Cute, but false analogy. First of all, the group hasn't had enough money to pay the bill since Bill Clinton was President. There was NO $20 reduction in the bill. In fact, the cost went up. Yet Bush, Inc decided that one guy really needed to have his share cut. Now the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th guy also got small reductions in their share. The group then had to borrow money from their descendants to make up the difference. We "evil" liberals would simply like the 10th guy to pay the exact same amount he paid under Bill Clinton so the group doesn't have to borrow as much. Oh, and that 10th guy. The one who paid $59 for his share of the meal? He actually about made $67 of all the income earned by the group during the years 2002 thru 2007. Odd that he's only paying 59% of the bill, eh?