Voters dislike “government,” like what it does
Last year, U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) shared a story from one of his town hall meetings. A constituent stood to demand that Congress keep “government out of my Medicare.” Inglis reminded the constituent that government created and runs Medicare, a truth-telling affront which may help explain why Inglis was defeated by a rightwing tea-party type in the Republican primary a few months ago.
In any event, the constituent’s comment illustrates something I’ve long believed: “government” is just a word for those things voters don’t like. A strong “anti-government” sentiment doesn’t really illustrate that voters want to cut those government programs which benefit them. Alaska, which prides itself on its frontier independence, is the nation’s biggest welfare state.
Now, a new poll has shown just how contradictory voter attitudes are about the role of government and just how difficult it will be for Congress to make significant cuts to government spending. From the WaPo:
A new study by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University shows that most Americans who say they want more limited government also call Social Security and Medicare “very important.” They want Washington to be involved in schools and to help reduce poverty. Nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care.
The study suggests that come January, politicians in both parties will confront a challenging and sometimes contradictory reality about what Americans really think about their government. Although Republicans, and many Democrats, have tried to demonize Washington, they must contend with the fact that most major government programs remain enormously popular, including some that politicians have singled out for stiff criticism. . .
Even as Americans generally hold Washington in low regard, they still like much of the work it does. Support for government action on such issues as national defense, health care and fighting poverty remains high, in some cases just where it was a decade ago.Nearly six in 10 say they want their congressional representatives to fight for additional government spending in their districts to spur job creation; fewer (39 percent) want their member of Congress to cut spending, even if that means not as many local jobs. This is a turnabout from September 1994, when 53 percent said they wanted their representative to battle against spending and 42 percent were on the other side.
This oughtta be interesting.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
315 comments Add your comment
George W
October 11th, 2010
11:30 am
JKL2….26 months and counting…..tick tock.
Angry As Hell
October 11th, 2010
11:36 am
Jimmy62–Okay, so now you’ve got it in for roads? What are we supposed to do, Jimmy62, drive over potholes at 70 mph? Or are we tio continue to sit in gridlock for 1 to 2 hours every night?
As for your not having the time to find a citation, I understand completely. But when you make a categorical statement such as what you made (essentially, government casued poverty), you need to at least have some kind of authoritative study or research ready. (BTW, a quote from Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly or that strange group of people who are referred to as “Freinds of Fox” on Fox News would not qualify as sources of “authoritative study or research.”)
cgatlanta
October 11th, 2010
11:36 am
I say cut Social Security. A thousand bucks a month won’t make me or break me.
Aquagirl
October 11th, 2010
11:40 am
Looks like I hit a little too close to home, Time. At least you’re, uh, honest. Vote for skin color! And I’m the bigot?
If women had turned out in record numbers and gone 90+ % for Hillary Clinton, I’d have no problem saying “gee, maybe it’s the ovaries.” I suppose that makes me sexist.
ctucker
October 11th, 2010
11:40 am
cgatlanta@11:36, Let’s see how many fellow seniors you can get to agree with you. Meanwhile, I’m sure the govt would be pleased to get your check back
Good Grief
October 11th, 2010
11:40 am
Jimmy, remember that CT has already exposed the truth about the American voter: we all want more “socialism” than we say. Too many of the politicians and voters in this country have fallen into the “Wilder Publishing” trap, where they say that the Constitution is a product of its time, and does not reflect the same values it would if written today. Of course, as Media Matters reported, when this story broke, people were ignoring the ‘progress’ made in this country. I guess if the Constitution were written today, it would read:
Amendment 1: There shall be no religion
Amendment 2: There shall be no private ownership of guns whatsoever
Amendment 3: There shall be no Armed Forces
Amendment 4: There shall be no privacy
Amendment 5: see Amendment 4
Amendment 6: People are guilty until proven innocent
Amendment 7: As many trials as necessary until the desired outcome is achieved
Amendment 8: define ‘cruel and unusual’
Amendment 9: what does ‘enumeration’ mean, again?
Amendment 10: powers delegated to the states are hereby claimed as powers of the federal government
George W
October 11th, 2010
11:40 am
Angry as Hell….just because you dont agree with what they say doesnt mean that Fox News is to a reference that can be used. Much of what they say is MUCH more supported than anything said on this blog…including the comments barfed out by Cynthia. Isn’t Fox News the #1 news channel these days?? Hmmmm I wonder why???
JDW
October 11th, 2010
11:51 am
George W wrote,
Isn’t Fox News the #1 news channel these days?
Yeah and feeding Christians to the lions was the top rated “program” in Rome…just goes to prove the mob is always right…aren’t they?
George W
October 11th, 2010
11:53 am
JDW….your response is baseless. Once again. Go back to your coloring books and paint by numbers.
Betty
October 11th, 2010
11:55 am
Everyone wants a cut in government speding as long as the cuts do not affect them. Americans need to grow up and realize that nothing is free. You want less government spending, fine, sent a list to your congress persons and let them know what problems you can do without.
George W
October 11th, 2010
11:56 am
Betty….ok let’s start with food stamps. Then we can move on to immigration spending. Then we can go to welfare. Do I need to go much further?
JDW
October 11th, 2010
11:59 am
George W
October 11th, 2010
11:53 am
JDW….your response is baseless. Once again. Go back to your coloring books and paint by numbers.
Nice response, again a wonderful use of mis direction! Republican textbook, if you can’t refute the argument change the subject…if you can be rude while doing so all the better.
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:00 pm
You are the one that referred back to Rome….Make a relevant comment and I will stay on task as well.
Angry As Hell
October 11th, 2010
12:01 pm
George W –You are absolutely correct that Fox News is #1 in the ratings game. For some of us, all that proves is how stupid and poorly read the American public is. See, Sean Hannity has managed to sell himself to you and others as a journalist. He dropped out of college and didn’t persue a degree in journalism. Yet, you’ll hear him refer to himself as a news source and talk about his “journalistic responsibilities.” I could go on and on about a number of the other regular personalities on Fox News. Did you ever notice that all the women commentators on Fox News (like those “ladies” that are on Fox and Friends) have a penchant for wearing some pretty short skirts. Do you think that might account for some of the high ratings? I think so. I have never noticed it on any other of the cable or broadcast news stations that wearing a short skirt qualified a woman to be taken seriously as a journalist.
But what do I know.
cosby
October 11th, 2010
12:03 pm
Washington Post, Harvard?? Now that is two (2) polls you can trust. No, my on poll wants the Government very limits. Social Security privitized, Schools turned back to the parents, Government programs that are run wastefully dismateled. But noooo..lets take a different approach as per the Washington Post and Harvard….By the way, the Government has been in health care for years and all you have to do is watch TV at the prescription drug ads, of which the cost of the drugs to the consumer is protected by, guess who…the Government..need I say more.
JDW
October 11th, 2010
12:07 pm
George W
You are the one that referred back to Rome….Make a relevant comment and I will stay on task as well.
Rome is the perfect analogy…those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it…as Republicans prove everyday
my$in1stplace
October 11th, 2010
12:08 pm
Arguing that social security is like welfare is like saying getting money out of your savings is welfare. It is youi money, kind of. That is far different than participating in a program, like WIC, Medicaid and on and on and on, that you NEVER put into. Of course people who get help from gumment programs want the money to continue to flow, but does that make it right?
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:08 pm
Angry as Hell….I do not agree with some of what folks like Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh. However much of what they say is accurate (in my view). There is a reason why the Republican networks thrive on both radio and tv and there is a lack of support for Dem networks like CNN or TalkAmerica.
God bless Hannity if he has a lack of education in the field that he is an expert in. That shows the tenacity of the American worker and the opportunity to succeed in this country.
As far as the skirt comment goes….I cannot say if I agree or disagree with your comment. I have honestly never noticed it. It may be for ratings. I have never been negative about a pretty woman wearing a short skirt.
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:09 pm
JDW….you said it perfectly!! Analogy…..
Jimmy62
October 11th, 2010
12:13 pm
Angry as hell: You further demonstrate my point in your lack of understanding of what I wrote. The point I was making is that wanting lesser/smaller government does not mean I want no government, and that I fully realize certain things like road building are a good use for a government, while other things like picking winners and losers in industries (which is what happens when the government, as an example, bails out some banks, but not others, and leaves the banks that didn’t need bailouts and didn’t receive them at a competitive disadvantage, it’s hard to overcome your competitors being given free money) are a really bad use of government that creates bad economic conditions.
mikefrga
October 11th, 2010
12:14 pm
George W @11:56
start with immigration and food stamps, welfare will fall. The sad thing is a loss of even a fairly low paid construction job to illegal immigration helped cause the continued slide in the American workers lifestyle. Add to that the continual increase of H1B visa holders allowed to work here, along with American companies offshoring maufacturing, IT, etc..and we have a nice recipe brewing to become a third world country ourselves.
JDW
October 11th, 2010
12:15 pm
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:09 pm
JDW….you said it perfectly!! Analogy…..
Glad you agree, though I am pretty sure you don’t you still don’t get it
Now to the original question…how long before we hold Republican’s responsible for the 30 year track record of poor performance?
cgatlanta
October 11th, 2010
12:15 pm
CT, I walk the walk as well.
Years back I was let go from a job. My mother said, “you should apply for unemployment”. I said, “I don’t take handouts”.
I left South Florida shortly after for a job I found in Wyoming.
Believe it or not, there are people out there that can fend for themselves.
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:15 pm
mikefrga…..agree 100%
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:16 pm
JDW…lack of performance where??? Reagan was a lack of performance??? That is interesting. Please tell me how Carter made the economy better at that time?
Boogie Woogie Booger Boy
October 11th, 2010
12:17 pm
Based on Fridays dismal yet expected unemployment number results, I hereby Officially declare Obamania over.
George W
October 11th, 2010
12:18 pm
Boogie Woogie….I hope you are right.
Angry As Hell
October 11th, 2010
12:26 pm
George W—–You bet George W, and pigs can fly…
Christina Jeffrey
October 11th, 2010
12:28 pm
Hmmmm…..was this also the Townhall meeting in Mauldin where Bob got in an argument with a lady who was concerned about something on page 473 (Maybe it was p. 417 – I am recalling the page number from memory.)
She had a copy of the page in her hand; before her question, he had told the crowd that he had not read the bill but was going to. What arrogance! That’s why he lost!
willie lynch
October 11th, 2010
12:28 pm
Imagine what would have happened to the SS monies had the republicans been able to privatize SS. Imagine these same slick talking derivitive salesmen pitching all those seniors on the “can’t loose” housing market. It’s bad enough people had to watch their 401k’s dwindle to almost nothing, to have lost the SS safety net would have placed more people on the poverty rolls.
I just don’t see the benefits of privatization of this particular program. Sure you can put the money in the bank while they pay you 1.5% on your savings and loan it to you at 6% or higher. Sure you could create a bigger market for the financial sharks who have already reaped billions in fees for services you could provide yourself. And yeah you can get educated and invest your own money but digesting that information and developing the sophistication takes time which most senoirs don’t have.
So realistically, it’s nice to pay lip service to this hodgepodge of information but it’s really a waste of time. I do my own investing with the extra that I have I can’t imagine how it would be to be 70 years old trying to figure out if this 25 year old kid will get me the best ROI, and most of us here can’t either. The government for all it’s faults provides my grandparents with security and peace of mind and I hope to have that same benefit when I get old.
The real clamouring should be keep your hands off my SS which has been funded for years to come if left alone.
Christina Jeffrey
October 11th, 2010
12:32 pm
P.S. Bob Inglis was defeated because he insulted his constituents, not because they were stupid.
willie lynch
October 11th, 2010
12:35 pm
Jimmy62,
“which is what happens when the government, as an example, bails out some banks, but not others, and leaves the banks that didn’t need bailouts and didn’t receive them at a competitive disadvantage, it’s hard to overcome your competitors being given free money”
When your competitors have an advantage? Sounds like you are in favor of affirmitve action.
John
October 11th, 2010
12:35 pm
For those arguing for Fox News, even Ruport Murdock, who owns Fox News, does not agree with all of what Fox News stands for.
JDW
October 11th, 2010
12:41 pm
George W, Cynthia feels the need to moderate my response to your question on Reagan. I am sure she will post it shortly
HDB
October 11th, 2010
12:43 pm
Nice Guy
October 11th, 2010
9:11 am
“Do you honestly think African Americans “enormously” voted on the basis of skin color only,”
Yes, I would say there is at least a sliver of truth to that. I mean, Obama’s approval rating is, what, 40% or so.
Beg to differ; the preponderance of people of color that I know were SICK AND TIRED of Republican policies that hurt them economically!!
Bubba Bob October 11th, 2010
9:26 am
“ctucker,
90% of black voters voted for Gore. Obviously not because of race.
If 90% of whites had voted for McCain would that have been because of race?”
Lest you forget, prior to 2008, 100% of white people voted for a white candidate…..and 100% of the American populace voted for a white candidate; is that because of race???
Betsy
October 11th, 2010
12:47 pm
There’s no way to lump all “Voters” together in one mindset. Do I, a voter and a hard-working, self-supporting, tax-paying citizen, like what the government does? Do I like that they are giving money hand over fist to people who are not even legal citizens of this country? Do I like that they concocted a “health care” plan that benefits few and hurts many? Do I like that our president remains as partisan as can be, and downplays America’s significance in the world, in fact is downright ashamed of America? Do I like that Congress has lost the meaning of “representation” for its only sake? Do I like that my taxes will continue to go up while half the country’s citizens pay nothing?
Think again, Ms Tucker, before you spout off what YOU think voters want.
JKL2
October 11th, 2010
12:53 pm
angry- Fox News (like those “ladies” that are on Fox and Friends) have a penchant for wearing some pretty short skirts
Nobody wants to see Hillary or Rachal Maddow’s legs. Former Ms. America Gretchen Carlson et al, on the other hand, still has something to show off. I thought you libs were able to compartmentalize work and sex? Sorry if you require a newscaster to look like Beulah the East German weight lifter to report your news.
Barbara Walters seemed to have done pretty well for someone who admitted using sex to advance her career (not thta Fox’s women have done that).
Angry As Hell
October 11th, 2010
1:00 pm
JKL2—I’m glad you’re admitting that the “ladies” on Fox News with the short skirts are vapid and not to be taken as serious professionals. You know , they make desks which would permit the audience to actually listen to the brilliant commentary issued from these ladies. But, hey, ratings are what counts and every little bit helps.
Good Grief
October 11th, 2010
1:01 pm
HDB @ 12:43 –
“Lest you forget, prior to 2008, 100% of white people voted for a white candidate…..and 100% of the American populace voted for a white candidate; is that because of race???”
Actually, in 1872, Victoria Woodhull (a woman) ran for President with Frederick Douglass (a black man) as the vice-presidential candidate for the Equal Rights party. Douglass was not informed until later that he had been nominated, and never actively campaigned, but I imagine someone somewhere had to have cast a vote for them.
travelingman141
October 11th, 2010
1:02 pm
@ Angry- “I’ve been paying into them for over 40 years, so they’re mine.” Guess what, when I do retire I will not get a penny of it because the scam called Social Security has been mismanaged since day one and I’ve been paying for it just like you have. Therefore, it will be up to me, to take care of myself and family.
Angry bow down and kiss the ring!
JKL2
October 11th, 2010
1:03 pm
willie- I do my own investing
So you wouldn’t be against taking 4% of those SS dollars to put in the market if it would double your income at retirement? Oh, the shame of those Republicans for wanting something better for you.
atlmom
October 11th, 2010
1:08 pm
Actually, wrt social security – it IS NOT your money. What you pay in goes to seniors CURRENTLY.
The point of the program was to help those who are too old to work not be living on the streets. So what you pay in has nothing to do with what you get out. What you get out comes from people who are working TODAY.
So, yes, it’s considered welfare. But the point is what type of society do you want to live in? One that kicks the elderly who *can’t work* out on the street, or one that has a little compassion?
Barbara
October 11th, 2010
1:09 pm
People want there to be limits on government. The statement that “a government capable of giving you everything you want is capable of taking all you have” resonates with the public. Many people don’t trust the power of the state and are deeply uncomfortable with the uncontrolled expansion of federal power, reach and and spending under Obama and the progressives. When we hear the Obmacrats deride the limts of the constitution, we are deeply worried.
This is not the same thing as wanting to eliminate mediacare or stop paying for police. Only a fool or a partisan would suggest otherwise. Many Americans just dislike the disdain that Obama and his party have for our concerns and perspective. He seems so arrogant and out of touch. Can we trust him?
Angry As Hell
October 11th, 2010
1:10 pm
travelingman141—-I’m not relying exclusively on Social Security to pay for my retirement. I’ve been busy taking care of that, as well. But I’ll be damned if I’ll say I want to see the system abolished because a few people on the far right don’t like it or try to make the case that it’s illegal. Go tell everyone whose paid into it that
in your opinion it ought to be stopped. See what recation you get. You’ll be lucky to leave with your head on your shoulders.
I don’t kiss anyone’s ring. Least of all a bunch of Tea party and right wing nut jobs.
JKL2
October 11th, 2010
1:13 pm
angry- vapid and not to be taken as serious
I think that is more a description of yourself. Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford and studied abroad at Oxford (even though I doubt she never protested the US or smoked dope while she was there).
I’m glad to hear obama nominated you Clothing Czar to protect us. Since they usually pick their own wardrobes, I doubt they have any problems with what they wear on screen. Now go back to your book burning.
A Voice
October 11th, 2010
1:15 pm
Why is Cynthia always anti-Medicare? Yet she never attacks Medicaid! Same ol’song from CT!
willie lynch
October 11th, 2010
1:16 pm
JKL2,
I have no problem investing money. The maket is up and so am I. My experience in investing has come from spending a good deal of time watching performance and studying investment information. I don’t think any of this is beyond the scope of seniors but many will pay the fees associated with someone else handling their investment interests. Like it or not this money that they have paid into SS and are looking for a return on should not be gambled with. When you are at a point in your life where you can no longer do the things a younger person can and frankly you have worked for the right to retire and collect this money, you should be able to do so without the possibility of it going up in some hairbrained scheme.
If a person wants to cash their SS check and put some into an investment vehicle then more power to them. But to put that money into the hands of 2nd parties to dispense to the receivers is a bad idea. Call it what you want but in my opinion SS should be handled the way it’s been to this point.
marley
October 11th, 2010
1:17 pm
100% of inbred racists vote Republican!
Jack
October 11th, 2010
1:22 pm
I’ve said it before: Social Security wouldn’t be in trouble if the EIC was eliminated.
JKL2
October 11th, 2010
1:24 pm
willie-cash their SS check and put some into an investment vehicle
You want people to start investing after they retire? The whole purpose of investing is to let the interest work for you. SS is not an investment as it makes virtually nothing sitting in the treasury. That’s how 4% can more than double your 96% from the general fund.
It really seems like you agree but have been hit over the head with the Demwit boogie-man stick too many times.