taxes are considered a regressive as it punishes poor people more than wealthy ones.

Wealthier people have much more discretionary wealth which they may choose to spend or invest.

We cannot forget that one of the main reasons we have a deficit is due to the huge tax breaks provided to the very wealthy. During WW2 we had a 91% top tax rate, this lowered after the war to 70% in the 1970s, 50% in the 80's and to 33% now, but with capital gains income that can go down to 15%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Historical_income_tax_rates_.281913.E2.80.932010.29

Another reason is that we never included the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, and never found a way to pay for them, by either cutting spending or raising taxes. Notice the fiscal responsibility used during WW2 to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for defending our country. This is in stark contrast to the war we chose to start in Iraq.

Property taxes exist in the US.
This is a tax on one form of wealth rather than income.

If you are granted stocks or options, you should pay taxes on the current value of the item that is granted to you, minus any contribution you need to make.

Any new stock, item or wealth provided to you is income.

I think the question is more appropriately:
Whats the difference between campaign contributions and bribery?

Lobbying can be done without cash donations.

Privately financed campaigns == corruption.

Apples magsafe power supply uses as patented magnetic connector.
As far as i know there is no 3rd party power block available for mac laptops due to this connector.

They have already "killed" this accessory market.

What makes you think private industry cares more about your privacy than the government.

Companies actively look to analyze and sell your data to anyone who will pay. Most companies see your data as an asset. Recall the ATT/NSA scandal. ATT provided locked secret rooms to the NSA. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/04/6585.ars

At least the government, would likely try and keep the information obtained through spying classified, rather than sell it.

While a few privacy laws may exist, the US has no formal fundamental right to privacy.

In reality both governments and corporations have little interest in anyones perceived natural privacy rights, and in the US as most celebrity tabloids show, the right to freedom of speech trumps peoples privacy.

People who are not required to file income taxes are exempt from the mandate since they are provided Medicaid.
Religious and numerous other exemptions also exist.

Income earners are required to pay into social security among other programs.
Is that unconstitutional?

The law clearly allows you to not by insurance and pay a fixed sum tax to the government. Therefore you are not required to pay any corporations, only the government.

Also, what is the difference legally and rationally between:
A) A tax penalty for those that don't buy compliant insurance. or
B) Imposing a fixed $750 tax on all income tax filers and then providing an equivalent credit if you own compliant insurance.

There is no effective difference, and description B is definitely constitutional.

The government has the constitutional right to tax incomes, this is part of your income tax bill. The uninsured penalty (or insurance credits) result from comercial activity. Almost all tax credits involve comercial activity.

If anything, Obamacare is a massive subsidy to insurance corporations with a minor tax in income earners who choose to avoid any health insurance.

If the insurance industry wishes to survive as a FOR PROFIT industry, they better start defending these subsidies, or a single payer system is destined replace it. We cannot afford the massive redundancies and inefficiencies inherent in hundreds of private insurance companies duplicating processes, forms, coverages and profits for the delivery of healthcare insurance.

The right to free speech has minor limits. The right to free speech does not allow you to trespass inorder to exercise that speech.

Free speech is limited for matters of immediate public safety. You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowed theater.

Similarly, BART explicitly restricts civil protest in the BART system. Train platforms can be dangerous places when crowded and tempers flare. BART also restricts eating and drinking, both activities that we also have natural rights to.

Since BART is very crowded during rush hour. Any tussle between police, protesters or others (including irate commuters) could result in people being pushed onto the tracks, electrocuted by the third rail or run over by an approaching train. BART has a public obligation to maintain order and safety within the system.

The protesters have been allowed to protest and speek their message outside the stations, their right to speech has not been violated.

The thunderbolt display is $1000, but i don't think you'll find another IPS 27" 2560x1440 LED display for cheaper elsewhere. Dell's version of this monitor without the thunderbolt and hub connections is also $1000. (Dell UltraSharp U2711 27”)

So since much of this cost is the monitor itself, not the thunderbolt/usb/firewire/ethernet hubs, there is no reason why a similar break out box with external pci slots a video card, USB 2 (or 3) hubs, ethernet, firewire and power shouldn't be possible.

Also, the usb over thunderbolt would have perfect compatibility since thunderbolt is PCI Express (combined with Display Port). As USB 2 and 3 already work on PCI cards with 100% compatibility, they will work over thunderbolt.

Moving the power supply to larger stationary computer components and then powering the smaller portable devices makes more sense. There is no reason for the computer to provide power to its accessories, when they could just as easily provide power to the computer. Also there is no reason to have additional transformers for each device.

The ultimate goal should be 1 plug for a monitor/hub, and all other devices receiving thier power and data through a single (or no) cable from the monitor. USB 3 could help by powering printers and scanners, but i am not sure if it is capable of driving displays under any serious graphics demand.

Sounds like the apple thunderbolt display, except there you get ethernet, firewire, usb, power, and two monitors all over one cable.

http://www.apple.com/displays/

Interesting comparison, but the big difference is that the time for the US government to debate taxes and spending is when the government passes a budget, not when bills come in.

Congress has already approved this spending, if they want to change it, change the next budget.

What is happening now is pure extortion. Cut our previously agreed to budget (a legal document for the executive branch must follow) or we will destroy the countries credit rating.

Also, Passing a balanced budget amendments would not prevent our current debt.

Since W became president, almost all of our debt is from the following:
1. Reduced tax income from the mortgage crisis recession (unregulated corporate corruption)
2. War spending that was never offset in budgets and intentionally kept separate from the budget process by the Bush Administration.
3. The Bush "Temporary Tax Cuts". These tax cuts were temporary solely to avoid having to pay for them through budget spending cuts.

See the breakdown here: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

Each of the items above would be excluded from a balanced budget amendment.

War spending has been excluded from all balanced budget amendments.
Extent of revenue losses during economic downturns also cannot be accurately predicted and will cause deficits.
Lastly, Republicans have always excluded paying for tax cuts through spending cuts, (they prefer to give you the tax cut now and starve the system after you are hooked, kind of like drug dealers the first one is free)

The US dept has consistently grown under Republican presidents and shrunk under democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg