Republican voters don't want anything cut

[itshappening]

The "compromise" in the fiscal cliff deal from Democrats is supposed to come in the form of spending cuts. But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

It goes hand in hand with the disparity between voters' wish for blanket "spending cuts" and their opposition to any cuts to an entitlement that benefits them.

A look at what Republicans oppose:

By 47-37, letting the Obama payroll tax cut expire.
By 68-26, cutting spending for Medicare.
By 61-33, cutting spending for Medicaid.
By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.
By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction.
By 56-44, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

Republicans don't favor much in any potential deal — they also, of course, are opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on any income bracket. Pollster Lee M. Miringoff warns that they might be unhappy with whatever happens.

“There’s no clear statement of what Republican voters want to happen. There’s opposition to everything,” Miringoff said.

“If you’re a Republican in Congress looking for what Republican voters are telling you, they’re not telling you much."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fiscal-cliff-poll-taxes-spending-cuts-medicare-eligibility-obama-boehner-2012-12#ixzz2ElldOQ1a
-

Goes to show how far the welfare state is entrenched.

[AuH20]

This country was officially lost after the New Deal. Let it burn down and we'll figure it from there.

[CaptUSA]

See, this is why I think the conversation needs to be about cutting handouts to corporations. Of course, neither party wants to touch that - it's how they make their living. But if you really want to "stick it to the rich", you'd do a lot better if you'd just stop giving them taxpayer money. No need to raise their taxes - just stop giving them things for free.

People seem to forget about these entitlements.

It's always going to be politically risky to cut entitlements to people who have grown to depend on them. Ron Paul knew this. That's why you start at the top and work your way down.

[matt0611]

3 of those are not "cuts", they're tax increases.

[dannno]

3 of those are not "cuts", they're tax increases.

And of the ones that ARE cuts, Ron Paul says those are the LAST things he would cut. Yet these idiots are acting like the only thing that could possibly be cut is old people's retirement :rolleyes:

[James Madison]

Not surprising that old people would be against cutting medicare. If they polled Social Security, the results would have been even worse. This just goes to show that Republicans love socialism as much as the next guy, just so long as they're the ones getting the free stuff.

[juleswin]

I say expand the choice and add things like ending the wars, debts and military cuts to the spending cut options. Then make it clear them that there are only two options - these cuts or a tax increase. Now if they still cant pick out areas to cut, you send in the tax man and let em go crazy with their paychecks.

Times a wasting, we got to make up our minds and pick one.

[Brett85]

"By 47-37, letting the Obama payroll tax cut expire.
By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.
By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction."

I'm opposed to those "cuts" as well, since they aren't actually "cuts" but tax increases.

[Keith and stuff]

I am pretty sure even Republicans favor cutting foreign welfare and corporate handouts. Where is Rand Paul again?

[surf]

"defense" spending not asked....

hmmm.

[erowe1]

How can they conclude from that data that "There's Not A Single Spending Cut That Republican Voters Support"?

Go ahead and say Republicans aren't for cutting the most expensive things. But to say "not a single cut" is completely dishonest. Where are the polls for farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, public TV and radio, NIH research, foreign aid, etc.?

[juleswin]

Not surprising that old people would be against cutting medicare. If they polled Social Security, the results would have been even worse. This just goes to show that Republicans love socialism as much as the next guy, just so long as they're the ones getting the free stuff.

I dunno if love for socialism as at play with senior citizens reluctance to cut meidcare and ss. You got to understand that

1. These people have paid into the system all their lives
2. The medical cost for a senior is so expensive that most of em would die without medicare (I know medicine is expensive partly bcos medicare exists)

So we got to be very delicate when discussing these issues. What needs to change is for young people to make their voice heard. These programs needs to be orderly wind down and some people are going to be hurt in the process. And what senior citizens are saying is "better be you than me" :) .

[erowe1]

Also, notice the last question in the poll: "If there is no deal between Obama and Congress who is more to blame?"

Why not ask, "If there is a deal between Obama and Congress who is more to blame?"

[erowe1]

I dunno if love for socialism as at play with senior citizens reluctance to cut meidcare and ss. You got to understand that

1. These people have paid into the system all their lives
2. The medical cost for a senior is so expensive that most of em would die without medicare (I know medicine is expensive partly bcos medicare exists)

So we got to be very delicate when discussing these issues. What needs to change is for young people to make their voice heard. These programs needs to be orderly wind down and some people are going to be hurt in the process. And what senior citizens are saying is "better be you than me" :) .

Politicians running for office, including the ones we support, need to be delicate when discussing them.

But outside of that, we really need to shift the rhetoric on those issues. It shouldn't be taboo to call those programs welfare and socialism, or to call seniors who vote to keep them going greedy. And we should be trying to make them more unpopular, and make more people feel guilty about supporting their continuance. They are immoral, and that needs to be said.

[AuH20]

Social Security and Medicare are the two unmentionables that will eventually consume the entire federal revenue stream. I don't know what the answer will be.

[erowe1]

Social Security and Medicare are the two unmentionables that will eventually consume the entire federal revenue stream. I don't know what the answer will be.

I don't either. But if something can't go on forever, then it won't.

[AuH20]

Morality is in rare supply these days:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214782

[TCE]

"defense" spending not asked....

hmmm.

I'm getting really tired of this Orwellian "defense spending cuts" stuff. I'm glad Rand sees through this and calls it "Pentagon cuts." Obviously there is some waste at the Pentagon, but cuts to "defense" do not make us weaker.

[juleswin]

I'm getting really tired of this Orwellian "defense spending cuts" stuff. I'm glad Rand sees through this and calls it "Pentagon cuts." Obviously there is some waste at the Pentagon, but cuts to "defense" do not make us weaker.

But even calling it defense, we can still cut defense spending. If you agree with the news coming out of the pentagon that they are pwning the terrorists hard, they are also winding down 2 wars and getting very efficient at fighting/defending. So doesnt it follow that even "defense" spending should come down in that environment. We dont in our personal life budget XXX amount for electricity even after we moved out to a smaller, more energy efficient house.. So why should govt maintain XX amount for defense?

[dillo]

This country was officially lost after the New Deal. Let it burn down and we'll figure it from there.

Great Society was way worse than the New Deal

[AuH20]

Great Society was way worse than the New Deal

But the New Deal was the gateway to this entire sick world we are currently living in. Until 1933, government only consumed 3% of total GDP. Once Americans were given this taste of illegally obtained fruits & an authoritarian based central economy, it was essentially over for the Republic. Today, the government consumes a quarter of all GDP with no end in sight.

[heavenlyboy34]

This country was officially lost after the [New Deal] Civil War. Let it burn down and we'll figure it from there.
FIFY.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the thing, I don't think most Seniors realize that the payout for SS and Medicare is far, far more than what they paid in; even with interest added on. So, I think numbers need to be shown.

PLUS, and I think this is a big plus, before SS or Medicare are touched, the militarism has to be cut, along with foreign aid and several federal agencies. Then, they would know that they weren't the only ones being asked to take the brunt of it.

[CaptUSA]

Here's the thing, I don't think most Seniors realize that the payout for SS and Medicare is far, far more than what they paid in; even with interest added on. So, I think numbers need to be shown.

I'm not sure where you are getting this. If you otherwise invested your 1950's dollars, you'd most likely be far better off than SS. Remember, 1950's dollars were worth a lot more than 2012's dollars.

You may have a point on Medicare, but only because they haven't been paying as long and the cost of medical care if incredibly inflated due to government intervention.

[erowe1]

Here's the thing, I don't think most Seniors realize that the payout for SS and Medicare is far, far more than what they paid in; even with interest added on.

That depends how long you live. If it was actually their money, it wouldn't depend on that, because whatever they had invested would be theirs to pass on.

And that's what's more important to get through to them than the numbers. It's not their money. Their money was taken from them and given to someone else. And now someone else's money is being taken and given to them.

[dinosaur]

This country was officially lost after the New Deal. Let it burn down and we'll figure it from there.

Watch what you wish for. We just spent decades arming and pissing off countries around the world. We may have created our enemies, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.

[erowe1]

I'm not sure where you are getting this. If you otherwise invested your 1950's dollars, you'd most likely be far better off than SS.

But most investments earn more on average than what you could get with just interest.

[jbauer]

How can they conclude from that data that "There's Not A Single Spending Cut That Republican Voters Support"?

Go ahead and say Republicans aren't for cutting the most expensive things. But to say "not a single cut" is completely dishonest. Where are the polls for farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, public TV and radio, NIH research, foreign aid, etc.?

So....you're saying Republicans are in favor of cuts as long as it isn't them personally thats getting the cut? Seems hypocritical to me.

[lx43]

The Republicans need to re-frame the argument from tax increases on the wealthy to spending cuts on the wealthy.

1. Cut defense spending on rich nations by withdrawing our forces from wealthy nations like Germany and Japan.
2. Eliminate foreign aid for rich dictators.
3. Cut Social Security and Medicare for rich seniors like Warren Buffett.

The cuts I believe just for SS/medicare on rich seniors would far out weigh the tax increases on the wealthy. They should argue that poor young workers should not pay for rich seniors.

[erowe1]

So....you're saying Republicans are in favor of cuts as long as it isn't them personally thats getting the cut? Seems hypocritical to me.

No. I'm saying the headline of the article doesn't follow from the data it presents.

[jbauer]

The Republicans need to re-frame the argument from tax increases on the wealthy to spending cuts on the wealthy.

1. Cut defense spending on rich nations by withdrawing our forces from wealthy nations like Germany and Japan.
2. Eliminate foreign aid for rich dictators.
3. Cut Social Security and Medicare for rich seniors like Warren Buffett.

The cuts I believe just for SS/medicare on rich seniors would far out weigh the tax increases on the wealthy. They should argue that poor young workers should not pay for rich seniors.

Unfortunatly rich people pay to get people elected on both sides of the asile

[LibertyEagle]

Watch what you wish for. We just spent decades arming and pissing off countries around the world. We may have created our enemies, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.

No kidding.

[Acala]

Here's the thing, I don't think most Seniors realize that the payout for SS and Medicare is far, far more than what they paid in; even with interest added on.



Actually, they didn't pay anything "in". They paid taxes that went in one door and out the other just like ever other tax. The SS tax and medicare tax did not pay "in" to any personal fund or account, did not create any right to a benefit, did not constitute a contract, and did not create any legally enforceable claim in any way to any benefit. Legally speaking, the SS and medicare payments are no different than the income tax and entitle you to exactly the same return - nada.

That having been said, as a matter of sound policy and humanity, people who were led by government into relying on payments from those programs should be among the last to suffer cuts. But they don't have any more claim to those benefits than anyone else has to any other government benefit.

[erowe1]

That having been said, as a matter of sound policy and humanity, people who were led by government into relying on payments from those programs should be among the last to suffer cuts.

Shouldn't it be up to the taxpayers themselves to decide if those people suffer cuts, and not the politicians? Just drop the programs completely and let those whose money would have been taken away continue to give it away at the level they think is right to the people they think should get it.

[Acala]

Shouldn't it be up to the taxpayers themselves to decide if those people suffer cuts, and not the politicians? Just drop the programs completely and let those whose money would have been taken away continue to give it away at the level they think is right to the people they think should get it.

The discussion of how to "wind up" the bloated outlaw government is too long of a discussion for this thread, but I think the government has plenty of assets that it should not have that could be sold - like vast areas of land. The revenue from selling BLM and National Forest could easily pay off the truly needy SS recipients.

As for medicare, government should just get out now and let the market reset.

[alucard13mmfmj]

This country was officially lost after the New Deal. Let it burn down and we'll figure it from there.

yeah. no way to turn this around. even ron said we are already over the cliff and waiting to hit the ground.

hell, even if Ron won in 2012 or Rand wins in 2016... i dont believe much will happen mainly because senate/house will suck and not do anything. They will do nothing just to make liberty look bad. maybe even throw in a false flag attack here and there.

dont get me wrong.. having a good captain of a ship that is about to hit an unavoidable iceberg is better than a bad captain.

[emazur]

3 of those are not "cuts", they're tax increases.

Problem is, the majority of Republican voters also want to tax the rich. This is from Feb. 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rsImCOqh3I

[Zippyjuan]

The discussion of how to "wind up" the bloated outlaw government is too long of a discussion for this thread, but I think the government has plenty of assets that it should not have that could be sold - like vast areas of land. The revenue from selling BLM and National Forest could easily pay off the truly needy SS recipients.

As for medicare, government should just get out now and let the market reset.

I'll give you $1000 for drilling rights to the Grand Canyon.

[LibForestPaul]

I dunno if love for socialism as at play with senior citizens reluctance to cut meidcare and ss. You got to understand that

1. These people have paid into the system all their lives
2. The medical cost for a senior is so expensive that most of em would die without medicare (I know medicine is expensive partly bcos medicare exists)

So we got to be very delicate when discussing these issues. What needs to change is for young people to make their voice heard. These programs needs to be orderly wind down and some people are going to be hurt in the process. And what senior citizens are saying is "better be you than me" :) .

1. These people have had their money stolen and participated in a ponzi scheme all their lives, hoping it would end after them.
2. The medical care is so restricted and controlled that most of em would die without stolen money being handed out to connected party members, aka graft.

Fixed it for you. Boo hoo, I care.

[mad cow]

I'll give you $1000 for drilling rights to the Grand Canyon.

You will be out bid by the dude that wants the tourist "rights" to the Grand Canyon.

[Zippyjuan]

Not if I team up with the oil companies. There are also some nice gas deposits at Mt Rushmore and Yellostone has lots of potential- gas along with geothermal.

[malkusm]

Why would they poll Medicare, Medicaid, and tax loopholes? How about eliminating thousands of the garbage government agencies that the government has which are completely unnecessary (not to mention unconstitutional)?

[mad cow]

Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore have much more potential for tourism,but hey,as long as they are in private hands,let the owners decide what to do with them.

Now Grand Staircase-Escalante National Park,which Clinton formed as pay-off to his Indonesian supporters,has massive coal deposits,if you're looking for mineral rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll give you $1000 for drilling rights to the Grand Canyon. If you know what you're doing, I suspect you can make more off of tourists, scientists, etc who like the GC than selling drilling rights. Ever been to the gift shops there? Amazing the trinkets people will overpay for. :eek:

[TheTexan]

And of the ones that ARE cuts, Ron Paul says those are the LAST things he would cut. Yet these idiots are acting like the only thing that could possibly be cut is old people's retirement :rolleyes:

We've got a 5 trillion deficit (according to GAAP, not the lies they tell you). The only way to even come remotely close to balancing the budget would be to cut a good chunk from those as well, and basically *all* of the 'discretionary' spending.

[TheTexan]

Watch what you wish for. We just spent decades arming and pissing off countries around the world. We may have created our enemies, but that doesn't mean we don't have them.

They just want the US to leave. Once they do, there may be a handful of people the US *really* pissed off who come at us for revenge.. but I don't see many doing that. Most will probably be content to harvest their opium in peace and try to rebuild their lives.

There's only two ways the US can get peace. The US can either obliterate the entire middle east into a glass parking lot, and then obliterate pissed-off russia into a crater, then china and probably europe will get all pissed, and then will have to nuke them too...

Or the US troops can just go home.

edit: Fixed a bad habit ;)

[Feeding the Abscess]

The "compromise" in the fiscal cliff deal from Democrats is supposed to come in the form of spending cuts. But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

It goes hand in hand with the disparity between voters' wish for blanket "spending cuts" and their opposition to any cuts to an entitlement that benefits them.

A look at what Republicans oppose:

By 47-37, letting the Obama payroll tax cut expire.
By 68-26, cutting spending for Medicare.
By 61-33, cutting spending for Medicaid.
By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.
By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction.
By 56-44, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

Republicans don't favor much in any potential deal — they also, of course, are opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on any income bracket. Pollster Lee M. Miringoff warns that they might be unhappy with whatever happens.

“There’s no clear statement of what Republican voters want to happen. There’s opposition to everything,” Miringoff said.

“If you’re a Republican in Congress looking for what Republican voters are telling you, they’re not telling you much."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fiscal-cliff-poll-taxes-spending-cuts-medicare-eligibility-obama-boehner-2012-12#ixzz2ElldOQ1a
-

Goes to show how far the welfare state is entrenched.

Message of the Republican party:

Don't cut a dime, and the poor aren't paying their fair share.

[erowe1]

Message of the Republican party:

Don't cut a dime, and the poor aren't paying their fair share.

Did you bold that one because the numbers weren't as extreme as the others? Because it still at least shows that more of them oppose letting the payroll tax cut expire than not.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Did you bold that one because the numbers weren't as extreme as the others? Because it still at least shows that more of them oppose letting the payroll tax cut expire than not.

Yes. I'm willing to bet the majority of the 16% that didn't have an opinion on the issue would fall in line behind Rand and others saying that the payroll tax cut should end.

[erowe1]

Yes. I'm willing to bet the majority of the 16% that didn't have an opinion on the issue would fall in line behind Rand and others saying that the payroll tax cut should end.

You can bet that, but you can't base it on these poll numbers. From this poll, the conclusion to draw is that most Republicans oppose ending the tax cut.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You can bet that, but you can't base it on these poll numbers. From this poll, the conclusion to draw is that most Republicans oppose ending the tax cut.

Only a plurality. Less than half oppose ending it. On top of that, most GOP representatives have put forward proposals or statements supportive of raising taxes on poor and middle income individuals/families.

[erowe1]

Only a plurality. Less than half oppose ending it.

But still a plurality, and almost 50%. If you only count those with an opinion, instead of pretending they just count as more votes for ending the tax cut, then Republicans with an opinion oppose ending the tax cut 56-44.


On top of that, most GOP representatives have put forward proposals or statements supportive of raising taxes on poor and middle income individuals/families.
But that has nothing to do with this poll.