Americans Oppose Income redistribution to fix economy!

[DarkWizard12]

All is not lost it looks like.

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

 

[Iriemon]

All is not lost it looks like.

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

Actually the poll asked if Americans would prefer the Govt to improve the economy over distributing wealth more evenly. That makes sense.

You'd probably get the same skewed results if the question was whether Americans prefer the Govt to increase income disparaty over improving the economy.

Most folks would like to see a better economy. Under the current circumstances, who wouldn't?

 

[Dezaad]

All is not lost it looks like.

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

Deceptive Title, :spin: Meister. Article says nothing about Americans being opposed to Income Redistribution. It merely says, and the poll simply indicates, that Americans think there are other policies that are more important toward fixing the economy.

 

[Scucca]

It merely says, and the poll simply indicates, that Americans think there are other policies that are more important toward fixing the economy.

But to what extent are they misled? The inequalities generated by neo-liberalism is a symptom of the disease after all

 

[DarkWizard12]

Deceptive Title, :spin: Meister. Article says nothing about Americans being opposed to Income Redistribution. It merely says, and the poll simply indicates, that Americans think there are other policies that are more important toward fixing the economy.

so...you don't admit that there are other policies to fix the economy besides income redestribution? As you can see, Americans would rather have something else.

Talk about liberal :spin:

 

[Kandahar]

But ask the American people about specific income redistribution policies and you'll get very different answers.

It's just like "low taxes." Almost everyone claims to favor low taxes...until you start asking them about specific programs they'd like to cut.

 

[Dezaad]

so...you don't admit that there are other policies to fix the economy besides income redestribution? As you can see, Americans would rather have something else.

Talk about liberal :spin:

Where did I say that there aren't other policies that assist in fixing the economy?

And this poll does NOT say that Americans would rather have something else. It merely says that given two policies they would chooseone over the other, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they might want BOTH policies.

Do they test for reading comprehension in schools any more?

Poll takers were asked "Which approach should government focus on to fix the economy?" and given the false dichotomy of choosing between "Take steps to distribute wealth..." and "Take steps to improve overall economic conditions..."

Since Gallup has been around a very long time and knows better than to ask questions that yield such misleading information about attitudes, I have to conclude that they wanted to mislead people.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

I can agree with that title. The economy is healthiest with a large middle class, and upwardly redistributing income (such as with Bush's tax cuts) will only make things worse.

 

[LaMidRighter]

But ask the American people about specific income redistribution policies and you'll get very different answers.

It's just like "low taxes." Almost everyone claims to favor low taxes...until you start asking them about specific programs they'd like to cut.

You've mentioned a very dangerous phenomena, pet issues and tax cuts. I take the approach that we should only pay in full those things the government is allowed and required to do; defense, interstate infrastructure, general welfare(not the mis-labeld Great society/New Deal programs). I don't have a problem with very limited secondary spending, but that must have strict time limits and requirements to keep the programs solvent. I think all of us could agree that we should keep government on a fat free budget AND reduce taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

You've mentioned a very dangerous phenomena, pet issues and tax cuts. I take the approach that we should only pay in full those things the government is allowed and required to do; defense, interstate infrastructure, general welfare(not the mis-labeld Great society/New Deal programs). I don't have a problem with very limited secondary spending, but that must have strict time limits and requirements to keep the programs solvent. I think all of us could agree that we should keep government on a fat free budget AND reduce taxes.

I disagree that providing for a good education for all Americans, basic health care, temporary support for persons who through no fault of their own lose their jobs, and support for those too old or disabled to be productive workers is fat that should be eliminated.

Regardless of views on government spending, I think all of us should agree that we should pay taxes necessary to cover government spending so that the government does not run up trillions of debt; and only cut taxes when the Govt cuts spending correspondingly.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I disagree that providing for a good education for all Americans, basic health care, temporary support for persons who through no fault of their own lose their jobs, and support for those too old or disabled to be productive workers is fat that should be eliminated.

Feel good issues can indeed be defined as fat because the federal government has neither the constitutional responsibility nor the right to provide such. I have no problem with education being provided, but it needs to be streamlined, with states(who have the right reserved to provide such) having more control and financial responsibility and the federal providing only assistance. Basic health care is not a right, period, and should not be treated as such, the government should never even be considered to provide funding for private health matters, it is fat, unnecessary, and improper. I have no problem with VERY temporary assistance for job loss during unfortunate circumstances, as this is not a recurring expense and a pittance of the overall budget.

Regardless of views on government spending, I think all of us should agree that we should pay taxes necessary to cover government spending so that the government does not run up trillions of debt; and only cut taxes when the Govt cuts spending correspondingly.

Funny that you talk about paying more taxes until spending is cut and then advocate more government programs. This is why I stopped debating with you.

 

[Iriemon]

Feel good issues can indeed be defined as fat because the federal government has neither the constitutional responsibility nor the right to provide such. I have no problem with education being provided, but it needs to be streamlined, with states(who have the right reserved to provide such) having more control and financial responsibility and the federal providing only assistance. Basic health care is not a right, period, and should not be treated as such, the government should never even be considered to provide funding for private health matters, it is fat, unnecessary, and improper. I have no problem with VERY temporary assistance for job loss during unfortunate circumstances, as this is not a recurring expense and a pittance of the overall budget.
Funny that you talk about paying more taxes until spending is cut and then advocate more government programs. This is why I stopped debating with you.

Funny you should talk about cutting taxes when the government is $9 trillion in debt and borrowing $1/2 more every year.

The pass the buck generation.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Funny you should talk about cutting taxes when the government is $9 trillion in debt and borrowing $1/2 more every year.

The pass the buck generation.

So.....we keep spending money on programs that are wasteful, and in fact exacerbate problems they are supposed to fix while taking more from earners? Does that really seem like a good idea to you? Most of the programs that should be cut to save money also justify a lowering of the tax rates all around. BTW, the debt has been growing since the advent of many of the beaurocratic creations of the 60's and 70's, so cut them and give people their money back. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

 

[Iriemon]

So.....we keep spending money on programs that are wasteful, and in fact exacerbate problems they are supposed to fix while taking more from earners? Does that really seem like a good idea to you? Most of the programs that should be cut to save money also justify a lowering of the tax rates all around. BTW, the debt has been growing since the advent of many of the beaurocratic creations of the 60's and 70's, so cut them and give people their money back. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

The Govt collecting revenues sufficient to cover what it spends is a very good idea IMO.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The Govt collecting revenues sufficient to cover what it spends is a very good idea IMO.

Not when they spend money they don't have a right to spend. If you force government to spend less because of less revenue, then it must spend less, resulting in less need for excessive taxation. Besides, more revenue comes in during low tax periods.

 

[Iriemon]

Not when they spend money they don't have a right to spend. If you force government to spend less because of less revenue, then it must spend less, resulting in less need for excessive taxation. Besides, more revenue comes in during low tax periods.

That is where we differ --

The Govt has never in the past 28 years spent less because of less revenue. It just borrows more, which is why the Govt is $9 trillion in debt.

Your statement that about revenue is false in any meaningful sense.

 

[Kandahar]

Not when they spend money they don't have a right to spend. If you force government to spend less because of less revenue, then it must spend less, resulting in less need for excessive taxation.

The old "starving the beast" argument, huh? What makes you think that it'll work THIS time?

Besides, more revenue comes in during low tax periods.

This is demonstrably false, and if it WERE true, it would undermine your previous argument. Why NOT spend a lot more money? We could just cut taxes to pay for it. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

So.....we keep spending money on programs that are wasteful, and in fact exacerbate problems they are supposed to fix while taking more from earners? Does that really seem like a good idea to you? Most of the programs that should be cut to save money also justify a lowering of the tax rates all around. BTW, the debt has been growing since the advent of many of the beaurocratic creations of the 60's and 70's, so cut them and give people their money back. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

Dem politicians get their power by using our money to buy stuff for their voters. Why would a dem politician ever cut spending on their voters? Why would they ever try to keep the tax bills on the minority who pay most of the taxes low?

Dems crave a situation where most of their voters are non taxpayers or at least are not negatively affected by tax hikes. Then they can buy a majority of votes paid for by net tax payers

 

[Iriemon]

Dem politicians get their power by using our money to buy stuff for their voters. Why would a dem politician ever cut spending on their voters? Why would they ever try to keep the tax bills on the minority who pay most of the taxes low?

Dems crave a situation where most of their voters are non taxpayers or at least are not negatively affected by tax hikes. Then they can buy a majority of votes paid for by net tax payers

What makes Rep politicians any different? They buy stuff for their voters, the only difference is they just charge it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

What makes Rep politicians any different? They buy stuff for their voters, the only difference is they just charge it.

What makes you think Democrat leaders haven't been "charging it" as well? The debt didn't start in 1994, the only difference is the Democrats steal more money from taxpayers and still have to borrow additional funds to suplement the funding taxpayers won't accept.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The old "starving the beast" argument, huh? What makes you think that it'll work THIS time?

because it would have to or else the government goes bankrupt.

This is demonstrably false, and if it WERE true, it would undermine your previous argument. Why NOT spend a lot more money? We could just cut taxes to pay for it. :roll:

Fine, prove me wrong. Last I checked more money has been coming into government coffers over the last 7.5 years since the Bush tax cuts were passed.

 

[Iriemon]

because it would have to or else the government goes bankrupt.

Since when have "conservatives" been concerned about that? Last time was back in the 70s, I reckon.

Fine, prove me wrong. Last I checked more money has been coming into government coffers over the last 7.5 years since the Bush tax cuts were passed.

Total revenues: CBO.gov

2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1

 

[Iriemon]

What makes you think Democrat leaders haven't been "charging it" as well? The debt didn't start in 1994, the only difference is the Democrats steal more money from taxpayers and still have to borrow additional funds to suplement the funding taxpayers won't accept.

Lest you have forgotten, the budget was is surplus the last time we had a Democratic president.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Lest you have forgotten, the budget was is surplus the last time we had a Democratic president.

We also had 40% < income taxes. :roll: Merry. If it was so great, Al Gore should have won ands down, and democrats take the control of congress.

But it didn't....

 

[Kandahar]

because it would have to or else the government goes bankrupt.

Then the government goes bankrupt. At least you understand and admit the result of your "cut taxes now, worry about spending later" policy.

Fine, prove me wrong. Last I checked more money has been coming into government coffers over the last 7.5 years since the Bush tax cuts were passed.

This is simply not true. Even a quick Google of our government's revenues should dispel this blatant falsehood.

And you didn't answer my question. If what you're saying is true (that lower taxes = higher revenue), then why do you care if the government spends a lot of money, when we could just cut taxes to pay for it all? Obviously you know perfectly well that this premise is not true, or you wouldn't ALSO claim that cutting taxes will choke off the revenue that results in higher spending. :roll: