Poll: Americans Split on Concern For Very Poor

[dmcowen674]

Sad state of affairs for the U.S.

It's so clear in black and white how much it hate there is.

I'd be very surprised if there is no wide spread outbreak before the election.


2-14-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-americans-split-concern-very-poor-213008741.html

Poll: Americans Split on Concern For Very Poor



Asked whose federal budget plan they expected to more closely reflect their priorities, 47 percent of adults said Obama while just 37 percent picked congressional Republicans.

That question exposed the widest racial chasm of all:

Among whites, Republicans still led narrowly, while nonwhites favored Obama by more than 3-to-1.

Such a stark racial divide may prove a common feature through campaign 2012.

The survey found Americans unconvinced that safety-net programs represent a major source of the deficit problem.

When asked to identify the biggest reason the federal government faces large deficits for the coming years, just 3 percent of those surveyed said it was because of “too much government spending on programs for the elderly”; only 14 percent said the principal reason was “too much government spending on programs for poor people.” Those explanations were dwarfed by the 24 percent who attributed the deficits primarily to excessive defense spending, and the 46 percent plurality who said their principal cause was that “wealthy Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.”

While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.

 

[tydas]

I think many people have perception, as Newt has said, that the poor are lazy. If people realized how many ‘working’ poor there are in this country perhaps perceptions might change. Also, there is still plenty of evidence of many people living off the state and not wanting to work…

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'd be very surprised if there is no wide spread outbreak before the election.

Outbreak of what?

 

[tydas]

Outbreak of what?

Take a look around the world at what happens when the disenfranchised are not placated...

 

[Jaskalas]

Outbreak of what?

Greek style riots?

 

[monovillage]

A National Journal poll, poorly reported by Ronald Brownstein and the only time hate is mentioned in the article is.....................nowhere. It's only in this line by the OP

It's so clear in black and white how much it hate there is.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'd be very surprised if there is no wide spread outbreak before the election.

Outbreak of what?

Take a look around the world at what happens when the disenfranchised are not placated...

Greek style riots?

When our "poor" are given handouts and pampered; especially compared with a majority of the rest of the world, I think not.

Those that would riot in the US are handed free housing, food and living essentials. Similar to the Greek setup - cradle to grave by the government, and can not stand having it reduced.

They understand that the rest of the population is not tolerant of such behavior. and that is the group that the leeches are dependent on.

Rioting comes form those who want an excuse to tear down what they have hoping that those that they riot against will rebuild better.

Many times, that does not happen.:thumbsup:
Stupid behavior should not be rewarded.

 

[shiner]

It depends on why the poor are poor. If they are the "working poor" then I have no problem with giving a hand out/hand up when needed.

If they are the "I don't want to work and would rather just lay on my ass and let the gubment take care of me" or the "welfare baby factory" poor. Then fuck em.


And the survey is bullshit. Of course people are going to say the wealthy don't pay enough in taxes, until of course the definition of wealthy is changed and suddenly includes them.

 

[Anarchist420]

Asked whose federal budget plan they expected to more closely reflect their priorities, 47 percent of adults said Obama while just 37 percent picked congressional Republicans.

It's a false dichotomy. The Republicans know damn well that they wouldn't come close to balancing the budget. Both refuse means testing and both refuse to cut defense. The majority of House Republicans wouldn't vote to end the Dept. of Education either.

Among whites, Republicans still led narrowly, while nonwhites favored Obama by more than 3-to-1.

Define narrowly. Obama only got 43% of the white vote. Were Hispanics couted as whites? Obama only got 2/3 of the Hispanic vote last time while getting 96% of the black vote. That's a big difference.

What needs to happen is is the distribution of ~2/3 of the Federal debt (including interest) to the States based upon the 2010 census. The other portion should be paid down via selling some of the military's weapons and some of the national parks system. That way, the States can choose whether to repudiate it so they won't be able to borrow anymore, or they can pay it down by raising taxes. That would cause a decrease in spending right there because then enough people would realize that spending is nothing more than a tax.

 

[rudder]

While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.

80 percent of the taxpayers are responsible for 10.9% of the Federal income tax burden. The top fifth of earners are responsible for the rest. the top .1% pay more than the 10.9% provided by 80% of the taxpayers. Factor in payroll and state taxes... that top .1% still paid more than the bottom 40%.

The bottom 20% of taxpayers have an average effective income tax rate of -3.8%.

blah blah numbers have all been discussed before.

When the government begins to solely rely on the top earners for the bulk of the federal budget... that puts the country in a very precarious position.

Look, we know you hate the rich, but what is the point of these threads? You never address the real problem which is spending and never mention the fact that more people now live off the government teet than ever before. We get it, you hate rich people.. enough already.

 

[Anarchist420]

I agree with Dr. Paul when he said, "We've been overtaxed, overregulated, and overrun by Bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with".

 

[Texashiker]

If the government "really" wanted to help the poor, offer job training. Either low or no cost college education, or trade skills such as welding and metal working.

The problem with the very poor, once someone reaches the bottom, there is no ladder to climb back up. There is supposed to be a safety net to catch the ones that fall down, but nothing to help them climb back to the top.

The poor need 2 things, a safety net, and something to help them climb back up.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Sad state of affairs for the U.S.

It's so clear in black and white how much it hate there is.

I'd be very surprised if there is no wide spread outbreak before the election.


2-14-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-americans-split-concern-very-poor-213008741.html

Poll: Americans Split on Concern For Very Poor



Asked whose federal budget plan they expected to more closely reflect their priorities, 47 percent of adults said Obama while just 37 percent picked congressional Republicans.

That question exposed the widest racial chasm of all:

Among whites, Republicans still led narrowly, while nonwhites favored Obama by more than 3-to-1.

Such a stark racial divide may prove a common feature through campaign 2012.

The survey found Americans unconvinced that safety-net programs represent a major source of the deficit problem.

When asked to identify the biggest reason the federal government faces large deficits for the coming years, just 3 percent of those surveyed said it was because of “too much government spending on programs for the elderly”; only 14 percent said the principal reason was “too much government spending on programs for poor people.” Those explanations were dwarfed by the 24 percent who attributed the deficits primarily to excessive defense spending, and the 46 percent plurality who said their principal cause was that “wealthy Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.”

While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.

If those numbers are correct . The same people who think 46% is military spending . That should mean 46% are Paul bots as he is the NO war guy.

 

[BoberFett]

People who think our budget problems are due to the wealthy not paying taxes are simply bad at math.

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 99% and we'll still have a huge deficit.

 

[Throckmorton]

People who think our budget problems are due to the wealthy not paying taxes are simply bad at math.

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 99% and we'll still have a huge deficit.

I'll never understand conservatives. You flip flop between arguing that the wealthy pay all the taxes, and that raising taxes on them won't help the deficit much. Which is it?

 

[BoberFett]

I'll never understand conservatives. You flip flop between arguing that the wealthy pay all the taxes, and that raising taxes on them won't help the deficit much. Which is it?

It never ceases to amuse me that dumbshits around here think I'm conservative.

At any rate, they do pay a large chunk of the taxes. That doesn't change the scope of our budget deficit which is currently running about half of total revenue. The facts are out there. Tax the rich at whatever level you want, we're still going to have to make major cuts and Democrats will howl about those cuts but remember you won't have the wealthy bogeyman to blame it on at that point.

 

[Texashiker]

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 99% and we'll still have a huge deficit.

I saw a youtube video that talked about how far in debt the US is. The person was standing next to a large calendar. I am trying to find the video.

If we took all of the money from people like bill gates and warren buffet, it would only pay the national debt for a couple of days.

The debt is not about the rich not being taxed, its about the government over spending.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

These were the shares of total federal tax per quintile in 2007:
0.8%
4.4%
9.2%
16.5
68.9%

Here are the shares of total income per quintile in 2007:
3.4%
8.7%
14.8%
23.4%
49.7%

Tax shares again:
Top 10%: 55.0%
Top 5%: 44.3%
Top 1%: 28.1%

I can't find shares of income for the top 10%, 5%, 1%.


The point is, even if we had 100% flat taxes, the top quintile would pay half of federal taxes. As it is they pay 68.9% of federal. Taxes are much less progressive than most people think.

 

[Craig234]

I'll never understand conservatives. You flip flop between arguing that the wealthy pay all the taxes, and that raising taxes on them won't help the deficit much. Which is it?

Actually, their position is 'the only answer is drastically cut spending', by which they mean 'we'll say we're against Republicans' bad spending but will still vote for them.'

This is how a Reagan could get a big election in part - by getting all the benefits of corrupt spending, while having the 'anti spending crowd' worship and vote for him anyway.

It'd be like having Larry Flynt run on an anti-pornography platform. Porn lovers vote for him for the porn, and porn haters vote for him for his anti-porn rhetoric.

Republicans have spending priorities very much against the interests of the American people and for the most wealthy backers, but the lies fool many people.

 

[Throckmorton]

It never ceases to amuse me that dumbshits around here think I'm conservative.

At any rate, they do pay a large chunk of the taxes. That doesn't change the scope of our budget deficit which is currently running about half of total revenue. The facts are out there. Tax the rich at whatever level you want, we're still going to have to make major cuts and Democrats will howl about those cuts but remember you won't have the wealthy bogeyman to blame it on at that point.

Spare me the "But I'm not conservative" BS. I don't care what you label yourself. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

The way to actually reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, and cutting education, safety nets, etc in order to give tax cuts to the rich who don't need them is not how you grow the economy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Spare me the "But I'm not conservative" BS. I don't care what you label yourself. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

The way to actually reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, and cutting education, safety nets, etc in order to give tax cuts to the rich who don't need them is not how you grow the economy.

The way to actually reduce the deficit is to grow the economy

Sounds just like Reagan and Bush on their deficit spending.

 

[BoberFett]

Spare me the "But I'm not conservative" BS. I don't care what you label yourself. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

The way to actually reduce the deficit is to grow the economy, and cutting education, safety nets, etc in order to give tax cuts to the rich who don't need them is not how you grow the economy.

Don't give that "I'm not a pinko commie" BS, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



Fiscally conservative? Damn straight. But all the shit for brains around here seem to think that being fiscal tightwads means religious nutcases. People like you are so pathetically black and white it makes any hope of useful conversation futile.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds just like Reagan and Bush on their deficit spending.

They weren't wrong about growing the economy being important in reducing the deficit.

They were wrong in denying their own bad spending and tax cuts for the rich, and how they skyrocketed the deficits like never before in peacetime while attacking Democrats.

I also disagree with them on spending priorities but that's another issue.

The economy has grown enough to more than double post-Reagan - but instead of reducing the deficit, the deficit has increased with nearly all the growth going into the hands of the richest few, who have seen their share of income - just looking at the top 1%, the top 0.01% have gone up far more - triple from 8% to over 20%.

That's their trick - talk anti-deficit to get that vote, but run big deficits to get the political benefits also - how do you run against that? You have to at least either get the anti-deficit voters to understand they're being lied to, which is not easy to do and hasn't really happened much; or you have to get the support of the rich donors who want their interests followed against the people, and Democrats can hardly do that much, though they've tried under Clinton and Obama, the only times they've won since Carter.

 

[monovillage]

A better benchmark for concern about the poor is how much money, time and effort each person personally donates to that specific cause. The cause of making the disadvantaged lives better. I'm a right winger, but I bet there's not many on the left that do as much as I do on the subject (as little as it is). So put up your time, effort and money or shut up already.

 

[Throckmorton]

A better benchmark for concern about the poor is how much money, time and effort each person personally donates to that specific cause. The cause of making the disadvantaged lives better. I'm a right winger, but I bet there's not many on the left that do as much as I do on the subject (as little as it is). So put up your time, effort and money or shut up already.

I'm poor. I can give you my Paypal address if you want to send me money.