E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe entire debt debate has raised this question: What do you do to reduce the nation's deficit?
Republicans want to strictly cut government spending, while preserving all tax cuts and tax breaks. President Obama, by contrast, favors a balanced approach -- some spending cuts, plus revenue increases and tax hikes.
But what about the American public? Back in February, at the very outset of this deficit/debt debate, our NBC/WSJ poll measured 26 different ways to reduce the deficit or to cut spending. The list runs from most acceptable to least acceptable.
-- Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over $1 million a year: 81% acceptable
-- Eliminating spending on so-called earmarks for special projects and specific areas of the country: 78% acceptable
-- Eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary: 76% acceptable
-- Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% acceptable
-- Phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more per year: 68% acceptable
-- Freezing annual domestic spending at its current level for the next five years: 67% acceptable
-- Reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits for wealthier retirees: 62% acceptable
-- Gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075: 56% acceptable
-- Cutting funding for the new health-care law so that parts of it will not be put into effect or enforced: 51% acceptable
-- Reducing agriculture subsidies or support to farmers and ranchers: 45% acceptable
-- Eliminating funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services: 45% acceptable
-- Gradually turning Medicare from a system in which the government pays for most beneficiaries' medical bills into a program in which seniors would receive government-assisted vouchers to purchase private insurance: 44% acceptable
Among the budget cuts:
Subsidies to build new nuclear power plants: 57% acceptable
Federal assistance to state governments: 52% acceptable
The Environmental Protection Agency: 51%
Transportation and infrastructure projects: 51%
Scientific and medical research: 48%
National defense: 46%
Unemployment insurance: 43%
Head Start: 41%
College student loans: 39%
Heating assistance to low-income families: 34%
Medicaid: 32%
Medicare: 23%
K-12 education: 22%
Social Security: 22%
Leave a Comment:
The reality is I think the President has been an honest broker, I am not throwing granny and SS under the bus so that Thurston Howell can continue to enjoy a few perks. I don't see how capping expensive subsidies is the equivalent of gutting America's social contract. I say that the GOP and rightwingers can go to hell. If revenue enhancements are not on the table then NO DEAL with the rightwinged beast. I, just as Ronald McConnell, Boner and Canker know which party will be held responsible.
The two Santa Claus theory is working at full force. From Wikipedia:
The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.[6][7]
The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.
This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).
The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, theLaffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to theDemocrats' spending Santa Claus.
Complete BS - anyone that thinks this is about the debt should only be allowed to post comments about BBQ's.
This is about next years election.... PERIOD.
Is this another one of those bills where we need to pass the bill before we know what they are going to cut?
Social Security should not be in this mix. The Federal government needs to figure how they are going to pay back their IOU's to the Social Security Trust Fund. This is not Obama or Bush but those SOB's that have been around for 50 years allowing this fund to be raided so they can keep spending more of OUR money.
Even though I believe that Social Security needs to be preserved, I can not agree that its affect on the economy must be ignored. Social Security is running at a deficit that can be closed by increased revenues--that is we raise the limit on income that is taxed for FICA.
As to the "IOU's", we need to keep the full faith and credit of the US going as the "loans" to the general fund are safe so long as our currency is solid. I am not worried about the loans, but we do need to keep the system a "pay as you go" system and thus all of us will be contributing.
As to your question about whether it is a bill we know or one where we need to wait to see what it contains, that is always a question for any bill as a bill is passed and then we get to see the interpretations applied to its application. What I hope for is a bill that merely raises the debt limit and then everyone get to working on setting a budget that can be in place to continue government and its programs.
Mark Murray:
"Republicans want to strictly cut government spending, while preserving all tax cuts and tax breaks. President Obama, by contrast, favors a balanced approach -- some spending cuts, plus revenue increases and tax hikes."
Congrats, Mark, you just put yourself in the running for the next White House press secretary! Or maybe getting a show on MSNBC; same thing, really.
Great job with the biased terms....Republicans "strictly cut" and "preserve" all tax cuts and "tax breaks".
That isnt true; the GOP wants tax reform to simplify the absurd tax code, with special interest tax breaks allowing Obama's buddy at GE to pay no income tax...
What exactly, then, does "tax breaks" refer to? The absurd talk of corporate jets, which the Dems themselves put in the stimulus?
Doesnt sound good, does it?
Meanwhile, your hero Obama is "balanced"... Sounds nice, doesnt it!
Fact is Obama has been rather unbalanced, hasn't he, in spending recklessly....and oops...Obama hasn't ever specifically said what he would cut! So how is he 'balanced', if we dont know what he is proposing, yet.
MSNBC is rather unbalanced.
please don't try to patronize us with the whole obama's friends at GE bit more likely they are friends of republicans who are trying their best to make sure they never pay taxes...they want to reform the tax in such a way that poor people pay more and the rich pay less or the same get the fuk outta here!
Andra - Jefferey Immelt is one of Obama's advisers and that is accepted fact. GE paid no taxes last year. That is accepted fact. What you posted is pure speculation, as in you have no proof. These lotus eating libs call anybody that disagrees with them something like dumb or stupid. Yet these people are dumb enough to think we will buy their biased suppositions
That's all very interesting. Lots of categories there.
So, where's the line that talks about cuts to federal employees pension and health benefits including those for the Legislative branch??????
It seems everyone NOT a federal employee of some kind is being asked to sacrifice yet THEY don't have to move an inch on ANYTHING. Who are the freeloaders again?
BTW, raise taxes by ten percent across the board except service personel in combat areas. I'll be more than happy to pay my share even though my wife and I make under 25k a year.
Nice try if you and your wife combined make less than 25k a year you couldn't afford to pay more(unless you have fat retirement) people that really have low incomes know this thats how I know you're lying and just doing covert trolling...other wise you guys may make a little less than 25k a piece bringing your income closer to 50k if thats the case you probably could pay a bit more...but somehow i think somethings fishy here
Here's a great idea---solve the whole problem by getting the hell out of all the countries we've invaded around the world! Save a bundle and then they'd have no grounds to hate us anyway! How about going back to the outmoded idea of defending our own borders alone and quit violating everyone elses!!!
Hell, we hate ourselves. Of course they'll still hate us. Still, screw them. Bring all the troops home.
This is a wild idea
Do you think we could tax any political advertising over a certain amount. The unfair playing field that has been created by allowing unlimited funds from big corporations needs to be reined in. Put a steep tax and/or require they provide a rebuttal to the ad. Anyone who would stand on the street and speak or hand out flier are not affected, only the big major ads that are not available to the general public like TV ads and perhaps billboards.
This is just a thought made public.
Lets just dump the two wars. One of which was illegal to begin with. I bet that would save a boat load of money!
For each Tomahawk Obomber had them fire you could feed the poor for a week.
Didn't Bush use all the Tomahawks? I watched Bagdad being blown up on TV and would be surprised if we didn't use them all.
Only one person answered this question:
"Would somebody tell me this: Why should I pay more taxes, when the government has made the wrong decisions, and miss managed the money? Why should anyone pay for bad governments decisions, whether democrats or republicans?"
I guess that is why we have the government we have!
why should my taxes go to federal highways that you drive on and that I don't...Why should I pay for police salaries when I've never required their assistance my entire life...or for that matter the fire department...I have fire insurance just let my house burn...I don't have any children why should my taxes goto help fund schools...etc. do you get it?
The gop did a lot of damage to this country with the"Decider"and,fox news,clear channel and their
anti American spokesmen limbaugh,hennedy,etc running off at the mouth.The damage they did will
take yrs to correct.If they are put back in pwr we may never recover!!Meanwhile we need to all bite
the bullet and sacrifice a little,especially the con artists awarding themselves billions in bonuses ea
yr.What does a banker,ceo,hedgefund mng etc do to deserve millions a yr?? ans= NOTHING.
Meet the fockers!
not millions in some cases but billions a year for hedgefund manager to deplete peoples retirement savings account if it weren't true it would be funny
Preferences for spending cuts vs. tax increases to reduce the deficit by political affiliation.
Spending cuts only 26%(R) 23%(I) 10%(D)
Mostly spending cuts 41%(R) 28%(I) 23%(D)
Comb. cuts and taxes 24%(R) 30%(I) 42%(D)
Mostly taxes 2%(R) 7%(I) 12%(D)
Only taxes 1%(R) 4%(I) 8%(D)
Total Only/Mostly spending cuts 67%(R) 51%(I) 33%(D)
Total Only/Mostly taxes 3%(R) 11%(I) 20%(D)
Gallup Poll July 7-10
In the list there was no mention of aid to foreign countries - why?
The problem is not SSI because the money to pay SSI was stolen from its trust fund. If the money was put back where it belongs, SSI would be off the map.
The cuts most are interested in happening are never verbalized, as if these items are more sacred than say, paying the soldiers. These cuts include removing all the subsidies to municipal and county entities that underwrite illegals, end all feeding of kids in schools where the particular kid's parents can afford feeding the child themselves, most of what DOT, Housing, Education gives away as kind of bribes to voters, things like that.
And the kind of survey that served as a preamble to this forum (the article) was mostly false, apparently made up by the Democrats, the ones who created this 'crisis' merely as a lever to make the new house renege on its promises.
uhh the repubs did create the crisis anyone that isn't a egotistical maniac can see that...to think the dems caused it could only mean you have an ego so big that self deception is second nature
What America should really cut is the radical extremist so-called republicans that are mostly responsible for America's economic problems. They have no record of positive political accomplishments, therefore they are not legitimate.
Who is mostly responsible for the large increases of the National Debt?
Reagan increased the ND 186%, Bush Sr. 62%, Clinton 36%, and bush jr/cheney over 100% ans till counting.
Source: www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
Who is mostly responsible for the "almost" collapse of the financial markets that has cost America over 25% of it's wealth that took 222 years to create and will take 40 years to recover?
The fiscally irresponsible republicans, and their corrupt corporate cronies belief in unregulated cspitalism that let criminal greed fluorish--the subprime meltdown.
The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that was not necessary because Hussein was contained by the Northern and Souther no-fly zones and the fact there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no Al Qaeda in Irag. The buh jr./cheney tolld 983 lies to justify their war on Iraq. Just go to "I casualties" for the full picture.
The abandonment of Afghanistan and rampant corruption there which has prevented any outcome other than a forever war that has created a "Gravy Train" for the warmongering war profiteers.
Torture and war crimes by the bush cheney miserable failure administration.
These radical extremist so-called republicans have the reverse "Midas Touch," everything they touch turns to rubble.
ghostcommander - wrong, wrong, wrong. Who is responsible for the mess we are in now. It is you and those that are more than willing to sacrifice this country to further your political gains. There are a lot of democrats that could go to jail for a very long time if the truth about the financial meltdown ever came out.
Do really think the insurance companies care about the elderly.
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Adolf Hitler
"Gradually turning Medicare from a system in which the government pays for most beneficiaries' medical bills into a program in which seniors would receive government-assisted vouchers to purchase private insurance: 44% acceptable"
The voucher system would be the same as DEATH PANELS!!! I can see an elderly person who can't get around well or who is senile searching the web for insurance.
COME ON PEOPLE THINK!!!!
This is the most asinine Republican statement I have ever heard.
The elderly would be at the mercy of the Big Insurance Companies!!!!
My grandma has never even owned a computer let alone know how to use one...and the elderly are supposed to become internet gurus as well as understand complicated insurance documents that could baffle law students
Hey FOCK you take your old ass on and die then we don't give a FOCK...and if you get cancer you will get the best care available in your area(near where you live) until you hit your benefit cap and then it will be time to burn through savings, retirement, and mortgage the house, but hey who gives a fock?...you think the insurance company is gonna pay for that experimental treatment michael douglas got in new york and europe? Fock you, you Fockin idiot
There is no common sense left anywhere in America. Over 200,000 new FEDERAL jobs have been created since Obama took office, and there was already too much government control in our business. The deficit was not good during many, many presidents, including Bush, but it has far exceeded any other presidents spending during the reign of Obama.
Why punish the hardest working, largest producing individuals in society by taxing them exorbitantly?
But with that said, some common sense measures should go into effect and should be easily understood by all parties:
Yes, to closing corporate tax loopholes.
Yes, to capital gains by fund managers.
Yes, taking away the tax credit system as it presently is in place for oil and gas companies - and other industries.
BUT there no needs to be further common sense measures:
Completely eliminate the entitlement retirement programs of senior government folks: President, Congress and such and seriously rework the retirement system/programs/insurance of all federal employees - including veterans. No need for veterans hospitals and such -- all under one umbrella, one fee, one 'multiplier' with a cap on the top salary. If you retire at 60% and you are making $200,000 = you were not charged for making that via the system, it was capped at say $100,000 x the rate; now you retire so your average is $180,000/income - you exceed the cap, therefore retirement is $100k x 60% = $60,000/yr and hope you invested well or saved the rest. Common sense, please.
Medicare = budgeted only from Medicare income (Federal); allocated and paid from the taxes collected
Medicaid = tougher situation, but basically same, create a budget and stick to it
Social Security = completely redefine who can have access to it. This junk of allowing political refugees; illegal aliens who did not pay into it and/or who became a part of it for a short time following some amnesty and now getting equal or greater amounts than the life-long citizens of this country is plain and simply put - stupid.
Again, it would be tough, but have a graduated system where 1 yr = 2%, 2yrs = 4% and so on, with a 40 year cap at say 80% of a possible cap of $100k.* *This number could increase with time, or the government could simply strive to control certain basic commodities and keep inflation at or below ZERO. Then they could forget about COLA and so forth. Money is basically a confidence issue anyway. So set the basic price of super-commodities such as MILK, GAS, EGGS, ELECTRICITY, CORN, and so on. And thus have a quasi-control over inflation and/or deflation. It has been done before in this country during extreme times such as WWII.
Get a grip on the outlandish salaries of many in society. The sports and movie folks (and Wall Street) produce nothing in this country that actually adds to the material wealth, yet they receive the lion's share of the resources. I know, this steps on many tails and I can just see everyone squirming. Guess what, this is a prime example of the lack of common sense in this country. The Big O. Winfrey worth $100s of Millions; football, basketball, baseball and such receiving 5 year contracts for multiple 10s of Millions of dollars; Conan - who is not even funny - takes narcissism to a new level; and so on. I do not know how to truly cap executive pay or these sports, tv stars pay, but I do know that the value of a Spinach farmer or Coal Miner should be much greater than it is in our society - especially when weighed against what they literally and physically produce for the economy. Try eating a football game or building a house from a Jerry Springer rerun.
Well, I could go on, but I am sure I have made some happy, some mad, some sad and some cry - so here I will stop and leave this in this cyber-digital forum where it may or may not help to shape the social phyche. Good day. - Dan
What does entertainment have to do with anything people are willing to pay to watch a movie or ball game with their favorite stars...and corporations pay to have advertising during programming no one is fukin gonna pay a miner to watch him dig a ditch if he doesn't wanna mine tell him to take some acting classes or start working out to play ball if he doesn't make it who's fault is that...no one is forcing them to do anything? you sound like a communist..and conan is funny you're just to fukin old to know it idi0t....Just because you're unathletic, and untalented doesn't mean others who are, and who have worked very hard their whole lives to get where they are doesn't mean they don't deserve it...If a lawyer goes to law school he should receive fair market value for his services
Did they allow for cutting the gun subsidy to the Mexican cartels? It's a wonderfult thing to spend US tax dollars on, send em all MAC-10's. I am sure Obama will get a little extra blow in his cut.
Congress has gotten too bloated. There are 435 congressmen with an average salary of $185000 and an average salary for staff for each one of $1000000 and the majority of them are republican. If they reduced the number of congressmen to 100 democrats and 100 republicans that would be a savings of $43240000 annually just for what the congressmen are being paid. You would have an additional savings of $235000000 for what they are paying their staff for an annual savings of $278,240.000. That would be over a 1 trillion dollar cost cut in a 4 year period. Think about it. $2782400000 saved in ten years. Cost is 235 congressmen and their staff lose jobs. No cuts to medicaid or medicare which might cost thousands of jobs. No tax increases so companies can afford to put more people back to work. A balanced congress that might actually get something done and almost 3 trillion dollars saved in a ten year period.
In other words, the American public follows Democratic/Obama ideas for compromise. Heh... imagine that. The Rebulican't (cut taxes on the reach and companies) are gonna wake up (soon I hope) and discover they are no longer in power. Please America, wake up. just because someone has a boat load of money doesn't make them more of an American than you... just take a look at all those soldiers and see how many are rich and how many are looking for benefits/money/a steady job. (9 years as an Army 12B here myself so yes, I do know what I'm talkin' about).
you wish.
Reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits for wealthier retirees: 62% acceptable. What? Are you kidding? I make good money and am a small business person. I have paid about $300K into SS and because I make good money I will pay extra on Medicare when I become eligible. I could have dodged the high payment in SS by paying myself a small salary and declaring the remainder in dividends but I chose to do the right thing. I have paid my dues and you want to take my money now and not give back? I hope the people really look at what they are trying to do. You cannot take and take from the middle and upper middle class any more. I make about $175K to $300K and pay about 40% of that amount in tax already. If they take more the incentive to earn is gone and there goes the jobs!
This needs repeating because nothing ever changes in the Republican Party.
"The Republican Party has swung so far that they would label Jesus Christ as a Liberal fanatic,after all He was without a job,homeless,and fed and healed the poor,something the current Republican Party would find very offensive."
Too much government spending AND too many tax loopholes for corporations and the rich. It's that simple. What complicates getting to a resolution is that politicians of all stripes are more concerned about getting re-elected than in doing what's right for the country, so they won/t make the hard decisions needed for a lasting resolution to the problems.
Obama DESTROYER of America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!