Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Ah yes, the conservative argument. When we had a surplus, we had to cut taxes because the gov't had too much money. Now that we're in the midst of a crap economy - partly do to those tax cuts - we can't raise taxes because the economy is bad. So, when is it ok to raise taxes?

Click to expand...

You won't find any instance of me claiming that I was in favor of or supportive of the "Bush tax cuts", first of all. Secondly, I did not say we shouldn't raise taxes ever, at all, for any reason. I clearly said that it is bad to raise them in a recession. I did not say it was always bad to raise them. I also clearly said we should remove loopholes and simplify the system.

But sure, by all means, look at my party identification and make huge leaps for the sake of...what, exactly? What did that hacky little post accomplish for you? Especially when you just made it obvious that you neither read nor understood my post, but instead chose to utilize a stereotypical party attack innacurately and without cause.

tessaesque said:

You won't find any instant of me claiming that I was in favor of or supportive of the "Bush tax cuts", first of all. Secondly, I did not say we shouldn't raise taxes ever, at all, for any reason. I clearly said that it is bad to raise them in a recession. I did not say it was always bad to raise them. I also clearly said we should remove loopholes and simplify the system.

But sure, by all means, look at my party identification and make huge leaps for the sake of...what, exactly? What did that hacky little post accomplish for you? Especially when you just made it obvious that you neither read nor understood my post, but instead chose to utilize a stereotypical party attack innacurately and without cause.

Click to expand...

Sensible comments to Sgt. are a waste of time. He is a hyperpartisan hack that vomits the democratic talking point of the day without bothering to determine what anyone else says on the subject.

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Click to expand...

You're the one who looked a fool. I merely pointed out how wrong you were. Carry on, though.

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Yes, I can honestly argue that the Democrats' position is much closer to the position of the middle. You acknowledge that a majority support both tax increases and spending cuts. That's what Democrats are offering.

Click to expand...

Yes, a majority support some kind of tax increases. However at the same time, more people support equal to no tax increases than they do plans that are unequal in favor of Taxes or only rely on taxes.

Neither the primary Republican Plan (no tax increases) NOR the Democratic Plan (unequal application with immediete taxes and backloaded cuts) have majority approval nor do either one of them reach the fat middle that would like equal parts of both. However, of the two, the Republican plan has the same, if not larger support than the Democrats does. The poll I saw had 20% of the public okay with no tax incrases where as only 11% of the public agreed with an unequal format that leans more heavily on taxes or doing only taxes.

Both the Republican plan AND the Democrat plan are far out of the mainstream. Simply because the Democrats does include taxes doesn't make it any more mainstream than the Republicans. Neither plan touches the fat 32% middle that wants it equally between the two, and the Democrats plan absolutely doesn't go into the next 30% which wants primarily spending focus.

If anything, the Republicans could make a larger claim for being towards the middle of what people want since, if we place "equal tax and cuts) in the middle....there is a far larger group (50%) above that threshold than below (11%), meaning a far larger group leaning towards the Republican side on this, not the Democrat side.

To your other point, you're right, Democrats aren't arguing for an equal amount of tax increases and spending cuts. Obama has offered 3 dollars in spending cuts to 1 dollar in tax increases. Not even close to equal.

Click to expand...

However, the tax increases go into effect immedietely, the spending cuts take place over a decades worth of time and are primarily back loaded. That is not "equal". If they were truly equal, or more in favor of cuts than taxes, then the 3 to 1 cut would be coming at hte same time as the taxes. Its not, because the Democrats solution is far more balanced to the tax side with it effecting people immedietely where as spending cuts are contingent upon mulitple congresses and presidents down the road keeping to that as Barack O'Snyder decided to do an Ablert Haynesworth type contract with the numbers and backloaded everything 10 years down the line.

Zyphlin said:

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Yes, I can honestly argue that the Democrats' position is much closer to the position of the middle. You acknowledge that a majority support both tax increases and spending cuts. That's what Democrats are offering.

Click to expand...

Yes, a majority support some kind of tax increases. However at the same time, more people support equal to no tax increases than they do plans that are unequal in favor of Taxes or only rely on taxes.

Neither the primary Republican Plan (no tax increases) NOR the Democratic Plan (unequal application with immediete taxes and backloaded cuts) have majority approval nor do either one of them reach the fat middle that would like equal parts of both. However, of the two, the Republican plan has the same, if not larger support than the Democrats does. The poll I saw had 20% of the public okay with no tax incrases where as only 11% of the public agreed with an unequal format that leans more heavily on taxes or doing only taxes.

Both the Republican plan AND the Democrat plan are far out of the mainstream. Simply because the Democrats does include taxes doesn't make it any more mainstream than the Republicans. Neither plan touches the fat 32% middle that wants it equally between the two, and the Democrats plan absolutely doesn't go into the next 30% which wants primarily spending focus.

If anything, the Republicans could make a larger claim for being towards the middle of what people want since, if we place "equal tax and cuts) in the middle....there is a far larger group (50%) above that threshold than below (11%), meaning a far larger group leaning towards the Republican side on this, not the Democrat side.



However, the tax increases go into effect immedietely, the spending cuts take place over a decades worth of time and are primarily back loaded. That is not "equal". If they were truly equal, or more in favor of cuts than taxes, then the 3 to 1 cut would be coming at hte same time as the taxes. Its not, because the Democrats solution is far more balanced to the tax side with it effecting people immedietely where as spending cuts are contingent upon mulitple congresses and presidents down the road keeping to that as Barack O'Snyder decided to do an Ablert Haynesworth type contract with the numbers and backloaded everything 10 years down the line.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The Democrats' plan does touch the fat 32% because they're willing to do both, which is what the fat 32% wants. We can argue over the amounts and time frame, but those are the facts. The Republican plan does not even consider tax increases of any kind. No loophole closures. Nothing on taxes. The Democrats are willing to do both. Republicans will only agree to what they want - only spending cuts. Therefore, Democrats are closer to the views of the majority of Americans.

tessaesque said:

You're the one who looked a fool. I merely pointed out how wrong you were. Carry on, though.

Click to expand...

And I pointed out how you're just towing the conservative line - no taxes. You did say, "maybe" once the economy stabilizes, but that's hardly an argument in support of raising taxes. We've heard that argument before. Then when the economy is good, nope can't raise taxes.

Gill said:

Sensible comments to Sgt. are a waste of time. He is a hyperpartisan hack that vomits the democratic talking point of the day without bothering to determine what anyone else says on the subject.

Click to expand...

Hey, boy, who pulled your string?

Sgt Meowenstein said:

And I pointed out how you're just towing the conservative line - no taxes. You did say, "maybe" once the economy stabilizes, but that's hardly an argument in support of raising taxes. We've heard that argument before. Then when the economy is good, nope can't raise taxes.

Click to expand...

Again, you're relying on tired stereotypes to make a value judgment against something I said. That is, you're blatantly misinterpreting what I said and ignoring what doesn't fit your warped view in order to continue on with irrelevant, unproductive bias. Your attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

OpportunityCost said:

You ought to know this by now; CBS oversamples their polls with Dems.

From the poll :
unweighted weighted
Total Respondents 810
Total Republicans 214 193 (24%)
Total Democrats 272 282 (35%)
Total Independents 324 335 (41%)

Click to expand...

Here you go, some polling details. What was your problem?

Should the Debt Ceiling be Raised?
____Republicans____Democrats____Independents___Tea Party
____Now__6/2011___Now 6/2011__Now 6/2011___Now__6/2011
Yes__33% __16%____61%__35%___40%___21%___ 23%__16%

This is even more impressive isn't it?

tessaesque said:

Again, you're relying on tired stereotypes to make a value judgment against something I said. That is, you're blatantly misinterpreting what I said and ignoring what doesn't fit your warped view in order to continue on with irrelevant, unproductive bias. Your attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

Click to expand...

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Click to expand...

You're just frustrated that I don't fit into your stupid little mold, and even more upset that when you try to make me fit the mold I point out your little game. It's okay though, there's no shame in being wrong.

Sgt Meowenstein said:

And I pointed out how you're just towing the conservative line - no taxes. You did say, "maybe" once the economy stabilizes, but that's hardly an argument in support of raising taxes. We've heard that argument before. Then when the economy is good, nope can't raise taxes.

Click to expand...

And Dems are saying they will cut spending "maybe" when they feel like it.

I'm wondering how much of the debt problem can be fixed by raising tax rates. The Democrat language suggests half the problem is taxes and half is spending.

How much more revenue could have theoretically been raised in 2011? Enough to cut our deficit in half? Is there that much money sitting there for the taking that wouldn't create any economic ripples not to affect the economy and result in insignificant revenue gains?

Neomalthusian said:

I'm wondering how much of the debt problem can be fixed by raising tax rates. The Democrat language suggests half the problem is taxes and half is spending.

How much more revenue could have theoretically been raised in 2011? Enough to cut our deficit in half? Is there that much money sitting there for the taking that wouldn't create any economic ripples not to affect the economy and result in insignificant revenue gains?

Click to expand...

That's really what it comes down to. If you collect more in taxes that money is coming from somewhere. Is it money that would have been spent on consumerism? Invested in companies? Saved to generate financial stability or a "rainy day" fund of some sort? And then, how much of government spending results in a net-gain economically? Or an even wash? And how much doesn't help us economically at all? Does a tax increase to slow our federal debt accumulation have a better long term benefit than a spending cut of equal measure?

Sgt Meowenstein said:

I disagree. The Democrats' plan does touch the fat 32% because they're willing to do both, which is what the fat 32% wants.

Click to expand...

They want both equal.

If I tell you I'm going to punch you in the face now and in 10 years I'll give you $1000 as long as I don't forget, have the money, or can find you...that's equal?

Taxing people now and theoritically cutting money 10 years down the line is not addressing this problem equally with tax increaes and costs.

No loophole closures.

Click to expand...

Republicans had offered proposals to close tax loopholes, as long as in doing so we keep the effective tax rates. Democrats refused, showing that they don't care about "closing loopholes" or "streamlining the tax code", they care only about raising taxes.

No, you're right, the Republicans right now are not interested in raising taxes. They think, like this President thought 6 months ago, that we shouldn't raise taxes in this economy. Its funny though...6 months ago the President agreed with not raising taxes on the rich, and now he wants to raise taxes on the rich. And yet we're supposed to believe that he's not going to turn around 6 months down the line and decide we don't need to cut spending if he's forced to agree to cut spending now but isn't actually forced to do any ACTUAL cutting?

The Democrats are willing to do both.

Click to expand...

Yep, they are...as long as the taxes happen immedietely and the majority of the cuts take place 10 years down the road. Which falls in line with at most what...11% of those polled.

Republicans will only agree to what they want - only spending cuts.

Click to expand...

Which is in line with about 20% of the poll.

I can't remember, what number is higher...11 or 20? 11 or 20? Hmm....

Therefore, Democrats are closer to the views of the majority of Americans.

Click to expand...

50% of Americans favor a plan that is primarily spending cuts, which is closer to what the Republicans want. 11% of Americans favor a plan that is primarily tax increases, which is closer to what the Democrats want.

You show me a Democratic plan where spending cuts are happening on equal terms and progression as the tax hikes, and perhaps I'd view it differently. Give me a plan where the amount we cut in 10 years is equal to the amount we'll tax in 10 years and those taxes, like those spending cuts, goes away after 10 years and sure. Give me tax hikes that happen immedietely, continue on indefinitely, and pair it with spending cuts that primarily goes into effect 10 years down the line and try to call that equal? You may as well piss on my leg and try to tell me its raining because you'd be just about as believable.

OpportunityCost said:

Im going to ask not to react but to think. What do you think happens to tax increases on the wealthy? Keep in mind, those you deem as wealthy are generally net producers in any given economy. They produce products and services and they then charge more for those prices and services and this in turn increases the CPI. What nobody told you was that trickle down works both directions. Tax increases increase goods and service costs. Period.

Government adds to costs in all kinds of different ways and directions. Get people to realize this and they will be a lot less anxious to raise taxes. At this point if government cannot pay its bills, its time to examine where the money is going and if it isnt 100% needed, maybe its time to get rid of it.

Before you say that income tax is only part of the tax burden, I agree and I know that poor and lower income households pay a large portion of their share through sales taxes and the like, I get that. But they dont see that. If they saw it coming directly out of their pocket at the end of each year, they would notice. Believe it.

Click to expand...

Depends on how much. I really don't think tax increases have a huge effect, espeically on those who make the most. I hardly notice any change in my taxes, and I only make a little, comparatively.

OpportunityCost said:

Im going to ask not to react but to think. What do you think happens to tax increases on the wealthy? Keep in mind, those you deem as wealthy are generally net producers in any given economy. They produce products and services and they then charge more for those prices and services and this in turn increases the CPI. What nobody told you was that trickle down works both directions. Tax increases increase goods and service costs. Period.

Click to expand...

No, not period by a long shot. Some rich contribute to our net growth and more have invested in overeseas investments and moved our jobs there despite the 30 years of tax decreases we have given them. Now, if you want to give tax breaks to only those that actually create jobs or invest in our own country, then yes, target tax breaks to them, but don't give tax breaks to someone just because they are rich. Our 30 years of debt from this practice combined with spending money on optional wars there is no tax to support is killing this country. Its time to invest in our own.

Government adds to costs in all kinds of different ways and directions. Get people to realize this and they will be a lot less anxious to raise taxes. At this point if government cannot pay its bills, its time to examine where the money is going and if it isnt 100% needed, maybe its time to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I just mentioned the optional wars, mostly supported by the wealthy. If they had not been getting tax breaks for the last 30 years perhaps they would not be so quick to start them. Didn't follow that last bit, get rid of what?

Before you say that income tax is only part of the tax burden, I agree and I know that poor and lower income households pay a large portion of their share through sales taxes and the like, I get that. But they dont see that. If they saw it coming directly out of their pocket at the end of each year, they would notice. Believe it.

Click to expand...

Sales tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, gasoline tax, etc., yes they do. What do you mean, they don't see that, most of it comes right out of their paychecks?

Tell me something, how do you justify giving an average $58,000 tax break each year to many who do not invest it in this country? I would also be curious to know why, if trickle down economics is such a good plan why has it been a failure. If what you said were true, 30 years of tax breaks for the rich would have us rolling in jobs. I don't see them, do you?

Gill said:

50% of Americans are not below the poverty line, yet that is how many pay no federal income taxes.

Click to expand...

No, i in 7 are below the poverty line with many more close to the edge. So you are suggesting we push the lower working class over the edge we can continue the $58,000 tax breaks for those at the top whose incomes have been climbing greatly while everyone else suffers? Is that your plan?

Catawba said:

No, i in 7 are below the poverty line with many more close to the edge. So you are suggesting we push the lower working class over the edge we can continue the $58,000 tax breaks for those at the top whose incomes have been climbing greatly while everyone else suffers? Is that your plan?

Click to expand...

Nobody is proposing raising taxes on those at or near poverty. The only proposed tax increases being considered by the legislature are against the "rich". NOT taxing the rich at a higher rate does not push anybody over the "edge of poverty". Also, quite frankly, measuring poverty solely on the basis of claimed income is ridiculous. My boyfriend's sister is below the poverty level but she lives at home (by choice), has no bills, and blows her money on toys and trinkets. She's hardly suffering for anything, yet she's one of those "1 in 7" and I'm willing to be many of those live fairly comfortably. They may not be able to rock designer duds, but the vast majority of them are hardly suffering.

Shallow statistics serve nobody.

OpportunityCost said:

I think we differ on the proportions. Right now I think we should be cutting a great deal more than we are taxing because spending has risen so dramatically in the last decade. I do indeed hold both parties responsible.

Click to expand...

Spending HAS risen so much in the past ten years, yes.

But tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have gone way down as well - largely a result of the Republican tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

It was irresponsible to add the spending for two wars while simultaneously cutting taxes. We have NEVER in our history cut taxes while actively at war (not counting cold wars or "conflicts")

Zyphlin said:

They want both equal.

If I tell you I'm going to punch you in the face now and in 10 years I'll give you $1000 as long as I don't forget, have the money, or can find you...that's equal?

Taxing people now and theoritically cutting money 10 years down the line is not addressing this problem equally with tax increaes and costs.

Click to expand...

Equal is not the point. A majority wants both. Dems are offering both. Repubs are only offering cuts. Pretty simple really.

Republicans had offered proposals to close tax loopholes, as long as in doing so we keep the effective tax rates. Democrats refused, showing that they don't care about "closing loopholes" or "streamlining the tax code", they care only about raising taxes.

Click to expand...

I agree. Taxes should be raised on top earners. It's a no-brainer. Dems should stick with it. ANd once again, I have to point out that Dems are offering both cuts and tax increases. Repubs are only offering cuts.

No, you're right, the Republicans right now are not interested in raising taxes. They think, like this President thought 6 months ago, that we shouldn't raise taxes in this economy. Its funny though...6 months ago the President agreed with not raising taxes on the rich, and now he wants to raise taxes on the rich. And yet we're supposed to believe that he's not going to turn around 6 months down the line and decide we don't need to cut spending if he's forced to agree to cut spending now but isn't actually forced to do any ACTUAL cutting?

Click to expand...

That's quite the stretch there, saying the president agreed that raising taxes was not the right thing to do. First of all, he said that raising taxes on the middle class is a bad idea. He pushed for the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for top earners. And the only reason he agreed to TEMPORARILY extend the Bush tax cuts was to reach a deal with Repubs who were holding unemployment benefits, among other things, hostage. So, it's a bit disingenuous to say that the president is against raising taxes.

Yep, they are...as long as the taxes happen immedietely and the majority of the cuts take place 10 years down the road. Which falls in line with at most what...11% of those polled.



Which is in line with about 20% of the poll.

I can't remember, what number is higher...11 or 20? 11 or 20? Hmm....

Click to expand...

What was it, 71% favor both cuts and tax increases? Which is bigger, 20 or 71? 20 or 71? Hmmm......

tessaesque said:

Nobody is proposing raising taxes on those at or near poverty.

Click to expand...

You obviously missed the post I was responding to.

The only proposed tax increases being considered by the legislature are against the "rich".

Click to expand...

Evidently, you have not been following the discussion of the tax reform that is being considered,

Also, quite frankly, measuring poverty solely on the basis of claimed income is ridiculous. My boyfriend's sister is below the poverty level but she lives at home (by choice), has no bills, and blows her money on toys and trinkets. She's hardly suffering for anything, yet she's one of those "1 in 7" and I'm willing to be many of those live fairly comfortably. They may not be able to rock designer duds, but the vast majority of them are hardly suffering.

Click to expand...

I really have no interest in your personal anecdotes but thanks for sharing!

Shallow statistics serve nobody.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion based on your couple of personal anecdotes! :sun

Sgt Meowenstein said:

What was it, 71% favor both cuts and tax increases? Which is bigger, 20 or 71? 20 or 71? Hmmm......

Click to expand...

Your 71% is irrelevant in relation to the poll, which asked the question with Spending and Taxes DIRECTLY tied together.

IE, there's nothing in the poll that says the 30% of people that said "Primarily cuts and some tax hikes" and "equal cuts and tax hikes" would agree with raising taxes with taxes being the majority of the focus. Indeed, the closest thing to answering what they'd say to that is the fact that only 7% of people actually supported that notion.

Yes, 71% of the people agree with tax increases. 52% of which agree to it ONLY with equal or greater than focus on spending cuts. Which isn't what the Democrats are offering. So yeah, 71% is greater than 20%. Too bad what the Democrats are offering doesn't have 71% support

Zyphlin said:

Your 71% is irrelevant in relation to the poll, which asked the question with Spending and Taxes DIRECTLY tied together.

IE, there's nothing in the poll that says the 30% of people that said "Primarily cuts and some tax hikes" and "equal cuts and tax hikes" would agree with raising taxes with taxes being the majority of the focus. Indeed, the closest thing to answering what they'd say to that is the fact that only 7% of people actually supported that notion.

Yes, 71% of the people agree with tax increases. 52% of which agree to it ONLY with equal or greater than focus on spending cuts. Which isn't what the Democrats are offering. So yeah, 71% is greater than 20%. Too bad what the Democrats are offering doesn't have 71% support

Click to expand...

How can you predict what the Democrats and GOP will finally agree on? How do you know they will not provide $3 of spending for every $1 of revenue increase? As far as I have been able to determine, there is no agreed upon plan yet.