OK...thanks for clarifying. Your point was clouded by the inference drawn by many (dare I say all) that because the cuts would be painful to some number of individuals, that they should not be done. Since you have clearly stated that DESPITE that pain, you DO think the cuts should be made then we have no disagreement over substance, only one over form.
I guess I find it unnecessary, even counterprodutive, to tug on the heart strings by playing games with statistics. Your pulling 50% out of thin air is, as is the comment about property value, a red herring. Even though my individual salary falls below the level of a rounding error on my employer's cash flow statement, it represents 100% of my income. And, in aggregate, 3,000 of my salaries makes a HUGE difference to my empoloyer's cash flow even though it represents only 8% of its salary outlays. One might be tempted to view that fact as a tautology.
You must not have any faith in the intelligence of the average individual if you believe that they don't understand that cutting government spending will put some people out of work, will cut someone's benefits, or will cut out some program someone arguably needs or wants.
Perhaps, but I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to make sure the cut - in my neck of the woods - is 15% rather than catastrophic.
If more people did what I did, rather than resisting all cuts and mindlessly painting all who advocate them as fascists, heartless, cruel, selfish, etcetera our problems would be a lot easier to solve.