Americans in Poll Say Cut Deficit With Entitlements Secured as Rich Pay Up

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: Bloomberg.com

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.

That aversion to sacrifice is at odds with a spate of recent studies, including one by President Barack Obama’s debt panel, that say reductions in Medicare, Social Security, military and other spending are necessary to curb a deficit that totaled $1.29 trillion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, or 9 percent of the gross domestic product.

A majority backs raising the cap on earnings covered by the tax on the Social Security retirement program above the current limit of $107,000. Two-thirds would means test Social Security and Medicare benefits. Six of 10 would end tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans. And 7 of 10 favor a tax on Wall Street profits.

“We give billions of dollars to these corporations, and in my eyes they pretty much just put it in their pocket,” said Donald Froemming, a 57-year-old independent voter and unemployed diesel gas mechanic from Moose Lake, Minnesota.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/americans-in-poll-say-cut-deficit-with-entitlements-secured-as-rich-pay-up.html

---

Are you listening Obama?!?!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. And stop the wars.

[Owl]

6. Agreed!

[Cal33]

39. If the rich are forced to pay for some of the deficit, they wouldn't be

doing their country much of a favor, because they would be paying back
to America only a tiny fraction from their ill-gotten gains! This
would be only a PARTIAL RETRIBUTION, NOT CONTRIBUTION. They have
gotten away with most of their criminal schemes so far. They ought
to be made to PAY BACK.

[and-justice-for-all]

42. and close miltary bases abroad...

not all, but a good chunk. I do not think it is necessary to occupy Germany anymore or the UK...etc

[elias49]

2. And everyone making less than $100,000 gets

a new 42" plasma flat screen TV.
And a chicken.

[ret5hd]

3. nasty thievin' proles...who do they think they are?

[DJ13]

13. Can you skip the chicken and make it a 47" set?

[slackmaster]

17. Do I get to pick what kind of chicken I get?

I like Shokoku.

[elias49]

19. Done. That won't do much to the deficit. nt

[bread_and_roses]

20. Just what exactly does this post mean?

Do you think the demands of ordinary people - who've seen their wages stagnate pretty much since Reagan, who are being bankrupted by health care costs, who don't have jobs, who's children can no longer afford college - all while the rich party hearty - are out of line? Is not the first charge of government "the public good?"

Taxing the rich at rates comparable to what they were taxed at during the Eisenhower years sure as hell would fix the deficit - and still leave them "rich" by any ordinary person's standards. Yes, they ARE that rich. And currently, their ill-got gains are largely at the expense of taxpayers. We bailed out Wall St, only to hear that THEIR bonuses were sacrosanct - contracts, don't you know? - although the contracts of auto workers were expendable.

Let's get real here. Ordinary people did not cause this economic meltdown but we have paid for it, while the perpetrators waltz off to their yachts.

You think ordinary people should be asked to "sacrifice" - sacrifice what? Huge numbers have no retirement except SS - and not because they are stupid or lazy - remember those flat wages? Hard to save for retirement when costs keep going up and your wages don't. What are they to sacrifice? Their child's education? Their own health care? Which babies are supposed to die because their parents can 't afford the care for a premie? Which old people because they can't afford their medication? Which children are supposed to go hungry to school because the school has no more money for free breakfast or lunch? Which disabled adult is to be left under a bridge somewhere because the family can't care for him/her and there's no local/state/fed money anymore for care?

These are life and death programs for the non-wealthy. And no, they should not be expected to "sacrifice" them so the rich can have more.

[elias49]

22. It means Americans are spoiled. And it sickens me.

Most Americans expect that, even if they're not born with a silver spoon in they're mouths, they deserve have a set of decent flatware.
Read the OP:
"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."
In 17th century France, Henry IV supposedly promised 'a chicken in every pot on Sunday" Made him really popular.
Then in 1928 part of the Republican party platform called for "...a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard, to boot"
It has become the American capitalist mantra. "You can have it all, and painlessly"
By international standards all but the most destitute in this country probably have a more comfortable life than 75% of the rest of the humans on this planet. But, Christ!, don't make them sacrifice for it.
I know there is great disparity in this country. I'm not blind or insensitive. I happen to fall in the group that's on the edge by American standards, but I don't expect all my needs or wants fulfilled. For free.
Capitalism is the problem. But capitalism is what we, as a nation, want, I guess.
So many of us bitch and we moan and we raise our voices, but everyone quiet down....the Superbowl isn't far down the road.
Wanna watch on plasma of LCD?

[daleo]

24. People just think the rich ought to pay more taxes

Since the rich can easily afford it, and they receive a great many benefits from the government and from society in general. That has nothing to do with being spoiled. It's burden sharing.

[elias49]

26. We'd be sharing BOUNTY rather than burden

if we could reign in the military! The "war on terror" is a big fucking Ponzi Scheme.... But I'm changing topic

[bread_and_roses]

34. Yes, capitalism IS the problem - on that we agree - but your ire seems misdirected

Medicare, Medicaid and SS are hated by the capitalist profiteers precisely because they ameliorate the savagery of capitalism by operating on a sharing rather than profit-taking model. They are not perfect programs by any means - Medicaid, in particular, is designed more as grudging charity than as the sharing of resources to assure at least basic needs: access to care is usually limited, and its recipients are held in contempt all to often. Like for food stamps, those in need all too often have to essentially beg for their soup. But to sneer at ordinary people for wanting to keep even these minimal safety nets in place - how does that not reinforce rather than undermine capitalism?

And yes, we are greedy: we use and abuse the riches of the earth while others starve, and our gluttonous appetite has direct and devastating consequences for the ecosystem and the other peoples of the earth. However, most Americans are totally ignorant of that fact - it is well buried by our capitalist overlords. And it has little to do with our safety net, poor and shabby as it is, and a great deal to do with the control of all our resources by our Corporate Masters.

People can only act on what they know - and most people, working two and three jobs or scrabbling to stay alive without a job at all have little time or energy to do the research and reading that would inform them. And they're not going to hear it from NPR, much less from any of the corporate media.

[glitch]

35. Perhaps you are projecting.

Maybe you should get out more, meet the people you are calling spoiled. You can find them at food closets and soup kitchens and living under overpasses.

:thumbsdown:

[elias49]

37. Please don't get me started...

If you want to hear it, here you are: The truly poor are not the spoiled ones. And I don't see where I implied that they were. The spoiled, frankly, are often those who frequent boards like this one and complain that Obama hasn't made their lives perfect yet...that he hasn't hewn to the progressive calls for single-payer insurance, for punishing the rich because they're rich, for magically healing the economy, particularly if it benefits THEM.
The complainers on forums like this are what annoy me, and the swell of criticism lately has me frigging pissed.
Remember CandyLand, the Milton Bradley game from childhood? Well think of Washington as the Molasses Swamp. To expect everything to move along happily to a quick and successful conclusion to the finish line where everyone gets gumdrops and rock candy is what annoys me about people that supposedly answer these asinine polls and bitch, bitch bitch.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of folks who responded to that poll are not the folks living under overpasses and trying to grab one decent meal at a food kitchen. The people that polled so disappointed and so WANTING are just people that aren't used to not getting everything they want.

[ret5hd]

38. So you are pissed at the people that are pissed that the people...

that need the help are getting pissed on?

Sorry, your pissiness makes no sense to me.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Too bad most in DC do not give a shit what the people want or think.

[demosincebirth]

5. This past election didn't say that. We want to go back to the Bush era.

[smiley]

7. it doesn't matter what the public wants

we have no voice left in our government.

[fascisthunter]

8. Our Government Knows this Shit... They don't care

because they think they can get away with it.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I don't think people really want SS means tested.

Or at least they won't want the long-term potential consequences of that. Means testing is the first step in attacking SS as an "entitlement."

People are going to need to be made aware of that.

[No Elephants]

31. I have no problem with denying OASDI to folks with very high income from other sources, esp,

Republicon pundits, who bash "entitlements" on tv while they collect OASDI, fat salariess, speaking fees, writing fees and book royalties.

[Frisbee]

10. It no longer matters if they're listening or not.

They will do as they are told, and if those effected don't like it, too f---ing bad. They know what's best for us, we are just not smart enough to understand what's in our own best interest. And my money says after a small minority make some noise, they'll get away with doing to us whatever they want with minimal consequences. The people have no voice in Washington anymore. Even elections have become virtually meaningless at this point, those with the most money will usually get "their man" elected, and even if they don't, they control enough that a few lone voices really have little to no effect.

[Lugnut]

11. K&R n/t

[bossy22]

12. entitlements will have to be brought into the discussion

they are the fastest growing aspect of the federal and state budgets. I'm not talking big cuts but maybe a little tweaking. Remember, Social Security is based on a stable worker to retiree ratio; which is going to start moving in the favor of retiree

[AlbertCat]

15. entitlements will have to be brought into the discussion

And so will cutting defense. The Pentagon is just a welfare project for government contracts. And it's way huge and out of proportion to what we need to be protecting ourselves from.

Like post 1 says.... ending the wars would be very helpful. One way to do that is to act like we are indeed at war. No tax cuts for anybody and rationing (even if symbolic) and daily news and casualty reports (instead of "news of the future... will so-and-so run in 2012?"). Then the general public is in on the sacrifice and the fight and they will "feel" the war whether they have friends and relatives in it or not. They'll want it stopped sooner than later.

Right now, as the article reads, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm glad people think Wall Street and the uber-wealthy should pay their share, but that alone won't be enough. Defense MUST be looked at and minimum Corporate taxes and even taxing religiously owned businesses should be on the table before SS and Medicare. Taxes is how the Gov gets money.

[bossy22]

25. not as much as you think can be cut from defense

in reality you could probably cut $250 billion from todays defense budget and still maintain a dominant force that would protect us. The thing you have to remember is that protecting "us" is not just keeping foreign troops off our soil- its also ensuring our economic security. A group of powers could hypothetically "strangle" us without even setting foot on U.S. soil. The U.S. (like GB but to a lesser extent) lives off its sea lanes so it needs to maintain a dominant navy that could protect our supply lines. A sizable amount of oil gets transported to us through ocean going tankers so we would need to be able to secure passage of such vehicles.

Plus just general geographic placements of U.S. states and terratories gives credence to a dominant navy. The state of Hawaii is literally in the middle of the pacific ocean so you need to be able to not only protect hawaii through force projection but also protect the space between the western U.S. and Hawaii. IIRC that is about 3000 miles worth of ocean.

What we could do without (besides the two wars we are in right now) would be a lare army- we don't really need one- both of our neighbors are close allies so we only need probably a force of about half what we have now (so about 600,000).

The Air force could probably shrink by about 500 fighters to an active force of 1500 fighters

The marine corp could probably shrink to about 100,000 (from 200,000 today) but i wouldnt go lower than that. Amphibious/expiditionary forces provide countries with the most bang for their military buck because they can rapidly deploy to hotspots and contain situations before they become full blown conflicts

All this is not an ideal scenario- its just my opinion on what we could get by with if we had too. This leaves alot of strategic questions open. A sizable withdrawl from the world military stage could embolden regional/rising powers to get more aggressive because they feel confident that the U.S. won't intervene. What you could potentially see is a china that is a lot more forceful with its neighbors...ie Japan. This would most likely force japan to increase its armarments and could unintentially cause a regional arms race in the pacific- causing instability in the region (and don't forget Hawaii is sitting in the middle of the pacific). We could also see more Russian intervention in the middle east and africa with regards to resource securing- Russia very much still has its old soviet style of thinking- if they could they would attempt to regain their regional hegemon

Cutting the defense budget without really looking at the strategic issues and concerns is very dangerous. If we do cut we have to come up with a force wide objective for our military and make those cuts accordingly. We also have to look at what are the international implications of those cuts which could affect us. Many historians believe that the U.S. withdrawl from the international scene after WWI lead to WWII. The U.S. was a tipping factor- tipping the power decisively in the favor of the Entente and if the U.S. had joined the league of nations- it would have given the league a bit of muscle which could have prevented germany from just simply ignoring it during the 30's.

on edit: i never explained why a dominant force was a necessary requirement. Simply put its because our economy and country as a whole is so dominant that it can only be protected by a force of equal value. You cannot protect the huge interests of the united states with a force the size of spains- there are just too many interests.

on 2nd edit: You must also take into account the defense industrial base. You will always need some amount of equipment so any potential cuts need to leave intact the ability to atleast procure the items- even in small numbers. Most cuts don't do this and just cut out all procurment- so what happens is that the skills and equipment to build these weapons atrophies and when the time comes to buy those weapons again- you can no longer build them or building them is extremely costly. The great example of this is the British Astute class attack subs. Britain gave up building attack subs for about 12 years during the peace dividend but embarked on a program to replace their aging fleet (with a smaller newer fleet). Basically in a nut shell- the knowledge and industrial ability to build these subs disapeared over those 12 years since there was no subs being built. The problems got so bad that the project almost fell apart. Eventually the BAE (the british builder of the sub) asked the U.S. sub builders to come and show them how to build a nuclear sub again...

[aggiesal]

16. And that's why they tweaked it in the 80's. ...

In the 80's DC knew that the "Baby Boomers" would be retiring in 20-30 years.
So they TWEAKED social security and created a TRUST FUND to cover the Baby Boomers.
Around 2018, they were going to start dipping into this TRUST FUND, because this was
the year that SS payments would exceed SS funding. The TRUST FUND would last about
20 years, and by 2038 there would still be enough money in SS to pay out at about
70%. But if you TWEAK it again now, say raise the level from $107K to $150K, then
by 2038, SS would continue to pay out at 100%, and would continue to be health for
about another 80 years.

[Sherman A1]

18. Yes, indeed

we can start with eliminating the earnings cap on SS. Tax every dollar earned and it gets sooooo very much better.

[diane in sf]

27. They doubled the FICA taxes in the 80s to pay for the baby boomers, so they can

just keep those rates up, there is enough money in social security until around 2040, thank you very much. If there's any problem with the worker to retiree ratio take the salary cap off.

[No Elephants]

32. Don't believe it.

If you add together what we admit we spend on "defense," what we spend on domestic and foreign spying, be it out of the State Dept, CIA, FBI or Secret Service or wherever, what we admit we spend on Homeland Security, TSA, etc., you'd find being scared brainless is our fastest growing expense.

[aggiesal]

14. Of course DC doesn't care what any of think ...

As Senator Bulworth says: "If yous don't pays, yous don't gets to plays." (I'm paraphrasing of course).

In other words, DC has it's pay masters, and we the public
don't pay them anything so they vote how their pay masters tell
them to vote. And it's not for the public good.

[glinda]

21. Government replies "I can't hear you".

[Historic NY]

23. Willie Sutton said to go for the money & the rich have it.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Wouldn't that be nice?

[pa28]

29. "Are you listening Obama?"

Apparently the White House has been shopping Gallup's poll which lumps all the tax extensions together and shows a positive result.

Now it looks like he's openly pushing for the Simpson commission findings which would "mess with" entitlements and create a more regressive tax burden.

You asked a yes or no question but it looks like the answer is a more nuanced "F*&( You".

[lunasun]

30. call you reps and sen. in congress - make them listen Obama too

debt panel = evil
Cutting ssi and medicare to give the rich a free ride on the backs of our children say it loud NO

[No Elephants]

33. About 70% of Americans wanted a public option AND an end to tax cuts for

the wealthy.

Now, if we'd only elect politicians who actually give a rap about what most Americans want.

Somehow, folks get the American people to change their minds about what they want versus what they'll accept fairly transparent excuses for and rationalize away.

Every time I hear a politician bloviating about what "the American people want" this American person wants to throw up.

And shame on us for excusing it time and again, as long as it's a Dem.

[Enthusiast]

36. "this American person wants to throw up."

This one too. :puke:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. ...while the $3/4T DoD budget tiptoes quietly past...

[mbperrin]

41. How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?

Better start listening.