Americans Prefer Balanced Budgets over Tax Cuts by 2:1

[MonstaThrilla]

Its a vast leftwing conspiracy!

WASHINGTON - By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans prefer balancing the nation's budget to cutting taxes, according to an Associated Press poll, even though many believe their overall tax burden has risen despite tax cuts over the past three years.

About six in 10, 61 percent, chose balancing the budget while 36 percent chose tax cuts when they were asked which was more important, according to a poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos Public Affairs.

As the nation's tax deadline of April 15 approaches, people's lukewarm feeling about tax cuts may be influenced by a belief that recent cuts haven't helped them personally.

Half in the poll, 49 percent, said their overall tax burden ? including federal, state and local taxes ? had gone up over the past three years. That's almost four times the 13 percent in the poll who said their overall taxes had gone down.

"Every time you turn around, there's a new gasoline tax, more property taxes, a library tax ? because they don't have enough money," said Tom Artley, a 52-year-old supervisor at a manufacturing plant in Williamsport, Pa. He was referring to increasing financial problems faced by many cities and states.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I suppose the left will take this as an opportunity to raise and create more taxes. How wonderful. Ofcourse some of us support balanced budget as long as it is a responsible budget. We clearly aren't there yet. I'd like to see a poll about what people think about the size and scope of our Federal budget. This poll is a bit out of whack because it sort of puts two issues together yet only seems to have two choices. Having two questions might give a better picture. 1. tax increase or decrease. 2. balanced budget or deficits. I think you'd see a better picture.

But anyway - this poll doesn't surprise me and I greatly support a balanced budget - however it has to be a responsible budget and contain only that which is really necessary for our gov't to function. 2.4+ TRILLION dollars is WAY too much IMO.

CkG

 

[Wag]

They might say that, but when it comes down to it, they'll vote against raising taxes every time.

A local schoolboard superintendant resigned in disgust because the schools in our district are falling apart, and the taxpayers refuse to pass a proposition to raise funding to the schools.

 

[conjur]

Fixed link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040413/ap_on_re_us/taxes_ap_poll_3

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Wag
They might say that, but when it comes down to it, they'll vote against raising taxes every time.

A local schoolboard superintendant resigned in disgust because the schools in our district are falling apart, and the taxpayers refuse to pass a proposition to raise funding to the schools.

Because the Government is overspending everywhere else including on itself.

We need a vote to cut Government spending on crap.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Americans Prefer Balanced Budgets over Tax Cuts by 2:1"

I thought according to CAD & Co that most of America was made up of the RBC (Rich Boys Club) that benefits from the Tax cuts. What's this the lower caste is bigger? That can't be.

 

[Riprorin]

Who here thinks they are under taxed?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Americans Prefer Balanced Budgets over Tax Cuts by 2:1"

I thought according to CAD & Co that most of America was made up of the RBC (Rich Boys Club) that benefits from the Tax cuts. What's this the lower caste is bigger? That can't be.

since it is possible to do both, that isn't necessarily true. you said yourself you want the gov't to stop spending so much

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who here thinks they are under taxed?

Bingo

 

[ReiAyanami]

a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

Continued overspending and programs upon programs *cough*SS*cough* means catastophic damage later...for more than just you, your kids, their kids, etc.

I and others have stated that if our gov't actually got serious about curbing the excessive spending and assinine programs we'd be more than happy to pay more in taxes if our gov't actually needed it. Infact I'd rather pay more now than later but until the gov't realizes that spending is the problem - I'll take my tax cuts thank you very much.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

Continued overspending and programs upon programs *cough*SS*cough* means catastophic damage later...for more than just you, your kids, their kids, etc.

I and others have stated that if our gov't actually got serious about curbing the excessive spending and assinine programs we'd be more than happy to pay more in taxes if our gov't actually needed it. Infact I'd rather pay more now than later but until the gov't realizes that spending is the problem - I'll take my tax cuts thank you very much.

CkG

"but until the gov't realizes that spending is the problem - I'll take my tax cuts thank you very much."

Ah the Irony of the Ultimate Hypocrite and Spinmeister himself.

We need a shaking head Icon, my Tin Foil Hat keeps falling off with all the shaking of my head tonight.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

Continued overspending and programs upon programs *cough*SS*cough* means catastophic damage later...for more than just you, your kids, their kids, etc.

I and others have stated that if our gov't actually got serious about curbing the excessive spending and assinine programs we'd be more than happy to pay more in taxes if our gov't actually needed it. Infact I'd rather pay more now than later but until the gov't realizes that spending is the problem - I'll take my tax cuts thank you very much.

CkG

"but until the gov't realizes that spending is the problem - I'll take my tax cuts thank you very much."

Ah the Irony of the Ultimate Hypocrite and Spinmeister himself.

We need a shaking head Icon, my Tin Foil Hat keeps falling off with all the shaking of my head tonight.

dave, look up.... do you see that vapor trail right over your head? Thought so....

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

You are assuming that repealing tax cuts will cause a balanced budget. With the current crop in DC, it only means more spending at a higher tax rate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not surprising. It seems that the general level of awareness about taxes vs expenditures is rising, and that's a good thing.

It would be a helluva lot easier to balance the budget if we weren't spending $320B/yr on debt maintenance, debt acquired in obesiance to supply-side economic policy over the last 20 years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

You are assuming that repealing tax cuts will cause a balanced budget. With the current crop in DC, it only means more spending at a higher tax rate.

Yep. You just don't give more heroin to a heroin addict.

I'm all for balanced budgets. Hell, I want to see surpluses that can be applied to paying down the debt. But the solution will not be found through higher taxes. Raise taxes and those corrupt bastards will just increase spending.
The solution is to cut spending, and then limit it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

if people really are that concerned you would think they would voluntarilly send in money, just like a charity...

for example they could figure out how much a 4% tax increase would amount to and send that amount in on their own initative. why wait for something so important to go through a bureaucractic witholding process?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who here thinks they are under taxed?

Bingo

You two have just demonstrated the very simplistic thinking the article shows is in the minority amongst Americans.

Congrats! :beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

You are assuming that repealing tax cuts will cause a balanced budget. With the current crop in DC, it only means more spending at a higher tax rate.

Yep. You just don't give more heroin to a heroin addict.

I'm all for balanced budgets. Hell, I want to see surpluses that can be applied to paying down the debt. But the solution will not be found through higher taxes. Raise taxes and those corrupt bastards will just increase spending.
The solution is to cut spending, and then limit it.

:beer::beer:

CkG

 

[fjord]

That's one question I would have liked to have heard asked tonight--How much are we spending on Iraq--and how much are we projecting it will cost in the near future?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

You are assuming that repealing tax cuts will cause a balanced budget. With the current crop in DC, it only means more spending at a higher tax rate.

Yep. You just don't give more heroin to a heroin addict.

I'm all for balanced budgets. Hell, I want to see surpluses that can be applied to paying down the debt. But the solution will not be found through higher taxes. Raise taxes and those corrupt bastards will just increase spending.
The solution is to cut spending, and then limit it.

I like Kerry's plan to go back to pay-as-you-go budgets. But, we need to do a lot of cutting. Should it be targeted to certain programs or departments? Or, should it be an across-the-board cut?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
a little tax cut now means quad damage taxes later (and on your children's children's children)

You are assuming that repealing tax cuts will cause a balanced budget. With the current crop in DC, it only means more spending at a higher tax rate.

Yep. You just don't give more heroin to a heroin addict.

I'm all for balanced budgets. Hell, I want to see surpluses that can be applied to paying down the debt. But the solution will not be found through higher taxes. Raise taxes and those corrupt bastards will just increase spending.
The solution is to cut spending, and then limit it.

I like Kerry's plan to go back to pay-as-you-go budgets. But, we need to do a lot of cutting. Should it be targeted to certain programs or departments? Or, should it be an across-the-board cut?

Eliminate waste, combine programs, and then cut across the board. Sadly this will never happen.

 

[Ferocious]

Most modern Republicans have routinely been fiscally irresponsible.

Credit card economics used for re-election purposes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most modern Republicans have routinely been fiscally irresponsible.

Credit card economics used for re-election purposes.

And they are still more fiscally responsable than most democrats.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most modern Republicans have routinely been fiscally irresponsible.

Credit card economics used for re-election purposes.

And they are still more fiscally responsable than most democrats.

Clearly they are both as bad, it is a race to who can spend the most at the expense of all except for the RBC at the top, they are unaffected and can move and live somewhere else until they train wreck that new home too.