Posted on 01/15/2011 6:35:37 PM PST by Halo-JM
Salvanto. (Credit: CBS)
A new CBS News poll finds that Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 percent prefer to cut spending, just nine percent call for raising taxes. Another nine percent want to do both.
Yet most Americans could not volunteer a program they'd be willing to see cut in order to reduce the deficit - only 38 percent could name a program they would support cutting. The top responses were military/defense (six percent), Social Security/Medicare (four percent) and welfare/food stamps (four percent).
However, Americans are more willing to consider cuts when presented with specific ideas, as the chart above illustrates. The most popular ideas for reducing the deficit are to reduce Social Security benefits for the wealthy, reduce the money allocated to projects in their own community, reduce farm subsidies and reduce defense spending. More than 50 percent supported reductions in each of those programs.
(Credit: CBS)
Democrats and independents were more likely to favor cuts to defense spending than Republicans, only 39 percent of whom favored cuts there to reduce the deficit. Republicans were most likely to favor reducing money for projects in their area (73 percent), reducing social security for the wealthy (66 percent), reducing farm subsidies (58 percent) and reducing money for student loans (54 percent.)
Democrats were most likely to support reducing social security for the wealthy (60 percent), reducing defense spending (58 percent) and reducing farm subsidies (55 percent).
Forty-seven percent say it will be necessary to cut programs that benefit people like them to reduce the deficit. Forty-one percent say it can be reduced without cutting programs that benefit them.
Seventy-two percent say that deficits can be acceptable in emergency situations and when kept manageable. Eighteen percent say deficits are never acceptable, while seven percent say the government should run whatever deficits are necessary.
Most Americans do not know exactly how the government spends its money. For example, when asked what percent of the budget goes to earmarks, 41 percent said they make up less than 20 percent of the budget, 13 percent said 20-50 percent, 4 percent said more than 50 percent and 42 percent didn't know. Earmarks actually make up less than one percent of the budget.
Read the Complete Poll (PDF)
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,178 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 5 - 9, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Kbaschke?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/g_YQpNz53rY
Agree somewhat. From a purely federal budget stand point, to get to a $0 Deficit, we have to cut into the meat of essential, constitutional, functions like defense. It would be preferential to raise taxes. Unfortunately taxes stay at about a 18.5% level of GDP regardless of tax rates. So I think the only way to get there is by massive (49%) budget cuts.
One more thing.
“You can’t cut medicare or social security, and most of that is covered by the trust funds anyway.”
If you truly believe that and you believe in arithmetic then you should take all your savings, turn them into metal and leave the country.
It is covered by the trust fund on a current basis, for the most part. What’s not covered is the future benefits. But they don’t need to pay those now. There are slight deficits in the current benefits on both social security and medicare now. But they would be easy to cover, at least for 2011, and even 2012.
The GOP can’t cut social security or medicare, despite what some like Ryan would like to do. It’s foolish to try. They’ll just earn themselves a bus ticket home if they do. They don’t have a mandate to do that, and it will take a mandate, at least if they don’t have the support of the Dems, and they don’t.
The best thing for them to do about medicare and social security is tell the Dems, “You created these programs. You broke them. Now you’ve gotta fix them.”
"It is covered by the trust fund on a current basis, for the most part."
For the most part? That is somewhere between Obama-esque and Clinton-esque. Well "for the most part" we are going to have to cut entitlements, i.e. SS and Medicare, in addition to defense to balance the budget. Don't think so? Go to this link, $0 Deficit Funding Levels, and tell me what YOU would do. If you refuse to look at the actual facts then that tells anyone who would like to know the seriousness of what you are arguing.
"The best thing for them to do about medicare and social security is tell the Dems, “You created these programs. You broke them. Now you’ve gotta fix them.”"
You could not be more wrong. We are not victims and our future does not depend on someone else. It's this particular kind of finger pointing that got us into this mess. It's time for those who would stand up and do what needs to be done to stand up and do it.
If we truly believe what we write on this site then WE are the ones who need to do it.
Dem leadership in general not interested in “fixing” Social Security and Medicare. Want to wait until propgrams are in crisis mode. Much easier then to insist that taxes must be raised to address shortfalls. One Dem congressman (can’t recall name) was even honest enought to say as much (i.e., want crisis) during 1990s.
Dem leadership is also opposed to means testing (i.e., cutting the “rich” off). They know this will weaken support for program over time (turn it into obvious Welfare program which it already is to a degree). Middle/upper middle classes will lose out to poor. Program is already redistributionist in that the more you make, the worse the “return.”
Dem leadership not really interested in solving “deficit” or debt crisis. Just paying lip service.
I agree that there is no “trust fund”. All revenue goes into the general fund and is spent - and then some. The so called “trust fund” is a fiction - just a bunch of IOUs in the form of Gov’t debt. The Gov’t should be honest and do away with it altogether.
We need to make deep across-the-board cuts to spending now and use any surplus to pay down the debt.
Look it up. The social security deficit for 2010 was $41 billion, and it was expected to move back into a surplus for 2011, at least until they cut the payroll tax.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
The link doesn’t talk about the medicare deficit, but I seem to recall reading elsewhere that it was $85 billion for 2010. That was before Obama cut Medicare Advantage. It was also based upon depressed payroll tax revenues for 2010. On the other hand, costs are increasing and more people are eligible, so if you assume that it evens out at $85 billion for 2011, that leaves you at $126 billion, which is quite close to what I said the surplus would be if you made all those cuts in my first post.
So I think it works. But irrespective, they won’t get away with cutting social security and medicare, so they are just going to have to deal with them.
Dismantling the entire EPA would be great first start.
How old are you? Young enough that you don’t really remember what has happened to the GOP every time they tried to fix social security and medicare? They can’t do it. The Dems just demagogue it and make it stick. Until the people demand that these benefits be cut, it is not going to happen. If the GOP takes the leadership on this issue without a mandate to cut, then they are just working themselves out of a job, and the problem will not be fixed anyway.
The truth of the matter is that these programs cannot truly be fixed. They can be cut. They can’t be fixed. Privatization won’t fix these programs, despite what the GOP leaders think. When the trust funds are not running a surplus, every dollar that you privatize means the trust fund is running a bigger deficit which will need to be covered by the general budget on a yearly basis, thereby increasing the federal debt. So if you try to privatize any portion of it, you are just increasing the national debt by a like amount. Privatization might have worked back in the 90’s when social security and medicare were running sizable surpluses, because then there was a surplus that you could privatize without increasing the deficit or cutting benefits. But we’re past that stage, and the only “solution” if you want to call it that at this point is to cut benefits, which ain’t gonna happen, at least in 2011 and 2012.
YES YES YES. You got it right!!!
I did look it up. I have been through the numbers one side and through the other. I didn’t just look at social security. I looked at every single agency. Every one.
You didn’t.
You argue circumstances, transients. I argue reality. I live in Realville. You worry more about the Republican’s majority than the survival of this country.
The budget for 2011 was this:
2011 numbers in millions.
Department of Defense-Military $723,703
Department of Health and Human Services $926,236
Interest on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross) $464,706
Social Security Administration $789,034
Comes to $2,903,679 million. Note this does not even count necessary programs like Federal Prisons and the like.
Revenue is expected to be: $2,425,725 million.
If we don’t include defense, it comes out to $2,179,976 million. So, according to your “plan”, Defense, Prisons, Office of Personnel Management, Government Accounting Office, etc. should share $245,749 million.
Sorry but I think I’ve succinctly presented the literal, real facts here. You really, really don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe you’re old enough to wise up.
The budget of the EPA is a proverbial fart in the wind compared to the debt. To complain about the EPA at a time like this is destructive. It should be only a comma in the sentence about what to do about the Federal deficit.
Say it loud and often FRiend.
I think you win the stupidist post of the day. Their budget is a mere blip on the screen versus the immeausureable damage they cause to business. Think before you post.
I deal with the EPA regs every day. I know what they have done to business.
My point sounds stupid to you because you are focused on what you like to think about instead of reality.
The reality is that the Federal budget is way, way out of whack. Eliminating the EPA tomorrow would do nothing to fix our problem until we default on our debt, can’t afford even a bit of a military, end SS, end Medicare and open the Federal Prisons.
You are thinking irresponsibly.
You’re probably not good with numbers so let’s do a thought experiment. Say EPA regs were eliminated September 1st and only that agency’s budget was eliminated. How much would GDP grow in one year? 4%? 6%? 8%? How much would the debt grow? 10%. Let’s say we had the growth of China. In their best years China had growth of 10% with a wage structure far, far more favorable than ours. We cannot grow our way out of this budget mess.
You did not look it up because there are no 2011 numbers. There is no budget. At this point they are only continuing the 2010 numbers thru continuing resolutions. The numbers you cite might be what Obama proposed or someone else. But they have not been passed by Congress. That’s what they are debating. That’s why we are having this discussion.
That’s just dumb. The 2011 budget numbers I posted are for Defense and entitlements. Not discretionary. They are calculated from benefits. Your only fall back now is that you don’t believe in arithmetic.
You have no point. Revenues are going to be $2.4T We can’t get down to that without cutting SS, Medicare and Defense. If you think we can, go get 2010 and do your calculations and post them. Just do it. Stop BS’ing and do it. I did it. I had the ability and the concern. You don’t have one, the other or both.
I looked up the 2010 numbers which are the only actual numbers available. When you talk about whether the budget should be cut you need to know what it was previously. The numbers you looked up are just someoone’s projections. Contrary to your belief actual numbers do not always track projections, particularly when you’re still deciding what the numbers should be. Your approach sort of reminds me of what the liberals do. The set up a base line that increases every year by say 10 percent and then if someone suggests increasing it by only 5 percent they call that a 5 percent cut.
Blah blah blah.
You’re caught and you know it. So if you looked up the 2010 numbers and you know you’re right, why don’t you just post them? I’ve posted my numbers. I posted what SS and Medicare will cost us per month. Right now. This very month. I’ve broken it down to cash flow per month until September then on a yearly basis for next year. Your BS only goes so far on FR.
Still think you’re right? Prove it. This is you’re big chance. Post the numbers. Be a hero. Do it. Don’t just type BS, post the numbers. Do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.