Poll: Americans strongly oppose some deficit proposals

[Infohawk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20110420/pl_washpost/inpolldiscontentondebt

Los Angeles – Despite growing concerns about the country’s long-term fiscal problems and an intensifying debate in Washington about how to deal with them, Americans strongly oppose some of the major remedies under consideration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey finds that Americans prefer to keep Medicare just the way it is. Most also oppose cuts in Medicaid and the defense budget. More than half say they are against small, across-the-board tax increases combined with modest reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits. Only President Obama’s call to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans enjoys solid support.

This is interesting if true. Most people want the wealthy to pay for it.

Personally, I'd like to see reform (modest to substantial cuts) for medicare/SS and defense along with fewer deductions and minor increases for the rich.

 

[matt0611]

Not surprising, people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter what people want if its impossible, the wealthy can not "pay for it", because they don't have that much wealth to pay for it all.

Everyones taxes will need to go up substantially or spending cuts need to come (or both).
The math will catch up with us eventually. Only a matter of time.

 

[woolfe9999]

You mean the majority of Americans are highly concerned about reducing the deficit but oppose everything that must be done to reduce and/or eliminate it? So the idea of reducing the deficit is politically popular but every specific aspect of it is politically unpopular?

Say it isn't so!

 

[boomerang]

Shows how ignorant many are.

Medicare can't stay the way it is.
Ditto for Medicaid.
Defense has to be cut although it won't save enough to make it worthwhile.
Taking every dollar "the rich" have will not even make a dent in the problem.
If taxes are raised, the money will be squandered as has been the norm.

Eat The Rich

We're truly fucked. We need a leader who tells it like it is. Instead, we have leaders who whitewash the situation. Leaders who are paralyzed from taking action because they are trying to insulate or position themselves to be above the fray. Those that come closest to laying it all out there are marginalized by our biased media.

Interesting times.

 

[Patranus]

For those who have paid into medicare their entire life, I can understand why they don't want to have it changed.

They were forced to pay into a government scheme and should get what was promised to them.

However, it makes perfect sense to change medicare going forward for those who are under 30.

Medicaid? LOL.
That program is a joke.

 

[Jhhnn]

The federal budget simply can't approach balance on the basis of cuts alone. Like it, lump it, or fly it to the moon on a pogo stick, that's the truth.

In order for tax increases to be politically palatable, they have to start at the top. That's also where the money is. Raising taxes by 1% of taxable income on the top 1% of filers will gather almost twice the revenue of raising taxes for the bottom 50% by the same amount.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Try to remember that paying taxes is patriotic the next time you see right wing anti tax ravers spewing in front of Old Glory, OK?

 

[Anarchist420]

They should not increase taxes, even though they will. They need to radically slash spending.

Still, it doesn't surprise me that 95% of the people want millionaires to receive $3k SS payments every month. And it's assholes like Eric Cantor that voted for medicare part D. I say throw his tyrannical fuckass out of there at the least.

 

[glenn1]

The federal budget simply can't approach balance on the basis of cuts alone. Like it, lump it, or fly it to the moon on a pogo stick, that's the truth.

Bullshit - just because you wouldn't like the results of the spending cuts doesn't mean it couldn't be balanced with cuts only. While I agree that tax increases should at least be on the table, I also agree with those who say that spending has to be brought under control first. Congress has never in our lifetimes been able to restrain themselves from overspending. Nothing in the budget should be sacred, and all should be cut unilaterally if needed.

 

[Doppel]

Most voters are too stupid to responsibly vote and shouldn't.

 

[boomerang]

Our leaders don't pay their fair share. When caught, they've always got an excuse. How many are not being caught?

Our dear leader claimed a slew of deduction reducing his tax bill by about $100K and yet he tells us he's not being taxed enough. He's lying.

He says he wants the wealth spread around. Why isn't he contributing more? Spreading his own wealth around? He says he doesn't want or need the tax cut but he reduces his tax bill by $100K? Why doesn't he willingly pay taxes at the rates he wants to impose on his rich brethren?

So much for leading by example. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He's let us know that he's better than the rest of us. That the rules don't truly apply to him, but we should ignore all that and do as he says, not as he does.

 

[Infohawk]

You mean the majority of Americans are highly concerned about reducing the deficit but oppose everything that must be done to reduce and/or eliminate it? So the idea of reducing the deficit is politically popular but every specific aspect of it is politically unpopular?

Say it isn't so!

They are open to higher taxes on the rich. You may not agree with it, but it's internally consistent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bullshit - just because you wouldn't like the results of the spending cuts doesn't mean it couldn't be balanced with cuts only. While I agree that tax increases should at least be on the table, I also agree with those who say that spending has to be brought under control first. Congress has never in our lifetimes been able to restrain themselves from overspending. Nothing in the budget should be sacred, and all should be cut unilaterally if needed.

If you had a lick of sense, you'd realize that's completely insane. I was speaking in practical terms, not libertopian fantasy language.

I'll bet you didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts when it was *obvious* that it sure as hell would unbalance the budget, or scream bloody murder when the went to war at the same time, either.

Righties speak with forked tongues, as usual. Spending *will not* be brought under control on the basis of cuts alone, so you demand the impossible as a precondition to any sort of solution.

 

[RedChief]

The federal budget simply can't approach balance on the basis of cuts alone. Like it, lump it, or fly it to the moon on a pogo stick, that's the truth.

In order for tax increases to be politically palatable, they have to start at the top. That's also where the money is. Raising taxes by 1% of taxable income on the top 1% of filers will gather almost twice the revenue of raising taxes for the bottom 50% by the same amount.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Try to remember that paying taxes is patriotic the next time you see right wing anti tax ravers spewing in front of Old Glory, OK?

Your forgetting the "skin in the game" aspect though when it comes to the bottom 50%. The bottom ~40% pay zero federal income tax yet they receive an ever increasing amount of benefits that is payed for by others. The top 1% (and it should be noted that the population of the top 1% changes dramatically year to year) pays 38% of the total fed income tax while the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

So, percentage wise of the total amount recieved, how much is fair to you?

 

[theeedude]

For those who have paid into medicare their entire life, I can understand why they don't want to have it changed.

They were forced to pay into a government scheme and should get what was promised to them.

However, it makes perfect sense to change medicare going forward for those who are under 30.

Yeah, it should be changed to cover those under 30, now.

Medicaid? LOL.
That program is a joke.

no, it isn't

 

[Abwx]

Your forgetting the "skin in the game" aspect though when it comes to the bottom 50%. The bottom ~40% pay zero federal income tax yet they receive an ever increasing amount of benefits that is payed for by others. The top 1% (and it should be noted that the population of the top 1% changes dramatically year to year) pays 38% of the total fed income tax while the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

So, percentage wise of the total amount recieved, how much is fair to you?

The higher the better...
This is the price to pay for being supplied the slaves
workers who actually are the state s property...

 

[frostedflakes]

Why not just equal cuts everywhere? If we have a 10% shortfall, for example, every agency needs to cut 10%. It's the most fair way to do things.

Seems like D and R both just want to use the budget issue to get rid of the programs they don't like instead of actually doing something meaningful to address the problem. Politics as usual in DC.

 

[glenn1]

If you had a lick of sense, you'd realize that's completely insane. I was speaking in practical terms, not libertopian fantasy language.

I'll bet you didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts when it was *obvious* that it sure as hell would unbalance the budget, or scream bloody murder when the went to war at the same time, either.

Righties speak with forked tongues, as usual. Spending *will not* be brought under control on the basis of cuts alone, so you demand the impossible as a precondition to any sort of solution.

Your point of bringing up overspending during Republican periods isn't undermining my case but strengthening it. Whether I support the Bush tax cuts (or tax increases for that matter) is basically irrelevant to how much (or what) is being spent on the other end. I've seen Congress raise taxes before so I know they can do it, what I haven't seen is them reducing spending to any real extent. Fine, raise taxes - but be aware, that just means the politicians will pocket the extra "revenue" and figure they have even more to spend.

 

[HendrixFan]

Your forgetting the "skin in the game" aspect though when it comes to the bottom 50%. The bottom ~40% pay zero federal income tax yet they receive an ever increasing amount of benefits that is payed for by others. The top 1% (and it should be noted that the population of the top 1% changes dramatically year to year) pays 38% of the total fed income tax while the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

So, percentage wise of the total amount recieved, how much is fair to you?

Well, your numbers are terribly misleading.

The Earned Income Credit counts as a "negative" tax for statistical purposes. What does that mean? Even though the EIC is welfare, it gets filed as a negative number when figuring taxes, and gets lumped in with those who pay taxes. My income (single, no dependents) falls within the bottom 50%. My total tax was just a shade under 10%. However, when you average me in with someone else who made the same amount I did, but got $3k back because of the EIC, combined we paid zero.

The EIC is the only government payout in any form that counts as a negative tax.

Aside from that, you also need to figure in payroll tax and medicare/medicaid. The bottom 50% pay that in a much larger percentage of their pay than the upper 50%. Since both programs have run surpluses for decades, and all the money from those surpluses have gone into the general spending pot, it makes little sense to exclude it when determining "fair share" of taxes.

 

[HendrixFan]

I've seen Congress raise taxes before so I know they can do it, what I haven't seen is them reducing spending to any real extent. Fine, raise taxes - but be aware, that just means the politicians will pocket the extra "revenue" and figure they have even more to spend.

Spending as a percentage of GDP dropped 4% over 8 years while Clinton was in office. He is the only president to preside over 8 straight years of drops in spending as a percentage of GDP.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP only went up 3% during that time, so the majority of the balanced budget Clinton was able to achieve was done through cuts and not increased revenue through increased taxes/booming economy.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

most people are stupid and have no idea what any of this means.

 

[Paratus]

Your forgetting the "skin in the game" aspect though when it comes to the bottom 50%. The bottom ~40% pay zero federal income tax yet they receive an ever increasing amount of benefits that is payed for by others. The top 1% (and it should be noted that the population of the top 1% changes dramatically year to year) pays 38% of the total fed income tax while the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

So, percentage wise of the total amount recieved, how much is fair to you?

You forget the top percent is also paying less yet receiving record handouts from the government in the form of subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property enforcement, trade laws, patent laws, investment tax breaks, etc. None of that shit is free.

I paid over 22% in federal income taxes this year with child and mortage deductions. The top 400 filers paid about 17%..........

 

[cwjerome]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20110420/pl_washpost/inpolldiscontentondebt

Personally, I'd like to see reform (modest to substantial cuts) for medicare/SS and defense along with fewer deductions and minor increases for the rich.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I would say modest-to-moderate cuts in social services including medical (the states can choose to pick up some slack if they like), modest cuts in defense, tax reform to make it simpler, close loopholes and reduce deductions, and minor tax increases for the top .5-1%.

 

[theeedude]

most people are stupid and have no idea what any of this means.

I am pretty sure they do know what having a voucher instead of Medicare would mean. And they don't like it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your forgetting the "skin in the game" aspect though when it comes to the bottom 50%. The bottom ~40% pay zero federal income tax yet they receive an ever increasing amount of benefits that is payed for by others. The top 1% (and it should be noted that the population of the top 1% changes dramatically year to year) pays 38% of the total fed income tax while the bottom 50% pay 2.7%.

So, percentage wise of the total amount recieved, how much is fair to you?

You merely parrot the usual right wing talking points as if were any truth to them.

The reason that lower income people pay lower federal income taxes today is twofold. First, because they pay much higher payroll taxes than pre Reagan, plus higher state and local taxes, and because their share of national income has shrunk. Meanwhile, the incomes of those at the tippytop have grown enormously, and their federal tax rates reduced by a third.

And, of course, the more taxes are cut at the top the louder the whining from wealthy anti tax loons like Grover Norquist.

I never introduced the word "fair" to the discussion, so you might as well drop it. I will, however, introduce the concept of shared sacrifice. People towards the bottom have already sacrificed a large portion of national income to the top 1% in pursuit of the imaginary benefits of Reaganomics, and it's tough to get blood out of a turnip, anyway.

I'll also offer that a few % points tax increase on enormous incomes don't represent any real sacrifice at all. The difference between paying 22% or 32% on tens of millions of dollars per year is just numbers- no change in lifestyle will result from increased taxes at all. Try to remember that as wealthy anti-tax zealots demand sacrifice and austerity from the rest of us.

 

[Darwin333]

If you had a lick of sense, you'd realize that's completely insane. I was speaking in practical terms, not libertopian fantasy language.

I'll bet you didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts when it was *obvious* that it sure as hell would unbalance the budget, or scream bloody murder when the went to war at the same time, either.

Righties speak with forked tongues, as usual. Spending *will not* be brought under control on the basis of cuts alone, so you demand the impossible as a precondition to any sort of solution.

You lefties do the same thing though. Our deficit won't be brought under control by our politicians, period. The ugly truth of the matter is neither party is willing to touch entitlements and both are very likely to expand them at least slightly to appease voters. We simply can not get anywhere close to a balanced budget when mandatory spending consumes all of our revenue. Remove ALL of the Bush tax cuts (not gonna happen anytime soon) and we still have over a trillion dollar deficit. Hit those rich bastards for even more and we might get down to a trillion even, cut the shit out of defense and we are at $900-$800B. IF the economy is doing better you have to factor back in a very large increase in the cost of servicing our debt so that just wiped out all of the savings from the .mil cuts.

It simply is not possible to get there without cuts to entitlements and that just isn't going to happen because the party that did it would lose way to many votes. I hate to break it to you but we can't raise revenue anywhere near closing the gap either regardless of who we tax. Math can be a cruel bitch at times but is always right at the end of the day.