You’re gonna cut entitlements? Suuurrrre you are
Granted: The national debt is a serious challenge to our economic prosperity and national security, and according to every budget projection, the problem will become even more serious in the years ahead.
So what are we going to do about it? Cut entitlement spending?
No, you’re not.
Not by enough to matter, anyway. If you want proof, take a look at how quickly that Texas tough guy, Rick Perry, has tried to backpedal on all that bluster about Social Security. And at this point, remember, he’s still running in the Republican primary, where such views are supposed to be popular.
On the other hand, if looking at Rick Perry is more than you can bear, you can also look at this:
Look at those numbers. If your plan for solving the debt crisis is to cut entitlements, you have no plan to solve the debt crisis.
The poll was conducted on behalf of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which is grounds for approaching it with caution. However, it was conducted jointly by two nationally respected opinion research companies, one with generally Republican clients, one with generally Democratic clients. More importantly, its findings are consistent with poll after poll taken on the subject.
As the poll also found:
“When asked to choose between tax increases on the top 2 percent of income earners or cuts to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the deficit, 94 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans prefer tax increase on the top 2 percent of income earners.”
The truth is, entitlements do have to be cut. Medicare’s current path is unsustainable. And with Social Security, a change in how benefits are adjusted for inflation would go a long way to making the program actuarially sound for the next 75 years. That’s not popular with voters — two-thirds of Americans oppose the idea, the poll found — but it probably has to be done anyway. (The poll also found that 71 percent of Americans favor raising the $106,000 cutoff on payroll taxes, compared to just 21 percent opposed).
However, such benefit changes are politically plausible only as part of a much larger package in which the burdens of debt reduction are shared broadly, through tax increases as well as spending cuts. Without such a package, forget it.
(And before you argue that we’ll just cut elsewhere, the so-called untouchables in the budget — defense spending, pensions, Medicare/health spending, Social Security, veterans programs and interest on the debt — amount to $3.1 trillion out of a total budget of $3.7 trillion. You could totally eliminate everything else the government does — environmental protection, federal courts, the FBI, border patrol, food inspections, the State Department, foreign aid, food stamps, Congress, the national parks — and still reduce the deficit by less than half.)
If you truly believe that the national debt is a serious threat, you have an obligation to quit the nonsense and get serious about politically realistic avenues for addressing it. Otherwise you’re contributing to the problem that you claim to abhor.
– Jay Bookman
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
365 comments Add your comment
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
2:28 pm
Independent – It isn’t the state’s decision, just like it isn’t your decision. They implemented a health insurance system (medicaid), and because of this, they pay for medical care for the people like your niece. Last I checked, getting pregnant, while not the best idea in the world, is a medical condition, that left untreated can be life threatening. Would you rather all these teenage mothers died instead of helping them give birth safely?
Normal
September 23rd, 2011
2:29 pm
Bosch,
It’s OK…I carry a European “man Bag” too. So…Kiss, kiss
Bosch
September 23rd, 2011
2:29 pm
irRational @ 2:24,
Admit it, you have actually thought about this and having denial issues, no?
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
2:29 pm
Working folks pay for these programs, the GOP act like its payed with “their” money only.
Cue the “But…but…but… 50% pay no taxes at all!” poutrage in 3…2…1….
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:30 pm
I just listened to a conservative radio clip and a dude HUNG UP when asked by the conservative radio host that he had to make up his mind, who is it gonna be, Perry or Romney?
theyeshaveit
September 23rd, 2011
2:30 pm
Bosch,
Elizabeth Warren impresses me as well.
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
2:30 pm
“if she does not have the financial means to take care of the baby, it should be taken away from her”
and what, pray tell, is the difference between “us” (the taxpayers) helping a mother to support her child when her funds are not adequate, and “us” (the taxpayers) supporting that same child in another (foster care) home? Either way, we pay.
Bosch
September 23rd, 2011
2:31 pm
Kamchak,
I don’t think so — I think more people like just the honest to God truth and she is smart and can counter the stoopid with quickness and I think alot of people will be able to relate to what she has to say.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:31 pm
Kamchak: And they always ignore this article I keep posting regarding the 50% false number:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
2:32 pm
…who is it gonna be, Perry or Romney?
Perry — in a landslide.
Bosch
September 23rd, 2011
2:32 pm
“if she does not have the financial means to take care of the baby, it should be taken away from her”
Oh, my freaking GOD! I did not just read that! My eyes!! MY eyes!!!
SERIOUSLY? TAKE THE BABY AWAY IF SHE CAN’T AFFORD IT? GOOD GOD!!!
Normal
September 23rd, 2011
2:32 pm
Bosch,
Is Elizabeth replacing Olympia in your heart?
Aquagirl
September 23rd, 2011
2:33 pm
Would you rather all these teenage mothers died instead of helping them give birth safely?
For god’s sake, don’t ask this at a Republican debate.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
2:33 pm
(the real) Independent
What you’re saying is all fine and good, but your words fall on deaf ears within the borders of the US. People argued over cutting funding to PP because of abortion, when 97% of their services were geared in areas that would help educate people and try to limit pregnacy before conception. There’s a significant voter block that does not want sex ed taught in school. If you don’t teach it at home and don’t want it taught at school, you can not expect kids to learn it from the streets. If we want any significant positive change in pregnacy rates and such, we’ve got to confront our own prudish beliefs in sex ed first.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:33 pm
Kamchak: Well, this guys tarted by saying he hopes Christie gets in. And another guy called and said “between Perry and Romney I’m gonna vote for Ron Paul.”
No one can make up their minds.
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
2:33 pm
Bosch – I’m not in denial. I’m secure in my manhood. But yeah, I am becoming more liberal socially. Honestly, I’m more in the “get the government out of my life group.” But not quite there enough to truly celebrate the 5th of November.
DebbieDoRight
September 23rd, 2011
2:34 pm
and if she does not have the financial means to take care of the baby, it should be taken away from her.
Then you’ll have another problem – lots of kids in orphanages. That’s not a solution.
Petie
September 23rd, 2011
2:34 pm
The real truth is that anyone who says Social Security must be cut is only looking to bow out of the government’s obligation to pay back OUR money borrowed from the Trust Fund. OUR money did not contribute one damn dime to the deficit. As for Medicare, we pay into it all our working lives and it has done a better job of controlling costs than any of the high-profit insurers ever will. Cutting Medicare will not fix the out of control spending on healthcare but it will cripple older Americans on fixed incomes. Medicaid is a middle class program – it saves children, the disabled and elderly from being tossed out on the street or dying from lack of access to care. It’s time for this writer and others to stop blaming the programs that actually help to keep our country strong.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 23rd, 2011
2:34 pm
If you truly believe that the national debt is a serious threat, you have an obligation to quit the nonsense and get serious about politically realistic avenues for addressing it. Otherwise you’re contributing to the problem that you claim to abhor.
But what if claiming to abhor the deficit is a useful way for your party to bully your opponents and muscle through a radical agenda with short-term benefits for a narrow band of lucky cronies, come what may in the long term?
getalife
September 23rd, 2011
2:34 pm
Scaring our Seniors for the billionaires is ridiculous
What is wrong with you cons?
Way out of touch with reality.
Wake up cons.
Butch Cassidy
September 23rd, 2011
2:35 pm
So the Democrats who will vote for Obama anyway are totally against the cuts. The independents who need to be convinced that the GOP really is for the people are totally against it. and a large majority of the GOP are against it. This leaves only raising revenues. Sooooo……where does the GOP spin now?
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
2:36 pm
“So the Democrats who will vote for Obama anyway are totally against the cuts”
Another con with a fuzzy crystal ball. How about some quotes to back that up?
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:36 pm
(ir)Rational: But not quite there enough to truly celebrate the 5th of November.
Love the reference. Glad to know you recognize that this continued “get government out” cry is leading straight to making anarchists
(the real) Independent
September 23rd, 2011
2:36 pm
For (hundred’s of )thousands of years, women have been giving birth without the benefit of a hospital. How about this, set up clinics next door to hospitals where these women can give birth on their own, if an emergency arises, she can be wheeled next door. No pain meds, though.
Also, how about reducing the benefits that accrue to women who have babies. I thought that went out with Clintons “end welfare as we know it”, but then I got a look at the EITC.
Bosch
September 23rd, 2011
2:37 pm
Normal,
Yes, especially after Olympia’s press release yesterday….it just didn’t do me well.
theyeshaveit
September 23rd, 2011
2:38 pm
By the way…
Out of 45 so called industrialized nations, guess which is the only one without a national health insurance plan?
Hmmm.
mm
September 23rd, 2011
2:39 pm
“Empty suit Obama doesn’t have the guts to do what’s right.”
Obama has veered to the right on almost every contentious bill. I believe Boner said he got 98% of what he wanted on the debt ceiling debate. Yet the righties still claim Obama is a socialist. It’s time for some psychiatirc evaluations for the righties.
Well, it looks like Boner has to let go of the “pay for” BS and do the right thing for FEMA.
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
2:39 pm
“For (hundred’s of )thousands of years, women have been giving birth without the benefit of a hospital”
And for millions of years women have been dying in childbirth. Well, that would be ONE way to reduce the “surplus” population, wouldn’t it?
Paul
September 23rd, 2011
2:39 pm
So that’s why, whenever I asked some of the bloggers how they’d balance the budget without addressing taxes they wouldn’t answer. They were suffering from SBCS (Sound Bite Conflict Syndrome).
Poll does seem to suggest this is a case of ‘let the wealthy pay” (raising the SS cutofff). But even that does not appear to be necessary (given the information on recalculation the inflation index) unless people just want to provide more revenue for the gov’t to ‘borrow’ for general fund purposes.
This appears to be a case of ‘everyone give a little, we all win.’ Seniors get a recalc on the inflation adjustment. Nonretirees see the age upped a bit. Really, really, really rich people (not those making $110k a year) pay a few points more. Do the bargain all at the same time.
And hope the diehards on the Left and the Right on the Debt Commission get some quick therapy to deal with their SBCS.
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
2:41 pm
The Dems had total control for 2 years but they didn’t touch entitlements.
I don’t blame them because it is just misplaced anger to blame the Democrats or the Republicans when it is the American people. We all want sacrifice as long it is someone else doing it.
NFMW – “Not From My Wallet”
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
2:41 pm
Aquagirl – I try to avoid debates. I know that, with few exceptions, they’re not going to say anything they actually believe. Just what they think that audience wants to hear.
Bro – No no, PP only wants to kill babies, not educate others about not having them (see Bosch, I can still pull it out occasionally). Oh, and about the “prudish beliefs” in regard to sex ed, I bet (and I’m fairly certain the numbers actually support my conjecture on this one) the more religious and rural an area is, the higher the teenage pregnancy rate is per capita.
out of the blue
September 23rd, 2011
2:41 pm
The word “entitlements” offend me! Entitlents are freebies. I believe most people have Earned their Social Security.
Brosephus™ - Soundbite Rhetoric, I put that s**t on everything!!
September 23rd, 2011
2:42 pm
They were suffering from SBCS (Sound Bite Conflict Syndrome).
If we had single payer, we could probably get it under control much faster.
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
2:42 pm
Bosch — Ms. Clinton is the smartest woman in politics, yet she makes the opposition uncomfortable with her intelligence. Same with Ms. Warren. I agree, Ms. Warren would make a fine POTUS, I just don’t see it happening. The first woman POTUS will be someone like Kay Baily Hutchison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam — I can accept the Half truth of the poutrage, IF THEY WOULD JUST SAY “INCOME TAXES”.
But they continue to repeat the “50% pay no taxes at all” soundbite they have been programmed to say.
Oh, and CBPP? That bunch of liberals?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
September 23rd, 2011
2:43 pm
You fail to mention Social Security has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus and will be able to pay 100% of benefits for the next 26 years…
Well, Bookman needs to do a better job of picking these newcomers to this blog.
Sure, there’s a big SS surplus on paper. But we borrowed and spent it all. And the fact is, we don’t want to pay it back because that would cost alot of money we don’t have. So what we need to do is, find some way where we don’t spend so much money paying for SS checks so we don’t have to pay what we borrowed back. Same thing goes for Medicare.
Sheesh! I’m sick of explaining all this to newcomers. We all know this stuff, but people new to this blog need to be edumacated all over again.
Peadawg
September 23rd, 2011
2:43 pm
So basically people who are using Medicare, SS, and other entitlements don’t want them cut and want the rich to pay for them. Yup…we’re screwed.
When, and ONLY when, we cut entitlements, raise taxes, and cut military spending will we start to bring down our debt. Some people are just too dumb to realize that.
mm
September 23rd, 2011
2:43 pm
Lift the cap on payroll taxes and SS is good forever.
We spend 3 times more on miliary spending than the #2 country (China). Cut military spending and Medicare is no longer a problem either.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:43 pm
The Dems had total control for 2 years
Republicans: Never let a good lie die!
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
2:44 pm
“The word “entitlements” offend me!”
It’s meant to. It’s meant to cloud the fact that we PAY for SS & Medicare. It’s something like businesses that sue to get out of their obligations to retirees. They cloud the issue by claiming it’s their money when it isn’t. It is the RETIREES money – part of their deferred wages, but the courts seem to fall for the false argument everytime.
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
2:44 pm
Adam – On a completely academic level, I can’t help but love and admire what he tried to do (recognizing that he went about it in the completely wrong way, and that had he succeeded, he would have managed to only create a younger version of the same problem). On a realistic level, I understand that that is the only logical conclusion to where people are pushing, and I can’t support that.
DebbieDoRight
September 23rd, 2011
2:44 pm
If we want any significant positive change in pregnacy rates and such, we’ve got to confront our own prudish beliefs in sex ed first.
I read somehwere, can’t remember where, that sex ed is taught in classes in Europe, (wich results in a lower teen pregnancy rate than America), as well as Europeans have a more open view of sex than Americans, in regards to your prudish statement. It seems that all of our “prudishness” is only holding back our children’s progress and leaving a hole in our economy; because the old adage “pay me now or pay me later” comes to mind when you talk about teenaged pregnancies and the children born of said pregnancies. Either way, like Doggone said, the tab is going to be picked up by someone — if the kid is from a poor household, that someone is the public.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:44 pm
Kamchak: Oh, and CBPP? That bunch of liberals?
I don’t even get THAT much from them when I post it.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 23rd, 2011
2:45 pm
Steve – USA : “We all want sacrifice as long it is someone else doing it.”
Wrong. The only people who want sacrifice generally speaking are the wealthy ruling elite, who want greater and greater sacrifice from everyone else and none for themselves. They and their ghoulish political allies — mostly but not exclusively in the Republican party — are busy privatizing profit and socializing risk by shifting it onto the backs of the working classes.
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
2:45 pm
Independent – Would that be because they couldn’t afford hospitals and doctors or because they didn’t have access to them?
JohnnyReb
September 23rd, 2011
2:46 pm
No time to read 3 pages of posts, so this may be a duplicate.
The poll question(s) are just like Mediscare. The question was too broad. The proper question is – do you favor keeping SS and Medicare as-is for people 50 and older, but revising benefits to address the deficit for those younger?
Joe Mama
September 23rd, 2011
2:46 pm
R. Danneskjold — “You could raise entitlements if you would abolish all of the Federal regulators. The roaring economy could support increases.”
Here’s what happens when you don’t have Federal regulations or they aren’t enforced aggressively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia_sugar_refinery_explosion
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
2:47 pm
Kamchak: Well, this guys tarted by saying he hopes Christie gets in. And another guy called and said “between Perry and Romney I’m gonna vote for Ron Paul.”
Neither Christie’s nor Ron Paul’s name is gonna be on the primary ballot.
Butch Cassidy
September 23rd, 2011
2:47 pm
Doggone/GA – “Another con with a fuzzy crystal ball. How about some quotes to back that up?”
Except that I’m not a con. The charts above clearly show that everyone who votes, whether DEM, IND or GOP are overwhelmingly against the cut side, and Jay has pointed out that they are definitely in favor of the revenue side. My question isn’t partisan or irrelevant. Since the GOP continues to claim that they speak for Americans, I was merely wondering which tac they will take now.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:48 pm
Kamchak: Neither Christie’s nor Ron Paul’s name is gonna be on the primary ballot
Exactly. But primary voters are CONFUSED.
Richard
September 23rd, 2011
2:48 pm
Actually, I agree here. Repubs should trade defense spending for entitlement reform. It’s a nice compromise and the real winners there are the taxpayers. However,
“When asked to choose between tax increases on the top 2 percent of income earners or cuts to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the deficit, 94 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans prefer tax increase on the top 2 percent of income earners.”
This statement is totally flawed. Of course people would rather tax the rich, a tax that wouldn’t touch 98% of Americans, than cut programs that they use. The problem with the statement is that it is presented as a choice between something that will marginally help the deficit (unless Obama blows it all on more stimulus) and something that must be done to keep from burying ourselves in debt. It may be that both things will need to happen. Time will tell.
(the real) Independent
September 23rd, 2011
2:49 pm
Sure, there’s a big SS surplus on paper. But we borrowed and spent it all.
We also borrowed all this money from Americans (savings bonds and Treasury Bonds) and all that money from overseas investors (and spent it all). Do we want to default on that debt, too, like you are talking about defaulting on the money owed to Social Security?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
2:49 pm
(ir)Rational
If numbers proved your theory on rural areas as true, it would not surprise me one bit. I know what the weekend entertainment was when I was growing up, and there wasn’t much to do other than park your car on a deserted street/empty park. There’s still not much to do entertainment wise at home, so I seriously doubt things have dramatically changed.
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
2:49 pm
Trotsky – Why do you continue to act like there is no wealthy Democrats, No Corporations owned by Democrats and that Democrats don’t take corporate donations.
I know you are smarter than that, so why do you say it?
jm
September 23rd, 2011
2:50 pm
Americans also oppose tax increases, in poll after poll. So there. I guess we do nothing Jay and just watch it all blow up.
DebbieDoRight
September 23rd, 2011
2:50 pm
So basically people who are using Medicare, SS, and other entitlements don’t want them cut and want the rich to pay for them.
WTF?!
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
2:51 pm
I guess we do nothing Jay and just watch it all blow up
Isn’t that was many of your fellow conservatives were cheering for in mid 2010? I distinctly remember many a conservative cheering for obstruction and gridlock in DC. You get what you ask for, even when you really don’t want it.
Paul
September 23rd, 2011
2:52 pm
Can someone please tell me what I’m missing?
We have a budget deficit for 2011 of $1.3 trillion.
SS has enough to pay at current levels for a while now.
SS is funded thru a separate revenue stream than the rest of the federal budget.
Why does SS have to be cut to balance next year’s budget?
Joe Mama
September 23rd, 2011
2:53 pm
Aquagirl — “For god’s sake, don’t ask this at a Republican debate.”
Wrong. ASK IT.
I want to know what they say.
(the real) Independent
September 23rd, 2011
2:54 pm
“and what, pray tell, is the difference between “us” (the taxpayers) helping a mother to support her child when her funds are not adequate, and “us” (the taxpayers) supporting that same child in another (foster care) home? Either way, we pay.”
If we take the children away from these moms, then other women may be dissuaded from getting pregnant.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
2:54 pm
jm: Americans also oppose tax increases, in poll after poll
Pants on Fire! Seriously, why do you do this to yourself?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
2:56 pm
Why does SS have to be cut to balance next year’s budget?
Because the GOP had a mandate from the Tea Party to do it!!! Besides, do you really expect the GOP to say that defense needs to be cut, when that’s where most of taxpayer’s money really goes. SS has it’s own separate income stream, unlike defense spending.
Ronnie Raygun
September 23rd, 2011
2:57 pm
Why cut SS and medicare? Americans actually PAY into these systems. If you want to start cutting real entitlements, let’s start with the gold plated military retirement entitlements which is entirely paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Where else can you draw retirement pay from age 37 until death? What a scam on taxpayers.
out of the blue
September 23rd, 2011
2:57 pm
That may be true, Real. On the other hand, do you think withdrawing Medicaid for that service will cause teenage kids to stop having sex and thus babies?
Jay……But, but Rick Perry says abstinence works! Big Smiley emoticon…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngiJhmoFKkw
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
2:59 pm
“If we take the children away from these moms, then other women may be dissuaded from getting pregnant”
Uh huh. And the death penalty has prevented all future murders too. I think I want whatever it is you’re taking.
Paul
September 23rd, 2011
2:59 pm
Brosephus
Sounds about right. But the fact ten minutes has gone by and no one from the Right can answer such a simple, non trick question tells me it’s more mantra than anything.
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
3:00 pm
Adam@2:54
That has to be the most absurd polls I have ever seen. Why not just ask “Do you support more taxes for people that make more than you”
That response was just sad, I actually feel sorry for you.
Please tell me that was a joke.
Adam
September 23rd, 2011
3:02 pm
Steve: He didn’t say “do you support your own taxes being raised” was the question, but said people don’t support raising taxes, poll after poll. This is not true. But hey, move the goal posts if you want.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 23rd, 2011
3:02 pm
Steve: “Why do you continue to act like there is no wealthy Democrats, No Corporations owned by Democrats and that Democrats don’t take corporate donations.”
That’s exactly why I specifically stated “mostly but not exclusively in the Republican jparty”. Of course I’m aware that the Democratic party has been a party of big finance and considering that the Republican party has been taken over by a Tea Party junta, we could be about to see the Democratic party become THE dominant party of big finance (because make no mistake, the Tea Party are wild-eyed extremists whose childish anti-debt positions, if pursued to the end, will land you in an anti-capitalist posture, and the financial markets know it — see Standard & Poor’s downgrade). If the extremist Tea Party faction succeeds in permanently taking over the GOP, then we’ll see a further a bigger swing in big money/finance interests flocking to the Democrats.
So believe me, I’m under NO illusions about the purity or righteousness of the Democratic party.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
3:04 pm
Paul
How many of your non-trick questions have been answered honestly and truthfully? I think you have a much better chance of training a frog not to bump it’s ass everytime it hops as opposed to getting an actual honest answer from any of those questions.
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
3:04 pm
Adam – The questions in your poll was a joke.
I am guessing that you don’t own a home. Every time property taxes go up the entire County goes crazy. Not just Republicans…EVERYBODY.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 23rd, 2011
3:06 pm
jm: “Americans also oppose tax increases, in poll after poll. So there. I guess we do nothing Jay and just watch it all blow up.”
The notion that Americans oppose tax increases is a Republican fable, and it’s a lie by exclusion.
What Americans opposed is tax increases on the middle classes but what they most wholeheartedly support is tax increases on the top income brackets.
Jefferson
September 23rd, 2011
3:06 pm
Ronnie, my main !!! Testify bro…
Paul
September 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm
Brosephus
Sadly, very few.
Makes me want to ask, “my gosh, people, don’t ever think about what you hear before you repeat it as the gospel truth?”
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm
Jay. Here’s a better resource.
mericans Blame Wasteful Government Spending for Deficit
Prefer cutting spending over raising taxes as way for Congress to reduce deficit
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ — The large majority of Americans say spending too much money on unneeded or wasteful federal programs is to blame for the federal budget deficit, while 22% say the deficit is a consequence of not raising enough in taxes to pay for needed programs.
April 2011: Which do you think is more to blame for the federal budget deficit — spending too much money on federal programs that are either not needed or wasteful, or not raising enough money in taxes to pay for needed federal programs?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147338/americans-blame-wasteful-government-spending-deficit.aspx
Doggone/GA
September 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm
“training a frog not to bump it’s ass everytime it hops ”
Well, we could always have fun with this bit of homely wisdom! Because it’s sort of like falling off a cliff. It’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the end. A frog doesn’t “bump his ass” when he hops, he bumps it when he LANDS!
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm
Here is a question, how many people thought Adams poll @2:54 should be taken seriously?
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm
jm, what Americans cheerfully support are greater taxes on the wealthy — and they’re going to get them.
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:08 pm
Bro 2:51 – I never advocated for gridlock.
Jay is just wrong time after time. Adam doesn’t know who posted what and has a reading problem. Poor souls…..
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:09 pm
Only 22% say the government doesn’t get enough revenue. 73% say it spends to much.
Chew on that Jay.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147338/americans-blame-wasteful-government-spending-deficit.aspx
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:09 pm
Trotsky in your dreams
St Simons - we're on Island time
September 23rd, 2011
3:10 pm
Medicare for All – solved
Eliminate 90K FICA tax cap – solved
Everybody knows it. Keep standing in the way of Progress & solving problems, fringe cons. Demographics and disgust are about to wash you away like a wave from a nor-easter.
then we can move on to really hard questions like –
When that 1st guy, that set that 1st clock, the very 1st time – how did HE know what time it was?
and for the cons, lets eliminate some regulations –
OK, remove that warning on toddlers tylenol that says “Do Not Operate heavy machinery”
If a cop arrests a mime, he does NOT have to say “you have the right to remain silent”
We can hopefully remove the Braille from the Drive-thru ATMs
Steve - USA
September 23rd, 2011
3:10 pm
Trotsky – For what it is worth I support those taxes on the wealthy.
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:11 pm
Liberals hate facts….
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
3:11 pm
Here is a question, how many people thought Adams poll @2:54 should be taken seriously?
Here’s a question, when are you gonna quit deflecting and address the fact that you moved the goalpost?
(the real) Independent
September 23rd, 2011
3:11 pm
“Uh huh. And the death penalty has prevented all future murders too. I think I want whatever it is you’re taking.”
If we had a death penalty (applied rigorously, timely, and commonly), I believe it would prevent SOME murders, anyway. Such as those from robberies involving guns. Criminals might be too scared to bring a gun.
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:11 pm
Adam. read this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147338/americans-blame-wasteful-government-spending-deficit.aspx
Peter
September 23rd, 2011
3:11 pm
Some of the funniest stuff was seen on the debate last night was how all were going to redo an entire department of the Government.
All that said, Obama promised allot, similar to that malarkey, and really I am still waiting.
I do have to say another Failed Bush policy, that the GOP wants gone is “No Child Left Behind”… of course it was never funded, but it did cause allot of the testing issues we have today.
When Bush invaded Iraq, and never had a plan to pay for it….the entire generation was left behind, via having to pay for his War Bill.
Obama may not have that much going for him, as the GOP fights him so the country can fail……….but wow the choices they have ….I don’t think they will beat Obama.
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:12 pm
Kamchak read this (I know the hole in the ground is preferable, but consider it)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147338/americans-blame-wasteful-government-spending-deficit.aspx
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 23rd, 2011
3:14 pm
Paul
It’s far easier to demonize others instead of confronting your own internal demons.
Doggone
My only retort for that gem of intelligent brilliance is, if the frog never hops, does he ever land?
Jay
September 23rd, 2011
3:14 pm
Sure jm. If you let the American people believe they can solve the debt problem by “cutting wasteful spending”, then of course they will take that option.
But you know better and I know better. Any honest look at the problem — see the list of “untouchable” programs above — will quickly tell you that cuts of the magnitude required are not possible without entitlement cuts. When you ask them THAT — when the question moves from the theoretical and rhetorical to the real life issue of where those cuts come from — everything changes.
Just ask Rick Perry.
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
3:16 pm
Adam – I couldn’t take your poll seriously because Steve told me not to.
Really because I didn’t see any source info for who they polled or anything like that. Just a tiny picture. For all I know, that was an office poll.
Joe Mama
September 23rd, 2011
3:16 pm
jm — “Liberals hate facts…. ”
No, we just hate how y’all try to use them. Often, you can’t, won’t or just plain don’t produce any evidence to support your claims. And often, even when you *do* produce some support, it doesn’t say what y’all claimed it did.
Finally, some of y’all have a bad habit of misrepresenting what you *do* present. Doom lambasted Nancy Pelosi a couple of weeks ago for “cherrypicking” and claimed that Politifact had called something she had said “false” when they had called it “half true” — then Doom turned right around and posted as supporting evidence something that he even *admitted* was cherrypicking.
If y’all had a better track record of honesty and presenting supporting facts rather than saying stuff like ‘look it up yourselves,’ then I think you’d find that we all would get along a whole lot better.
Thomas
September 23rd, 2011
3:18 pm
The liberal game is to get 51% of folks to have a) a tax federal tax refund or b) pay no federal taxes. End of story. Very close to completion by the way.
I love the agenda of states need money but the WH plan does away with muni interest tax exemption.
“Specifically, the bill would cap the value of the tax exemption for high-income
investors at 28%. This change would, in our view, increase state and local borrowing
costs significantly, and for the first time, create a retroactive change to tax
exemption.
While this provision is unlikely to be enacted in its current form, it cannot be ignored,
because it could come back again as deficit reduction and/or tax reform moves
forward.
Ironically, one of the purported reasons for this change is to pay for an Infrastructure
Bank, a less effective way to support state and local financing than the muni market
itself.
A key problem for supporters of tax-exempt financing is that the cost of such
financing to the Treasury is consistently overstated. A recent study in the National
Tax Journal explains why”
utter madness
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:18 pm
Jay 3:14 – yes, I acknowledge obviously something has to be done about entitlements.
Point is, if one governed purely by the polls, we’d be in big trouble. Ask Mitch Daniels.
(ir)Rational
September 23rd, 2011
3:20 pm
Independent – Criminals might be scared? Is that because they respect the law so much?
And I see we’ve moved the bar (dag-nab-it, I am starting to sound like Bosch) from preventing things to preventing some things maybe.
Bosch
September 23rd, 2011
3:20 pm
“I think I want whatever it is you’re taking”
Doggone,
I don’t, because it obviously makes the taker retarded.
Kamchak
September 23rd, 2011
3:20 pm
Kamchak read this (I know the hole in the ground is preferable, but consider it)
So — one poll is now equal to — how did you put it? — …in poll after poll.
Congrats, you’ve just mounted that goalpost on Tony Pedregon’s funny car.
jm
September 23rd, 2011
3:20 pm
Yes thomas, it is.
Jefferson
September 23rd, 2011
3:21 pm
For some that know it all , they sure are unhappy with it all…you would think they would have it going their way.
Ayn Rant
September 23rd, 2011
3:21 pm
Great article, Jay! Compared to the social services of other developed countries, the US federal “entitlements” offer paltry benefits. But it’s nonsense to say that the US cannot afford barebones pensions and medical coverage for our elderly. We are not a poor nation, just a badly managed nation with poorly distributed wealth.
The “problem” with Social Security is political posturing, not reality. The program is self-sustaining into the near future, and can easily be “fixed” far into the future by lifting the cap on payroll taxes. Why shouldn’t the overpaid, under-performing Big Business executives pay the same rate as their low-wage employees?
The problem with Medicare is that US medical care in general is unsustainable. Even if medical care for the elderly was paid directly by sons, daughters, and grandchildren, instead of Medicare, it would be unsustainable. The solution to the Medicare problem is to fix US health care. Since we can’t seem to do that for ourselves, let’s just contract the management of the medical mess to the British or French medical services!
It would be a good idea to “cap” both Social Security and Medicare at a fixed percentage of gross national income so that the elderly bear some of consequences of their bad parenting skills and foolish political choices.