80% favor tax increases? Really?

[Melody]

He pulled that number out of his, er, ear.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal - Rasmussen Reports

[qsilvr2531]

The source is in your first link.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

20% respond "Only with spending cuts." The other 80%, by definition, are in favor of some form of tax increase.

[Melody]

The source is in your first link.

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

20% respond "Only with spending cuts." The other 80%, by definition, are in favor of some form of tax increase.

And only 7% respond, "mostly with tax increases" which is what our President is proposing.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the poll statistics. I won't believe these people are serious until they QUIT LYING. GOP not shining either, but my gosh! Does this president not realize that even old people like me know how to use google?

[mtutiger]

And only 7% respond, "mostly with tax increases" which is what our President is proposing.

This isn't what the President is proposing... he's proposed 3-1 cuts/taxes... that is hardly "mostly with tax increases"

[Sparks4Ever]

50% support all or mostly spending cuts. Pretty clear misrepresentation by the Prez.

[qsilvr2531]

50% support all or mostly spending cuts. Pretty clear misrepresentation by the Prez.

It is no more a misrepresentation than the 50% you posted.

[qsilvr2531]

And only 7% respond, "mostly with tax increases" which is what our President is proposing.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the poll statistics. I won't believe these people are serious until they QUIT LYING. GOP not shining either, but my gosh! Does this president not realize that even old people like me know how to use google?

11% favor mostly with tax increases or All with tax increases. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I won't believe people are serious until they quit lying. My generation may have learned addition from a calculator but do you not realize we can still (mostly) add 4+7 together? :-p

Seriously though, it's a matter of debate whether his proposal is mostly with tax increases or not. I don't particularly like the proposal (due to it's short term nature and lack of any long term solution on spending, but things have gotten to the point where we really need AT LEAST a short term solution right now) but on the other hand the counter proposal to his is actually NO tax increase, which is, I believe, what the president is responding to above. I don't see any deliberate lying or misrepresentation going on here. I do see a lot of people on both sides of the aisle suffering a massive case of confirmation bias though, as anyone (again, both sides) that looks at these results seems to come away with the conclusion that the results agree with their pre-conceived notion of what to do.

[ballmich]

To reference a poll of 1,016 people of which only 897 are registered voters, and pawn it off as the will of the people, is clearly being disingenious.

What I can say is that here in California, Governor Brown's plan has been to increase taxes "on the wealthy" to bridge (in addition to cuts) the budget shortfall. And without Republican support, he continued to threaten to put it on the ballot as an initiative for get it through based up on a vote of the people. Various polls show that 60%+ of Californians reject income and/or sales tax increases. That includes over 50%+ of Democrats polled. Eventually Brown had to back down because he didn't have support to raise taxes (and then miraculously revenue increased in the budget so there was no need to raises taxes-- must be the economic pick-up from chasing business out of the state).

And if 60% of Californians don't support state tax increases, a pretty liberal state in general, I'd be surprised if 80% of Americans were on the other side of the coin on increasing federal taxes.

[pfife]

To reference a poll of 1,016 people of which only 897 are registered voters, and pawn it off as the will of the people, is clearly being disingenious.

Actually its not. That's right about the right number needed to accurately measure attitudes in the US, as long as its sampled correctly, and by correctly I mean a simple random sample. I have no idea if this was a simple random sample.

[Melody]

11% favor mostly with tax increases or All with tax increases. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I won't believe people are serious until they quit lying. My generation may have learned addition from a calculator but do you not realize we can still (mostly) add 4+7 together? :-p

AFAIK, the President hasn't proposed "all with tax increases." Technically, since he is proposing a combination that 4% oppose his plan in theory.

It is still a lie that 80% of the American people want a tax increase. The majority are open to it presuming that there are sufficient spending cuts to go along with it. I happen to be in that majority. I'm just not seeing them being serious about cutting spending.

Why, for example, is the President so opposed to taking the stimulus money that the states refused for the high speed rail and applying that against other needed spending. One would think that flood relief (rebuilding homes for the displaced) would stimulate the economy sufficiently.

[qsilvr2531]

AFAIK, the President hasn't proposed "all with tax increases." Technically, since he is proposing a combination that 4% oppose his plan in theory.

What tax increases does the current republican proposal include?

[mtutiger]

And if 60% of Californians don't support state tax increases, a pretty liberal state in general, I'd be surprised if 80% of Americans were on the other side of the coin on increasing federal taxes.

California is liberal insofar as it's social views and domestic spending. It's NEVER been liberal in liking taxes.

[Mr. DNA]

Yeah, Obama pretty much gave away the store to Republicans in terms of spending cuts and they rejected it, so the idea that he's not offering non-tax increase solutions to the deficit is just plain wrong. How many trillions in cuts did he offer over the next 10 years? 3? 4? I can't remember. His proposal was far to the right of his party and probably farther to the right than most of the Republican base is willing to swallow. He wanted to raise the Medicare age to 67! How is that a tax increase solution? That's right out of Paul Ryan's playbook-- keep the people in the hands of private insurance two years longer...That goes over like a lead balloon with both the Dem and Republican bases.

[qsilvr2531]

It is still a lie that 80% of the American people want a tax increase. The majority are open to it presuming that there are sufficient spending cuts to go along with it. I happen to be in that majority. I'm just not seeing them being serious about cutting spending.

Why, for example, is the President so opposed to taking the stimulus money that the states refused for the high speed rail and applying that against other needed spending. One would think that flood relief (rebuilding homes for the displaced) would stimulate the economy sufficiently.

Did he say 80% "want" a tax increase or "favor" (I really don't know, I haven't actually heard the speech or read a transcript of it)? If he said "favor" he is quoting a stat that is directly inferred from a survey. He isn't even misusing the stat when he quotes it. His statement isn't a lie.

I tend to agree with you as far as being serious about cutting spending, though I'm not sure we'd agree on who "them" really is.

[Mr. DNA]

I think if you got into just which Americans/income levels would be taxed, you'd probably have a large percentage of Americans (maybe not 80%, but close) in favor of tax increases on the wealthy. Of course, for any number of reasons, Americans don't want THEIR taxes increased to reduce the deficit, but I think they'd be OK with Jamie Dimon paying a few more percentage points on his 40th million.

Regardless of all this, the national debt is not a major concern of your random sampling of Americans-- they'd rather worry about employment, health care, and things actually relevant to their lives since they're, you know, not major players in the global economy or mercenaries working for the major players. Some of these minor actors have been so well-trained by the ideologues of the elite that they actually endorse policies that strip their communities of resources while maintaining the well-being of transnational financiers, but I don't think most Americans are of that mindset. But you get what you vote for, even if it is poorly informed knee-jerk choice that bites you hard in the rear end when your community is decimated by budget cuts. Or if you stay home altogether like 60% of Americans of voting age in the mid-terms.

[ballmich]

Regardless of all this, the national debt is not a major concern of your random sampling of Americans-- they'd rather worry about employment, health care, and things actually relevant to their lives...

The Gallup poll linked to in the first post says otherwise.

Gallup finds about 6 in 10 Americans paying close attention to the debate about raising the debt limit. When the same poll asked for their general position on raising the limit, without providing reasons for doing so or not doing so, Americans were more likely to oppose an increase than favor one. The 42% who are opposed to doing so generally find fault with the government's spending patterns when asked in an open-ended format to explain their views.

The most common reasons given for opposing an increased debt limit are that the U.S. already has too much debt and cannot afford more, that the government needs to control its spending, and that it needs to do a better job of budgeting and living within its means. Another common response is that raising the debt limit does not implicitly address the government's debt problem, and that government would likely just keep raising the limit in the future.

The smaller proportion of Americans who favor an increase to the debt limit, 22%, are most likely to believe the United States has little choice in the matter -- in other words, the action may be undesirable but is necessary. Most commonly, proponents say they favor increasing the limit to avoid an economic catastrophe, which some experts including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner predict will occur if the government is no longer able to borrow money. The other most common reasons for favoring a higher debt limit are that the U.S. cannot default on its debt, that the country simply has "no choice" in the matter, and to avoid a disruption of government services and benefits.

[Sparks4Ever]

It is no more a misrepresentation than the 50% you posted.

Absolutely not. I stated exactly what the gallup poll stated. This is what the President said:

Chuck, you have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach.

Press Conference by the President | The White House

It is a huge stretch to bucket people who want "mostly spending cuts" with those who want "a balanced approach". It's a major misrepresentation of the polling data.

[Mr. DNA]

Why, for example, is the President so opposed to taking the stimulus money that the states refused for the high speed rail and applying that against other needed spending. One would think that flood relief (rebuilding homes for the displaced) would stimulate the economy sufficiently.

I'd imagine because there are already federal funds budgeted for rebuilding homes destroyed by flooding. If those funds prove insufficient, I can't imagine a President or congress denying aid to southern states. But even so, why have federal money that was budgeted specifically for high speed rail and NOT use it on high speed rail in OTHER states that would welcome it? Would it not stimulate the economy in those states, thus accomplishing his goal of economic stimulus nationwide? If Rick Scott would rather turn down federal funds marked for high speed rail and tax Floridians to build their own commuter rail (which it seems he's doing), that's on him and the people who voted for a man that had already bilked the taxpayers out of billions before he was elected. If I were the Feds, I'd be awfully careful before disbursing funds to that state.

[mtutiger]

Absolutely not. I stated exactly what the gallup poll stated. This is what the President said:



Press Conference by the President | The White House

It is a huge stretch to bucket people who want "mostly spending cuts" with those who want "a balanced approach". It's a major misrepresentation of the polling data.

Once again, wasn't it the President who was willing to cut a deal for 3-1 cuts/revenue?

I'm pretty sure the President agrees with those who want mostly spending cuts, apparently.

[Sparks4Ever]

I'd imagine because there are already federal funds budgeted for rebuilding homes destroyed by flooding. If those funds prove insufficient, I can't imagine a President or congress denying aid to southern states. But even so, why have federal money that was budgeted specifically for high speed rail and NOT use it on high speed rail in OTHER states that would welcome it? Would it not stimulate the economy in those states, thus accomplishing his goal of economic stimulus nationwide? If Rick Scott would rather turn down federal funds marked for high speed rail and tax Floridians to build their own commuter rail (which it seems he's doing), that's on him and the people who voted for a man that had already bilked the taxpayers out of billions before he was elected. If I were the Feds, I'd be awfully careful before disbursing funds to that state.

States were required to pay for a portion of the costs of high speed rail, and a high speed rail line in Florida would undoubtedly be unprofitable, have high maintenance costs, low ridership, etc.

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama | GazetteNET

Cost overruns could put Florida on the hook for another $3 billion and once completed, there's a good chance ridership won't pay for the operating cost, meaning the state would have to pump more money into the line each year, Scott said.

[Sparks4Ever]

Once again, wasn't it the President who was willing to cut a deal for 3-1 cuts/revenue?

President Obama has never laid out a clear picture of what he's actually proposing, so I have no idea.

[qsilvr2531]

Absolutely not. I stated exactly what the gallup poll stated. This is what the President said:

Press Conference by the President | The White House

It is a huge stretch to bucket people who want "mostly spending cuts" with those who want "a balanced approach". It's a major misrepresentation of the polling data.

"Chuck, you have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements."

He clarifies what he means by "balanced approach" and defines it as an approach that includes revenues and cuts.

Technically you are absolutely correct though, he should not have included the 4% that only want tax increases in the 80%. He's a liar and no one should trust him.

By combining categories he no more misrepresented the survey than you did by combined the all cuts and mostly cuts people. It is not a stretch at all that those 30% that want mostly cuts "support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts."

[qsilvr2531]

President Obama has never laid out a clear picture of what he's actually proposing, so I have no idea.

This is a criticism I totally agree with.

[Melody]

I'd imagine because there are already federal funds budgeted for rebuilding homes destroyed by flooding. If those funds prove insufficient, I can't imagine a President or congress denying aid to southern states. But even so, why have federal money that was budgeted specifically for high speed rail and NOT use it on high speed rail in OTHER states that would welcome it? Would it not stimulate the economy in those states, thus accomplishing his goal of economic stimulus nationwide? If Rick Scott would rather turn down federal funds marked for high speed rail and tax Floridians to build their own commuter rail (which it seems he's doing), that's on him and the people who voted for a man that had already bilked the taxpayers out of billions before he was elected. If I were the Feds, I'd be awfully careful before disbursing funds to that state.

Umm... where to start. You do understand that the current discussion is over having to increase the debt limit in order to pay for everything the government wants/needs to spend money on, right?

BUDGETED funds doesn't mean that there's money in the bank to pay for it. So if there is unspent money in one part of the budget, why wouldn't we prefer using that to pay for another obligation instead of looking at it as surplus and putting the other obligation on the credit card?

[MrDeeds]

I think if you got into just which Americans/income levels would be taxed, you'd probably have a large percentage of Americans (maybe not 80%, but close) in favor of tax increases on the wealthy. Of course, for any number of reasons, Americans don't want THEIR taxes increased to reduce the deficit, but I think they'd be OK with Jamie Dimon paying a few more percentage points on his 40th million.

Regardless of all this, the national debt is not a major concern of your random sampling of Americans-- they'd rather worry about employment, health care, and things actually relevant to their lives since they're, you know, not major players in the global economy or mercenaries working for the major players. Some of these minor actors have been so well-trained by the ideologues of the elite that they actually endorse policies that strip their communities of resources while maintaining the well-being of transnational financiers, but I don't think most Americans are of that mindset. But you get what you vote for, even if it is poorly informed knee-jerk choice that bites you hard in the rear end when your community is decimated by budget cuts. Or if you stay home altogether like 60% of Americans of voting age in the mid-terms.

CBS News/NYT Poll: 6/29/11 - CBS News

"Which comes closer to your own view? The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means it has to borrow the money to do so. OR, The federal government should not spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on lowering the country's debt."


Spend to create jobs: 42%
Lower country's debt: 52%
Unsure: 6%

[MrDeeds]

President Obama has never laid out a clear picture of what he's actually proposing, so I have no idea.

According to his supporters, Obama's previous positons on the deficit/debt ceiling have been political, so who knows?

[screwball]

Umm... where to start. You do understand that the current discussion is over having to increase the debt limit in order to pay for everything the government wants/needs to spend money on, right?

BUDGETED funds doesn't mean that there's money in the bank to pay for it. So if there is unspent money in one part of the budget, why wouldn't we prefer using that to pay for another obligation instead of looking at it as surplus and putting the other obligation on the credit card?

I'm trying to understand this, so bear with me.

If these budgeted funds are not there that would have been used for X, but now we are not doing X, so we can pay Y. I think that's what you are saying.

Why use it at all? We're putting this on the credit card too, no?

[Melody]

I'm trying to understand this, so bear with me.

If these budgeted funds are not there that would have been used for X, but now we are not doing X, so we can pay Y. I think that's what you are saying.

Why use it at all? We're putting this on the credit card too, no?

I'd be okay with that too. The original point was Obama's resistance to using the returned and unused stimulus funds to offset the deficit, so I was speaking strictly within that context.

EDIT: Screwball, you might appreciate this story. Years ago, I worked a few hours a week as a bookkeeper/secretary for a little mission church. Now, churches draw up a budget based on projected income, much like out government does. Pastor leaves, and the church lost a number of members while the search was going on for a new pastor. Hence, attendance and offerings were down. Some expenses are set; nothing you can do about them like the mortgage payments on the building. One of the budgeted items was to pay a musician, but a lady in the church who didn't have much money to offer and knew the financial situation volunteered to play piano for free so that the church could meet other obligations.

New pastor comes in, fresh out of seminary, his first experience pastoring a church as opposed to preaching only. He asked for budget reports, which I gave him. Then he called a board meeting which I attended mainly to answer questions about the reports I'd run and to take minutes. He announced that he wanted to take that unspent musician budget and buy some frippery or the other. Board tells him that the church can't afford it. Nothing we said to explain how budgets work could convince him that you had to put the money IN before you can spend it. Next thing you know, he straight up accused a couple of board members of STEALING the musician money. Then the rodeo was ON! Craziest thing I ever saw.

[screwball]

Gotcha. I missed that.

[ROMAD1]

I'd be okay with that too. The original point was Obama's resistance to using the returned and unused stimulus funds to offset the deficit, so I was speaking strictly within that context.

EDIT: Screwball, you might appreciate this story. Years ago, I worked a few hours a week as a bookkeeper/secretary for a little mission church. Now, churches draw up a budget based on projected income, much like out government does. Pastor leaves, and the church lost a number of members while the search was going on for a new pastor. Hence, attendance and offerings were down. Some expenses are set; nothing you can do about them like the mortgage payments on the building. One of the budgeted items was to pay a musician, but a lady in the church who didn't have much money to offer and knew the financial situation volunteered to play piano for free so that the church could meet other obligations.

New pastor comes in, fresh out of seminary, his first experience pastoring a church as opposed to preaching only. He asked for budget reports, which I gave him. Then he called a board meeting which I attended mainly to answer questions about the reports I'd run and to take minutes. He announced that he wanted to take that unspent musician budget and buy some frippery or the other. Board tells him that the church can't afford it. Nothing we said to explain how budgets work could convince him that you had to put the money IN before you can spend it. Next thing you know, he straight up accused a couple of board members of STEALING the musician money. Then the rodeo was ON! Craziest thing I ever saw.

love the drama

[Melody]

love the drama

I've got even better stories from my stint as PTA treasurer! LOL