From a recent Bloomberg poll, with a hat tip to the Daily Caller:

Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control,” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

I'm against the gas tax, too.  But I don't see how we get out of this mess without major cuts in both entitlements and domestic programs.  And it's a useful and depressing reminder that despite all of the Tea Party agitation, and despite the work of people like Paul Ryan, people are still foolish enough to be hoodwinked by the Left's absurd (and mathematically impossible) solution of taxing the rich:

While they say they strongly support balancing the budget over the next 20 years, when offered a list of more than a dozen possible spending cuts or tax increases, majorities opposed every one of them except imposing a bigger burden on the rich.

On the other hand, there is some daylight in the poll:

Tea Party supporters, who played a key role in Republican victories in the midterm elections, are more likely to back strong action than are rank-and-file Republicans; a 49 percent plurality favors a dramatic overhaul of Social Security, compared with 41 percent of Republicans. Tea Party backers want a Medicare overhaul by 52 percent to 43 percent, while Republicans narrowly prefer to keep the current system.

But it's not a cheering portrait of the electorate.  

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Fr. J.
Joined
Dec '10
Fr. J.

Constitutionally, the military is one of the few things the fed govt should do.  But even we conservatives have to recognize there is generous waste in the armed services that we need to cut including weapons programs even the Pentagon doesnt want that are purchased simply to bring $$ to congressional districts.  Some military cuts have to be seen as matters of legislative process reforms.

In principle I am opposed to means tested SS, but in practice I could support it to reduce the deficit.  Maybe we could think about that for Medicare, too?

Of course there's education.  Can someone explain to me why school funds have to pass through Washington?  I think each locality should provide for itself with the states as backup when necessary.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

This stuff is hard to wrap ones brain around. Here we are mingling in the lounge of the Ricochet cyber-Cat Club <achoo> and we are either pundits such as yourself who have presumably studied up on a bunch of this stuff, opinionated hangers on such as myself, knowing only what bits and connections I am able to glean from Uncommon Knowledge and Queen Claire's Turkish Corner.

It is much easier for most people in this life to echo the murmurs of the barber shop crowd than to knuckle down and appreciate the velocity of money or the Treasury system or farm subsidies or the hundreds of billions of dollars flushed through HHS every year to keep urban voters blue and how unionism has become a tool to keep the inner city too stupid to fix urban public schools or even to vote any color but blue. You're black/hispanic/amerind, you vote Dem, now shut up, sit down, and eat your taxpayer funded morning school gruel because your mom and dad are doped up and can't feed themselves and only want to see you when you bring them some money for drugs. (Victimless crime!)

Edited on Dec 10, 2010 at 9:40am
Whiskey Sam
Joined
Jul '10
Whiskey Sam

 The electorate needs to stop being treated like a 5 year old that can't handle the truth about Santa Claus.  We need politicians that are serious about the parlous state of our federal budget and its inherent unsustainability.  They need to make it clear, we cannot continue the way we're going without raising taxes on everyone or making major cuts everywhere, specifically in entitlement spending.  No more lies about cuts that are nothing more than smaller than budgeted increases but are still increases.  This whole mindset that the government can provide it all if we can just make the rich pay for it should be offensive to anyone who values American ideals.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

 The end of civic virtue is reflected in the proliferation of companies claiming to settle your credit debt or negotiate with the IRS for pennies on the dollar.  The attitude that people can and should avoid paying their legitimate debts has become pervasive.  The end of civic virtue means the end of our republic.  Let us hope this is not the case.

Edited on Dec 10, 2010 at 10:36am

Joined
Sep '10
Patrick in Albuquerque

Any predictions on how long it will be before the bond vigilantes get us in their sights? Probably before the UK and Germany. Maybe after Italy and maybe after France.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

We do need courageous political leadership to make big cuts and eliminations, but that's not enough. Tea Party rallies, conservative organizations, churches and other groups outside of Washington will have to publicly stand with those political leaders to make it easier to follow them.

R.J. Moeller
Joined
Dec '10
R.J. Moeller

I am convinced that more people do not want to make cuts in government spending because the argument for such cut-backs has never been made to them in moral terms.  The nuts-and-bolts of stats and figures about our debt and deficits absolutely matter, and we on the Right don't want to reduce every point of policy down to emotions-based, intellectually-devoid fodder for a Paul Simon or Eddie Vedder (he's the lead singer of Pearl Jam, for all you old farts) tune. 

But until Americans see that spending money you don't have on programs that don't work (and in the case of welfare, help to cripple and destroy entire demographics in our society) is morally wrong...until Americans see that, as Dennis Prager has put it, "the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen" is a moral claim...until that day, and I pray it is soon, we will be left with even so-called conservatives being utterly unwilling to cut, baby, cut. 

No individual can practically live-out liberalism and survive.  What makes us think that the government of 300 million individuals can?

Edited on Dec 10, 2010 at 10:36am
Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

 Of course we all want to live in a dream world.  Else there'd be no call for screenwriters.  However, I don't see this as either surprising or alarming.  A wish list is far different from what people would be willing to accept and do without.  Hence, leadership.

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen

This poll demonstrates what happens to people who have been on the government Teat too long.  They ain't called entitlements for nothin!

The slow, gradual (and not so gradual) entitlement creep of the past 50 years has produced a citizenry of addicts.  Like most addicts these people need to go cold turkey.  Anyone under 50 (including myself) needs to forget about getting any social security or medicare - I'm not sure the whole ponzi scheme will survive another 5 years let alone another 20.

Will the people of this country elect politicians with the will do do what needs to be done to save US financially?  I surely hope so but have my doubts...


Joined
Jul '10
Your Grace

Is it so strange to want your cake and eat it too?

Edited on Dec 10, 2010 at 12:13pm
Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Oh, great.  Half a nation in serious need of remedial education.

And only Glenn Beck and a blackboard to do the job.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Your Grace: Is it so strange to want your cake and eat it too? · Dec 10 at 12:12pm

Edited on Dec 10 at 12:13 pm

But I want your cake.  And eat it too.

show tms's comment (#13)
Todd
Joined
Oct '10
tms

I was looking at the poll details, and I am shocked that most people are against cutting farm subsidies.  It just goes to show that the language matters.  The question says "please tell me if you favor or oppose...cutting subsidies to farmers". 

If you asked the question like this: "Please tell me if you favor or oppose phasing out taxpayer handouts to multi-national ag conglomerates, a policy that drives up the cost of your food."

And on the tax cut, it says "Please tell me if you favor or oppose...eliminating tax cuts the wealthiest Americans have received in recent years".

"Receive a tax cut", as if it's a gift that the politicians grant to a certain class of people?  And the wealthiest Americans? We don't have a wealth tax! We have an income tax. 

How about re-wording the question to: "Please tell me if you favor or oppose raising tax rates on Americans who earn more than $250K, many of whom are small business employers and investors that provide capital to our corporations and businesses." 

OK, maybe I am going too far, but you get my point.

Good Berean
Joined
Oct '10
Good Berean

Where are the dreamers who see how things can be, not what they are? Dreamers who dream of what can't be are simply deluded.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius
Good Berean: Where are the dreamers who see how things can be, not what they are? Dreamers who dream of what can't be are simply deluded. · Dec 10 at 3:07pm

They're entrepreneurs trying to get capital from banks that aren't lending.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In