Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

[TheWalrus]

The coalition of voters that gave President Barack Obama a second term splits over how to reduce the deficit, according to a poll released Monday.

A
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of 800 Obama voters, conducted last month by Benenson Strategy Group for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and shared first with POLITICO, finds that 96 percent believe the federal deficit is a problem and that 85 percent support increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.

Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.

Read more:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Personally I feel like the discretionary budget has already been cut too far, and that cuts to Social Security and Medicare border on the immoral (given that current recipients paid into the system expecting certain services). But defense spending strikes me as place badly in need of cuts and reform. The amount we spend on defense is beyond nonsensical, to me.

[spydertl79]

Need to adjust the eligibility age for SS up to 70

[rob19]

But defense spending strikes me as place badly in need of cuts and reform. The amount we spend on defense is beyond nonsensical, to me.

Hear, hear.

I'd assume that would entail less of a military presence around the globe though, no?

[TheWalrus]

Hear, hear.

I'd assume that would entail less of a military presence around the globe though, no?

Probably. I don't know why we need some 50,000 troops stationed in Germany, for example, other than as a bargaining chip when we're try to get Germany to do what we want (having troops there is basically a nice free stimulus for their economy). I don't know why we need a new class of air craft carriers or air superiority fighters when dogfights are a thing of the past and nobody can touch our aircraft carriers, tanks and planes as it is.

Like any division of any company, the Pentagon functions in a world where coming in under budget is punished by being assigned a lower budget the following year. Since there's no pressure to streamline and political cover is always available in the form of being "soft on" something, budgets creep ever higher and new weapons programs are planned and announced even if there seems to be no reason for them. The post 9/11 world has been a huge boon for defense contractors and suppliers all over the world of which Haliburton and Blackwater are only the most notable examples.

Forget what you think of it morally or politically, but the drone program is pretty cheap, actually. Only two billion and change a year. Contrast that the notion that according to Defense Department, it costs about $4.7 per gallon to deliver bottled water to troops in Afghanistan. Now, if you multiply that by the 5.2 gallons per day they drink and the, say, 150,000 troops that are (or at least were) there, you're talking about $1.3 billion a year, just for water. Just in Afghanistan.

The next phase of the "war on terror" (which is a term I hate) is going to be fought with drones and special forces, imo. That's a ****load cheaper than ground armies, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. But where literally trillions of dollars are at stake, don't expect an easy fight.

The health care industry I believe has the largest lobbyist presence in Washington. But defense, I'm pretty sure, is #2. Which makes sense, since that's those two together represent about half of where all federal tax dollars go.

[rob19]

Probably. I don't know why we need some 50,000 troops stationed in Germany, for example, other than as a bargaining chip when we're try to get Germany to do what we want (having troops there is basically a nice free stimulus for their economy). I don't know why we need a new class of air craft carriers or air superiority fighters when dogfights are a thing of the past and nobody can touch our aircraft carriers, tanks and planes as it is.

Like any division of any company, the Pentagon functions in a world where coming in under budget is punished by being assigned a lower budget the following year. Since there's no pressure to streamline and political cover is always available in the form of being "soft on" something, budgets creep ever higher and new weapons programs are planned and announced even if there seems to be no reason for them. The post 9/11 world has been a huge boon for defense contractors and suppliers all over the world of which Haliburton and Blackwater are only the most notable examples.

Forget what you think of it morally or politically, but the drone program is pretty cheap, actually. Only two billion and change a year. Contrast that the notion that according to Defense Department, it costs about $4.7 per gallon to deliver bottled water to troops in Afghanistan. Now, if you multiply that by the 5.2 gallons per day they drink and the, say, 150,000 troops that are (or at least were) there, you're talking about $1.3 billion a year, just for water. Just in Afghanistan.

The next phase of the "war on terror" (which is a term I hate) is going to be fought with drones and special forces, imo. That's a ****load cheaper than ground armies, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. But where literally trillions of dollars are at stake, don't expect an easy fight. If the health care industry has the largest lobbyist presence in Washington, then defense has the second largest.

Well said. I posted a video earlier where Ron Paul talked a little about his experience as a congressman with the special interest presence of the Military Industrial Complex. Also reminds me about the speech Eisenhower gave about it.

[Dolphins9954]

The military industrial complex will still get their bloated and unfundable budget with Obama too. So don't expect much in cuts.

[MoFinz]

You could tax rich people into oblivion....until the idiots we seat in washington reign in spending, we will never fix our problems.

Where the idiots in Washington got the idea they had a blank check and forgot that the money actually comes from US, and not some fairy Money Mother, i will never know.
And the people that think taxing the rich will be more "fair"? Whoever told you life is fair? You go ahead and tax all those "rich" folks, and when the jobs and factories dry up, don't complain about the "rich" being at fault. Look at Hostess.....thanks to the unions inflexibility, we lose Twinkees (at least for a while). Meanwhile....how about tha Postal Service that hasn't been profitable or even able to fund its own pension for how long?

[TheWalrus]

You could tax rich people into oblivion....until the idiots we seat in washington reign in spending, we will never fix our problems.

Where the idiots in Washington got the idea they had a blank check and forgot that the money actually comes from US, and not some fairy Money Mother, i will never know.
And the people that think taxing the rich will be more "fair"? Whoever told you life is fair?

Indeed. Too bad there isn't a way to change the tax code to make it more fair.

You go ahead and tax all those "rich" folks, and when the jobs and factories dry up, don't complain about the "rich" being at fault. Look at Hostess.....thanks to the unions inflexibility, we lose Twinkees (at least for a while). Meanwhile....how about tha Postal Service that hasn't been profitable or even able to fund its own pension for how long?

Thirty years of low taxes for the rich haven't stopped factories from closing up and jobs from being shipped overseas, so what the hell are you talking about?

[MoFinz]

Indeed. Too bad there isn't a way to change the tax code to make it more fair.



Thirty years of low taxes for the rich haven't stopped factories from closing up and jobs from being shipped overseas, so what the hell are you talking about?

You want a fair tax code? Maybe you should look up the meaning of fair. Fair would be a flat 15% tax across the board, no loopholes, no deductions and no exemptions. Fair would be a national sales tax. Progressives dont want fair, they want punitive. They want those who have more to pay more. Lets start calling it what it is.

As far as low taxes for the rich, decades of government support have not done anything for the Postal Service except string out the inevitable.....so looking to the government to to tax us back to prosperity is not going to happen either.

The Republic is dead.......this is not the government our founding fathers envisioned for us........quite the opposite

[jared81]

You want a fair tax code? Maybe you should look up the meaning of fair. Fair would be a flat 15% tax across the board, no loopholes, no deductions and no exemptions. Fair would be a national sales tax. Progressives dont want fair, they want punitive. They want those who have more to pay more. Lets start calling it what it is.

As far as low taxes for the rich, decades of government support have not done anything for the Postal Service except string out the inevitable.....so looking to the government to to tax us back to prosperity is not going to happen either.

The Republic is dead.......this is not the government our founding fathers envisioned for us........quite the opposite

good point.......almost 50% of the the working public pays NO FIT (federal income tax), and they also get an earned income credit at the end of the year. i dont know how much more "fair" we can be.

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

Read more:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Personally I feel like the discretionary budget has already been cut too far, and that cuts to Social Security and Medicare border on the immoral (given that current recipients paid into the system expecting certain services). But defense spending strikes me as place badly in need of cuts and reform. The amount we spend on defense is beyond nonsensical, to me.

so you think just taxing rich people and cutting defense (which i agree with), is the way we are going to tackle a 16 trillion dollar deficit? basic math would tell me that isnt possible. entitlements HAVE to be reformed.