• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
25,611
Reaction score
21,093
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem - The Washington Post

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.

Oh, the fickle American public...

I've been saying this for awhile now. Maybe it's time to stop blaming the government for everything and start being introspective about ourselves, the People. Our government is only as competent/effective as the electorate that chooses them.
 
Breaking News...

America wants "spending cuts" but doesn't want anything specific cut, especially anything that directly benefits them, and are all for someone ELSE being taxed more money.

This is why its going to take some actual leaders in the white house and congress to essentially get done what has to be done for the future of this country despite it likely costing them their jobs at the next election cycle. We need significant cuts, across the board, with reform to our various entitlement programs.
 
Let's get rid of the entire DoD. Okay now where do we cut the rest of the $2.4T? And while we're at it, let's amend the Constitution to remove "common defence" from the language. That way we'll be sure to never allocate another dime to that requirement.

Okay liberals, your turn.
 
Last edited:
Let's get rid of the entire DoD. Okay now where do we cut the rest of the $2.4T? And while we're at it, let's amend the Constitution to remove "common defence" from the language. That way we'll be sure to never allocate another dime to that requirement.

Okay liberals, your turn.

Raise taxes. We don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.
 
Raise taxes. We don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.

That's a ridiculous statement. The government spends way too much now, wants to spend even more, can't properly account for what is spent now... and your solution is to justtax people more?

Are you one of those liberal who clings to the proven false belief that all you have to do to solve the problem is tax rich people more?
 
Breaking News...

America wants "spending cuts" but doesn't want anything specific cut, especially anything that directly benefits them, and are all for someone ELSE being taxed more money.

This is why its going to take some actual leaders in the white house and congress to essentially get done what has to be done for the future of this country despite it likely costing them their jobs at the next election cycle. We need significant cuts, across the board, with reform to our various entitlement programs.


Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke, British Statesman
 
That's a ridiculous statement. The government spends way too much now, wants to spend even more, can't properly account for what is spent now... and your solution is to just tax people more?

Yes.

The United States ranks 29 of 34 OECD countries in level of taxation and we're below our historical level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. The most obvious and easiest solution to our deficit problem is raising taxes.

Are you one of those liberal who clings to the proven false belief that all you have to do to solve the problem is tax rich people more?

Nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich have seen their share of the national income increase and their rate of taxation decrease in recent years. While we may not be able to solve the deficit problem entirely by taxing them more, taxing them more will go a long way toward the solution.
 
There are but two sides to the ledger and both must be dealt with. We do need more revenue. We do need spending cuts.
 
Yes.

The United States ranks 29 of 34 OECD countries in level of taxation and we're below our historical level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. The most obvious and easiest solution to our deficit problem is raising taxes.



Nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich have seen their share of the national income increase and their rate of taxation decrease in recent years. While we may not be able to solve the deficit problem entirely by taxing them more, taxing them more will go a long way toward the solution.

Which is why we became the empowered populace in the history of mankind. Thank you.

How many times do you have to see this fail before you guys learn? Socialism fails because you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

Raise taxes and watch unemployment skyrocket to 20+ percent, which is common elsewhere in the world.
 
Whovian said:
That's a ridiculous statement. The government spends way too much now, wants to spend even more, can't properly account for what is spent now... and your solution is to just tax people more?
Yes.

The United States ranks 29 of 34 OECD countries in level of taxation and we're below our historical level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. The most obvious and easiest solution to our deficit problem is raising taxes.


Whovian said:
Are you one of those liberal who clings to the proven false belief that all you have to do to solve the problem is tax rich people more?
Nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich have seen their share of the national income increase and their rate of taxation decrease in recent years. While we may not be able to solve the deficit problem entirely by taxing them more, taxing them more will go a long way toward the solution.

No... it won't.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/96983-taxes-balance-budget-not-unless-rates-go-up-150-percent-study-says.html#post1059420007
A new Tax Day study showed that if Washington wanted to balance the budget using tax increases alone, rates would have to more than double across the board -- including on the middle class -- to keep up with federal spending.
Just taxing the rich will NOT solve the problem, not go a long way to solving it. Across the board means EVERYONE, including the middle class and poor.

If you have some credible evidence proving it will. feel free to post it.
 
There are but two sides to the ledger and both must be dealt with. We do need more revenue. We do need spending cuts.

The Congress is free to consider spending cuts if they wish but remember, spending is the whole point of government. We create governments to do things and doing things take money. When we focus on spending cuts, we're implying we want a government which does nothing.
 
Which is why we became the empowered populace in the history of mankind. Thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please expand.

Raise taxes and watch unemployment skyrocket to 20+ percent, which is common elsewhere in the world.

That just isn't so. High taxes neither cause nor correlate with high unemployment.
 
No... it won't.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/96983-taxes-balance-budget-not-unless-rates-go-up-150-percent-study-says.html#post1059420007

Just taxing the rich will NOT solve the problem, not go a long way to solving it. Across the board means EVERYONE, including the middle class and poor.

If you have some credible evidence proving it will. feel free to post it.

I read the posting a couple of days ago but I couldn't find the study. I'd like to read it. Do you have a link?
 
The Congress is free to consider spending cuts if they wish but remember, spending is the whole point of government. We create governments to do things and doing things take money. When we focus on spending cuts, we're implying we want a government which does nothing.

Geez, where did you learn this?

No, that is exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do. The government's job is to build a military, enforce the laws, and get the hell out of the way. Everything else shoud be handled by state and local governments, where the money can be watched much more closely.

Welfare and entitlements were never part of the plan. Those were liberal creations from thin air.
 
I'm not sure what you mean. Please expand.



That just isn't so. High taxes neither cause nor correlate with high unemployment.

BS. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? You put the pinch on the rich, and they'll just compensate by cutting staff.

Economics 101.
 
Geez, where did you learn this?

No, that is exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do. The government's job is to build a military, enforce the laws, and get the hell out of the way. Everything else shoud be handled by state and local governments, where the money can be watched much more closely.

Welfare and entitlements were never part of the plan. Those were liberal creations from thin air.

You should read the Preamble. There's more in there than just building the military and enforcing the laws, which, by-the-way, take money. Even if we just stuck to just those two things we'd have to have money and focusing on spending cuts would limit the amount of each we could do.
 
BS. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? You put the pinch on the rich, and they'll just compensate by cutting staff.

Economics 101.

the nineties say otherwise.
 
The Congress is free to consider spending cuts if they wish but remember, spending is the whole point of government. We create governments to do things and doing things take money. When we focus on spending cuts, we're implying we want a government which does nothing.

Another asinine statement. Where do you come up with them all?

It does not imply anything of the kind. It implies that we want a government that spends WISELY... does what is needed, within it's means.
 
BS. Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? You put the pinch on the rich, and they'll just compensate by cutting staff.

Economics 101.

Many, if not most, American jobs are created by small business. Small business owners are not necessarily rich. Taxes on the rich would not affect them. Secondly, many Americans are employed by corporations. A corporation can easily be owned exclusively by persons who are not rich. Taxes on the rich would not affect them. Finally, even if what implied were true, why would a rational business person imperil his capacity to generate income just because he retains a bit less?
 
Another asinine statement. Where do you come up with them all?

It does not imply anything of the kind. It implies that we want a government that spends WISELY... does what is needed, within it's means.

Not if the focus is "spending cuts" exclusively. "Cut spending" is an absolute statement with no regard for efficiency or effectiveness.
 
Many, if not most, American jobs are created by small business. Small business owners are not necessarily rich. Taxes on the rich would not affect them. Secondly, many Americans are employed by corporations. A corporation can easily be owned exclusively by persons who are not rich. Taxes on the rich would not affect them. Finally, even if what implied were true, why would a rational business person imperil his capacity to generate income just because he retains a bit less?

Still waiting for you to show us a credible source that indicates taxing the rich so they 'retain a bit less' will solve the debt and deficit issues in this country, WITHOUT changing spending habits of the government.
 
Not if the focus is "spending cuts" exclusively. "Cut spending" is an absolute statement with no regard for efficiency or effectiveness.

Show me where I said 'cut spending, and we dont give a **** how or where you do it'.

You continue to deal in absolutes, where there are none.
 
Still waiting for you to show us a credible source that indicates taxing the rich so they 'retain a bit less' will solve the debt and deficit issues in this country, WITHOUT changing spending habits of the government.

If you're looking for few short paragraphs of simple ideas, I can't provide it. The solution is far more complicated than that. Make no mistake, though, it starts with tax expenditures. See A Framework for Deficit Reduction: Principles and Cautions
 
Edmund Burke, British Statesman

This is a purely a philosophical exercise...but where do we draw the line between when elected officials should act in our interests, and when elected officials should act against our own opinion for "the public good"?
 
Back
Top Bottom