Personally I would support doing ALL of these things at the same time. (ie Tax and Save) And pass a Balanced Budget amendment while we are at it. What do you think?
Washington Post Americans Want
Complete Survey Results
Source: HART/McINTURFF Study #11091--page 16
February 2011 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey
"Q26 Let me you read you a number of other things that might be cut or eliminated as a way to reduce the current federal budget deficit. For each one, please tell me if you would find this totally acceptable, mostly acceptable, mostly unacceptable, or totally unacceptable as a way to help reduce the federal deficit."
"Q25 Let me you read you a number of programs that could be cut significantly as a way to reduce the current federal budget deficit. For each one, please tell me if you think significantly cutting the funding for this program is totally acceptable, mostly acceptable, mostly unacceptable, or totally unacceptable as a way to help reduce the federal deficit."
8 comments:
I agree with tax and save and think a balanced budget amendment is a really dumb idea. I believe 4 out 5 economists surveyed would agree the federal govt needs to have the power of deficit spending for recessions and probably for wars or other national emergencies, too. Without the voodoo economics of the supply siders the country would not be in such bad shape that this looks like a good solution.
Though I still like the Balanced Budget amendment... A compromise:
"Max Nat'l Debt Level Amendment"...
(ie a credit limit)
After looking at the Rev vs GDP graph (Link), it looks like the Supply Siders really did not control taxes that well. The percentage has steadily been going up from Reagan through today. (except for recessions)
It looks like we have had a spending problem since the rev as % GDP has been going up, and the National Debt has been growing. (ie recipe for disaster)
Unless we are getting less competitive and that is slowing the growth of our GDP. Either way we can not afford the current high growth rate of our govt and society costs.
When do we become too non-competitive and our GDP really starts to plummet? For you Govt supporters: if you over tax folks, we become less competitive globally, the GDP and citizen incomes drop, etc..
I know this does not mean too much to you.. But get ready. Then the govt revenues plummet... (OH NO !!! SCARY!!!)
I forgot.. You have the answer: "JUST RAISE THE TAX RATE AGAIN" And the water continues accelerating down the toilet...
Before we put too much stock in public opinion polls, especially those whose methodology and analysis are handled by biased media sources or entertainment outlets like the Post, I think we should consider that they just might be the equivalent of one of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments. Penn and Teller do a bit where they go to a public event (like an environmentalist demonstration) and ask people to sign petitions to "ban the deadly chemical oxygen dihydride." (That's H2O, and it causes thousands of deaths a year.)
Oh, and a BBA might be the only thing that saves the country. What's good enough for some 45 states ought to be good for Congress.
J. Ewing
about:
RAISE THE TAX RATE AGAIN
perhaps I am misremebering, but aren't tax rates at relative lows when looked at historically. Also, I'm pretty sure the last significant changes in the federal tax code have been tax cuts, under both G. W. and Obama.
Tax cuts occured under Bush and were renewed under Obama. Revenue graph shows some high amounts in the mid-2000's, so the cuts must not have reduced revenues too much.
The Alternative Minimum Tax started biting many wealthier people during this period. I hear my better off friends complaining often...
Increasing tax rates do not increase revenue, and it's been proven time and time again. Lowering tax rates increases revenue; it's been proven time and again.
If this poll is supposed to show the "wisdom" of the public on this issue, it proves the opposite. It proves that people aren't paying attention and don't understand the issues. It proves that their "wants" are being manipulated by a media elite that spins pleasant fantasies and tales of horror rather than actual news and information.
J. Ewing
J,
I will have to disagree with you based on Reagan and GW Bush's results, and the related massive National Debt growth during their terms. Give us some data to prove your belief.
It seems whatever happened during Clinton terms was on the right track... Or he got lucky... National debt was headed down.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and the Kennedy tax cuts, all INCREASED revenue to the Treasury. The problem was that Congress increased spending even more. Sort of like Minnesota. This increased the deficit, and thus the total accumulated debt.
What happened in the Clinton years was that the rate of spending growth was held down and revenues started to catch up. What it illustrates is that it is and always has been a spending problem. The great thing about a BBA, which 45 states already have, is that it offers some "reason" to Congress to spend less. Nothing else, even reality, seems to restrain them.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment