Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

  1. -1
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,552
    vCash:
    25292
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

    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 survey 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: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...#ixzz2E3G1pluo

    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.


    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    spydertl79's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    8,807
    vCash:
    1224
    Loc:
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Need to adjust the eligibility age for SS up to 70
    "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
    Henry Wheeler Shaw
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,087
    vCash:
    5889
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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?
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,552
    vCash:
    25292
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    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.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,087
    vCash:
    5889
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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.

    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,029
    vCash:
    6325
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The military industrial complex will still get their bloated and unfundable budget with Obama too. So don't expect much in cuts.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    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?


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,552
    vCash:
    25292
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    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?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    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 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...#ixzz2E3G1pluo

    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.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 03:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 10:27 PM
  4. Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 05:21 PM
  5. Pre Election Poll: Taxes, Spending, Deficit
    By DeathStar in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 02:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •