• 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


I hate polls.

They asked 1,000 people and many of us blindly figure that's representative of 300 million. I didn't mind the questions they asked this time, but who's home to catch these calls? Anyone ever wonder that? Are they made during the day? In the evening? On weekends? Are they made cross-country? Or in the rust belt? What's magic about 1,000? Why not just ask 25?

I completely agree with your sentiments here:

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.
 
I hate polls.

They asked 1,000 people and many of us blindly figure that's representative of 300 million. I didn't mind the questions they asked this time, but who's home to catch these calls? Anyone ever wonder that? Are they made during the day? In the evening? On weekends? Are they made cross-country? Or in the rust belt? What's magic about 1,000? Why not just ask 25?

I completely agree with your sentiments here:

The term you are looking for is called self-selection and it is something that polliing agencies are very aware of and have strategies to account for.

Also, if you want to know why they go for a certain number of people to poll, here is the equation -> Margin of error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The term you are looking for is called self-selection and it is something that polliing agencies are very aware of and have strategies to account for.

Also, if you want to know why they go for a certain number of people to poll, here is the equation -> Margin of error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, Mega. But now I'm even more confuzed. Yikes! What's an "acceptable" margin of error? If there's a 3% margin of error, what does that do to the results? Surely it doesn't just mean that the answers can be skewed by 3% either way? Or does it? (How could they know that?) I don't suppose you have the patience to explain it in English... ;)
 
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.
Socialism fails when programs $ exceed input $. Medicare and SS can be fixed by raising the amount paid in from day 1 of employment and in the case of SS eliminating any cap.

Raise taxes and watch unemployment skyrocket to 20+ percent, which is common elsewhere in the world.
Raising taxes on the rich will have no such affect.
 
I hate polls.

They asked 1,000 people and many of us blindly figure that's representative of 300 million. I didn't mind the questions they asked this time, but who's home to catch these calls? Anyone ever wonder that? Are they made during the day? In the evening? On weekends? Are they made cross-country? Or in the rust belt? What's magic about 1,000? Why not just ask 25?

I completely agree with your sentiments here:

You raise fair questions. The questions you asked are known I am sure by the company taking the poll as well as the people reporting on it if they wanted to find out. Most polls of this type strive for a good cross section using a variety of conditions. The poll company may ask a bunch of qualifying questions to try and insure they are getting a good cross section by passing on people if once they have hit their limit on dem/rep; old/young; male/female etc. Or they may just take X number of people, but in these instances would then break out the groupings so people can decide if the poll was skewed.

Statistics have proven to work. It is used in business ( i.e. by auditors) as well as politics. Just a more efficient and quicker way of getting to an answer.

Especially in politics, can he poll be biased, yes. Most cmmonly in the phrasing of the question.

Sp just like everything else used correctly and viewed with caution they can be used to get at least a directional view.
 
The elderly voted for Repubs in 2010 primarily because Obamacare cut out one of their "entitlements" namely Advantage care, a govt. subsidized additional insurance. Somehow they thought that the Repubs were pro medicare when in fact, as Ryan has shown,they want to get rid of it. Now the elderly realize that and their hopping mad, as are those under 55 who will not get it when they retire. Ryan's plan and the 95% backing of it by repubs will backfire on them. Reagan learned this lesson when he promised to end medicare and then backed off.
 
Thanks, Mega. But now I'm even more confuzed. Yikes! What's an "acceptable" margin of error? If there's a 3% margin of error, what does that do to the results? Surely it doesn't just mean that the answers can be skewed by 3% either way? Or does it? (How could they know that?) I don't suppose you have the patience to explain it in English... ;)

Polling is a strange phenomenon in our society today.

It is just as often part of the PR feedback loop as a check of the pulse of the demographic in question.

"What parts of the "messaging" are gaining traction and which not?" Etc.

And both the selection of the sample and the phrasing of the questions can totally skew the results of a less than honest pollster.

Our little polls here are more useful to us because we question/answer with people we are familiar with, for instance. And often know who voted how, which allows us to make a good assessment of the results.

I only give lightly weighted credence to national polls, especially when powerful vested interests are at play.:2wave:
 
what just claim do those who cannot pay for their own existence have on those of us who can

The claim of injustice for all for starter!

"Teach us, train us!" Provide educational opportunities that truly lead to pathways of economic properity rather than "stereo-typical" career paths. Stop gaming legislation that do more to hold the poor and minorities back and instead remove obstacles that prohibit job growth or job retention for the poor and/or minorities.

Politicians gave these such "rights" to the states, but IMO, they've bungled them miserably. How so? Take welfare, for example. In most states, clients can apply for welfare until the dependent child reaches age 18. There's no incentive for the single parent (mother) to apply for work if she has 2+ children to raise yet she's uneducated, poorly training and has no skills to advance herself let alone for the sake of her children. So, most will just sit back and collect state-sponsored support. Then politicians, as well as the more affluent, will label such individuals as lazy, deadbeats. To an extend, I would agree...

...until you look at the history of conservative legislation designed purposely to "keep blacks and minorities in their place". But these such laws don't just negatively affect minorities or specific cultural groups. There are many poor White Americans who suffer from inadequante education and training as well.

Provide the right avenues bywhich people can improve their quality of life and the so-called welfare state can reach near erratication.
 
Thanks, Mega. But now I'm even more confuzed. Yikes! What's an "acceptable" margin of error? If there's a 3% margin of error, what does that do to the results? Surely it doesn't just mean that the answers can be skewed by 3% either way? Or does it? (How could they know that?) I don't suppose you have the patience to explain it in English... ;)

if the margin of error is 3%, and the polling results are 51%, then the actual public feeling on the matter can deviate as much as 54% to 48% (+ or - 3).

If you want to be even more confused look at the confidence level part of the equation. If a poll has a 95% confidence level, that basically means there is a 5% chance that the results are just wacky and are way off.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...

lpast said:
...tax cuts for the rich that is not debt reduction.

Weren't you one of those who argued that Pres. Obama would never apply revenue from higher taxes toward paying down the debt?

Seems to me you've just endorsed such a philosophy...by a liberal president no less. Don't that feel good...to admit ever so slightly you were wrong? :mrgreen:
 
The elderly voted for Repubs in 2010 primarily because Obamacare cut out one of their "entitlements" namely Advantage care, a govt. subsidized additional insurance. Somehow they thought that the Repubs were pro medicare when in fact, as Ryan has shown,they want to get rid of it. Now the elderly realize that and their hopping mad, as are those under 55 who will not get it when they retire. Ryan's plan and the 95% backing of it by repubs will backfire on them. Reagan learned this lesson when he promised to end medicare and then backed off.

tell it to cuomo

Cuomo budget: $10 billion deficit cut, no new taxes, layoffs likely

a BILLION dollar CUT to medicaid

in NEW YORK

did you hear weiner wants a waiver
 
Seems to me you've just endorsed such a philosophy...by a liberal president no less

the bush/obama/clinton/boehner tax cuts---if you're not aboard you're a splinter
 
bottom line---if something isn't done now to restructure our budget obligations, then the big 3 federal programs as well as state pensions simply will not exist for the next generation in the form that's been promised

service on the debt, mere interest alone, is fast approaching a full trillion per year

News Headlines

leadership, anyone?

hurry up, harry
 
My opinion on this whole poll thing, is really quite simple.

The American people are just plain fed up. Right now they don't want or believe in cuts to our SS or Medicare, and why should they? Every time you watch the news or pick up a paper on any bill being passed … you see 50 million for a turtle tunnel, or 300 million to an airport that has 5 flights a day out of it … the list is endless.

Now granted 9 billion dollars in pork spending is a very minor thing, but it's still 9 billion dollars , I'm not sure when we the people began believing that 9 billion dollars a year in spending is really nothing, but that needs to end. Before any rational American is going to accept cuts in SS and Medicare we want to see stupid wasteful spending stopped.

When the American people see 3 or 4 huge corporations, record huge profits, while at the same time being subsidized by our government,(our tax dollars) and pay nothing in taxes, then be asked to take cuts to programs like SS and Medicare they rightfully say “no”

When the American people see welfare and health care costs rising, and one of the cost factors is illegal immigrants that come here and use our system, and all that is being done about it is the government trying to figure out ways of giving illegals even more.... they say “no cuts “ to SS and Medicare.

When we watch government ignore all the cut cutting measures that could be done painlessly, and with the smallest amount of impact on the American people, in favor of cutting things that will impact everyone. We not only say no .. but hell no.

When the people see that our government is acting responsible, and in the best interests of it's citizens, and more needs to be done to fix things, then ask those same questions that was on this poll. It's my belief that you would see much different answers.
 

that's about more-righter-er


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.

true; but i really still think the problem is a lack of education on the matter, not one of will. most Americans can't even name a Republican contender at this point.
 
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.

We also need defense spending cut as well though. Or we need to increase corporate taxes to pay for defense cuts.

I know our military provides global security and stability, especially to foreign markets, but if the corporations want to the security of the military they should be the ones to pay for it.
 
true; but i really still think the problem is a lack of education on the matter, not one of will. most Americans can't even name a Republican contender at this point.

Well, to be fair, most Republicans can't name a Republican contender at this point. No other GOPer has announced their candidacy for the primary yet. Yeah, there are calls for lots of people to run, but exactly who will commit to it has yet to be seen.
 
Raise taxes. We don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem.

Well, I'm going to argue this one with you.

We do need to make spending cuts. We do need to be more efficient about how we spend government revenue.

But that's far less about the ideologies behind Democrats wanting to do government spending or the Republicans wanting to cut taxes. And what I mean by that is rather than do either, what we need to do is keep Congress from allocating taxpayer money to their pet projects that aren't geared for any kind of further revenue generation. Such as the "road to nowhere" and other similar projects.

So how about instead of raising taxes or cutting spending we start ****ing forcing our Congress to stop and think about which **** they want to spend our money paying for?

Another thing we could do is institute a national internet sales tax. One reason why local, state, and federal governments aren't getting any tax revenues is because more and more commerce is being done through the internet rather than through physical stores and vendors. This actually puts physical stores and vendors at a disadvantage compared to internet stores. So I think to even the score would be to institute a national internet sales tax.

My initial idea for it would be to make it a 5% sales tax. 1% would go to the local government of the seller, 1% would go to the state government of the seller, 1% would go to the local government of the buyer, 1% would go to the state government of the seller, and the last 1% would go to the federal government. That way internet sales will still generate tax revenues which can go on to pay for all the maintenance and law enforcement involved in the shipping of internet goods.
 
I think we all know that money is power, and who controls the money has the power, ..........so... that ain't you. But it should be, and I suggest returning the power to the people. I have a plan to do that. All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)
 
High gas prices and continued anxiety about the economy have taken their toll on President Obama’s approval ratings, which have dropped consistently since the president announced he is running for a second term.

Since Obama announced on April 4 with a low-key email and video address to supporters, the president's numbers have gone down in every poll conducted during that period.

Pollsters attribute the president’s dropping poll numbers to the rise of gasoline prices, which historically have taken a toll on the popularity of the White House.

Last Friday, a Gallup survey showed the president's numbers at 41 percent, a tie for the lowest point in his administration. At the time Obama announced his reelection plans, the president clocked in at about 49 percent approval.

But in the weeks that followed, which included a near shutdown of the federal government, more unrest in the Middle East and a sharply partisan speech about spending, Obama’s numbers have dropped to the mid and low 40s, according to different polls.

Obama sees his approval ratings drop after launching 2012 reelection bid - The Hill's E2-Wire

class warfare, anyone?
 
Americans are more pessimistic about the economy than they have been in more than two years, as gas prices soar, unemployment remains high and Washington battles it out over federal spending, a new poll suggests.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll released late Thursday, views of the path on which the country is headed are the worst they’ve been since just weeks after President Barack Obama took office in early 2009. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed said the country is on the right track, while 70 percent said it’s on the wrong one. In February 2009, 23 percent of those surveyed for a CBS poll said it was on the right track, while 68 percent said it was on the wrong one.

Eighty percent of those surveyed, meanwhile, said they think the economy is doing fairly or very bad, while 17 percent said it is fairly good and just 2 percent said it is very good.

On the economy, though, Obama does worse. His approval rating on economic matters is at 38 percent, while disapproval is at 57 percent. That disapproval number is the highest it’s ever been for Obama; before this poll, its height was 54 percent in July 2010. He does similarly poorly on his handling of the federal budget deficit – 33 percent approve, while 59 percent disapprove.

Poll suggests deep economic pessimism - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

time for another great speech, an excellent speech?

leadership, anyone?
 
We also need defense spending cut as well though.

I agree, its why I said across the board cuts. Defense, along with SS, makes up our biggest hunk of the budget. Now on one hand, it helps the economy through stabilization as you say while also being a core and clear constitutional responsability of the government. At the same time, attempting to cut spending without looking at Defense is just a ridiculous and hollow excercise. Legitimate cuts need to be made to defense, yet at the same time it can't be the primary or majority target where you're cutting 2 or 3% from entitelements and other programs and cutting 25% from the military budget.
 
CT -
Draconian spending cuts to shrink the federal government would hurt our economy!

I see this posted all the time... The entitlement cuts won't hurt the economy, they primarily affect those that are not contributing to the economy. Unless you are suggesting that pulling funding from NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the Endowment fund for the Arts will somehow hurt us all in the long run? LOL

Truthfully, if government would grow in one single area I would have no problem with it. Grow in the area of social case worker.. STOP the damn fraud and abuse of our entitlement spending, and I would consider it a good step in the right direction that our government was serious about spending. Just like with illegal immigration, we can't begin to have that sit-down and talk about amnesty until the damn border is sealed..


Tim-
 
bottom line---if something isn't done now to restructure our budget obligations, then the big 3 federal programs as well as state pensions simply will not exist for the next generation in the form that's been promised

service on the debt, mere interest alone, is fast approaching a full trillion per year
I agree and now let's see if the parties can agree on how to save the entitlements without getting rid of them, because getting rid of them is suicide. If you want an entitlement then pay for it up front.
 
there's not enough money in the galaxy to pay for these entitlements up front nor at the back end

they're gonna have to be restructured, there's no avoiding it

it's going on in new york, in california, thru the rust belt, in the eu...

major budget reform will impose itself inevitably on washington dc LIKE PHYSICS if our "leaders" don't stop making stump speeches and actually DO something

ie, we'll simply run out of money (even as bernanke continues to pump paper, trying to scotch tape our economy together with 3 trillion dollars of garbage backed junk---undiversified)

it is what it is, there's no stopping it

the slash can try to lead thru the restructuring, or he can just get steamrollered, but he can't stop it

WHERE'S HIS BILL?
 
Back
Top Bottom