Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

At least according to a recent WSJ/NBC poll on taxation and fixing the deficit:

The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81% said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78%), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76%) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74%). The least popular: cutting funding for Medicaid (32% said that was acceptable), cutting funding for Medicare (23%), cutting funding for K-12 education (22%), and cutting funding for Social Security (22%).

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2011/0 ... socialism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

....as spun by another lefty website...

No big surprise here. People tend to favor "solutions" that they don't perceive as impacting them. I've posted many times that the genius of "progressive" taxation is that it isolates a small minority of the population and allows the majority to get more out of the system than they put into it. Not having to pay for it makes it easy to demand government benefits.

Put me in with the minority that has sense. Eliminate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Get the government completely out of the business of attempting to ensure that each individual is taken care of.

JohnStOnge wrote:No big surprise here. People tend to favor "solutions" that they don't perceive as impacting them. I've posted many times that the genius of "progressive" taxation is that it isolates a small minority of the population and allows the majority to get more out of the system than they put into it. Not having to pay for it makes it easy to demand government benefits.

Put me in with the minority that has sense. Eliminate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Get the government completely out of the business of attempting to ensure that each individual is taken care of.

John: Apparently you didn't get the message. "Promote the general welfare of..." is now interpreted to mean "take care of from cradle to grave at the taxpayers expense".

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:No big surprise here. People tend to favor "solutions" that they don't perceive as impacting them. I've posted many times that the genius of "progressive" taxation is that it isolates a small minority of the population and allows the majority to get more out of the system than they put into it. Not having to pay for it makes it easy to demand government benefits.

Put me in with the minority that has sense. Eliminate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Get the government completely out of the business of attempting to ensure that each individual is taken care of.

John: Apparently you didn't get the message. "Promote the general welfare of..." is now interpreted to mean "take care of from cradle to grave at the taxpayers expense".

There's nothing in between is there?

JohnStOnge wrote:No big surprise here. People tend to favor "solutions" that they don't perceive as impacting them. I've posted many times that the genius of "progressive" taxation is that it isolates a small minority of the population and allows the majority to get more out of the system than they put into it. Not having to pay for it makes it easy to demand government benefits.

Put me in with the minority that has sense. Eliminate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Get the government completely out of the business of attempting to ensure that each individual is taken care of.

If you truly believe in rational self interest, the invisible hand, the magic of the free market, and human nature than surely you recognize that a limited few will carry the weight for many. It's the price they must suffer for being the "producers".

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
John: Apparently you didn't get the message. "Promote the general welfare of..." is now interpreted to mean "take care of from cradle to grave at the taxpayers expense".

There's nothing in between is there?

Not if you're a card-carrying democrat there ain't.

Ivytalk wrote:....as spun by another lefty website...

Feel free to enlighten us with your own interpretation of the poll results.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:....as spun by another lefty website...

Feel free to enlighten us with your own interpretation of the poll results.

I think his point is that the "poll" was skewed by the way in which the questions were phrased. That's a fairly common lefty pollster tactic.

SuperHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
Feel free to enlighten us with your own interpretation of the poll results.

I think his point is that the "poll" was skewed by the way in which the questions were phrased. That's a fairly common lefty pollster tactic.

Yes I'm sure the left leaning WSJ who published this poll, and Republican pollster Bill McInturff who helped conduct the poll had something to do with this:

But Republican Bill McInturff and Democrat Peter Hart, the pollsters who conducted the survey, said the poll raises warning signs for anyone proposing cuts to the three main entitlement programs, including Medicaid, that provide health and retirement benefits to seniors and the poor.

Mr. McInturff called the poll "a huge flashing yellow sign for Republicans on how much preparation will be needed if they propose to change Social Security and Medicare."

"It may be hard to understand why someone would try to jump off a cliff" to solve the debt crisis, Mr. McInturff said of his fellow Republicans, "unless you understand that they are being chased by a tiger, and that tiger is the tea party."

We did a poll in MN this year that showed pretty wide support for returning taxes to 1998 levels on top earners... not surprising really. we ended up, in a year that was so strongly GOP - electing a Dem governor who pledged to do just that.

Is it just me..?
Taxes and the present state of taxation is not the problem - you can fiddle with it here and fiddle with it there a percent of two or whatever...

but I repeat "That is not the problem"

-We have a military that's the size of the five next largest combined (and that's not just crazy it's stupid)
-We spend on things the Federal Government has no business even being involved in
-We have lobby groups writing legislation

The Federal Government is collecting plenty of money - we can fix tax issues once we solve the real problems

Chizzang wrote:Is it just me..?
Taxes and the present state of taxation is not the problem - you can fiddle with it here and fiddle with it there a percent of two or whatever...

but I repeat "That is not the problem"

-We have a military that's the size of the five next largest combined (and that's not just crazy it's stupid)
-We spend on things the Federal Government has no business even being involved in
-We have lobby groups writing legislation

The Federal Government is collecting plenty of money - we can fix tax issues once we solve the real problems

A-fucking-MEN.

Chizzang wrote:Is it just me..?
Taxes and the present state of taxation is not the problem - you can fiddle with it here and fiddle with it there a percent of two or whatever...

but I repeat "That is not the problem"

-We have a military that's the size of the five next largest combined (and that's not just crazy it's stupid)
-We spend on things the Federal Government has no business even being involved in
-We have lobby groups writing legislation

The Federal Government is collecting plenty of money - we can fix tax issues once we solve the real problems

at the federal level, i'd agree with you to an extent.

the lobbyists writing the bills really aren't the problems so much as the a) sacred cows that are "uncuttable" specifically DOD b) the lack of leadership (in both parties) that results in nobody ever making a fucking hard decision (and, before someone jumps in and does it - yep, it's guys in my line of work - and me specifically from time to time - who are responsible for "next election" thinking)

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:No big surprise here. People tend to favor "solutions" that they don't perceive as impacting them. I've posted many times that the genius of "progressive" taxation is that it isolates a small minority of the population and allows the majority to get more out of the system than they put into it. Not having to pay for it makes it easy to demand government benefits.

Put me in with the minority that has sense. Eliminate programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Get the government completely out of the business of attempting to ensure that each individual is taken care of.

If you truly believe in rational self interest, the invisible hand, the magic of the free market, and human nature than surely you recognize that a limited few will carry the weight for many. It's the price they must suffer for being the "producers".

Ummm, not even close.

"rational self interest" and "a limited few will carry the weight for many" are statements in direct conflict with each other...a complex oxymoron if there ever were one. The very basic elementary basis of human nature is the necessity to provide for oneself. Without the capacity and the desire to provide for ourselves, we would still be single cell organisms floating in the primordial sea of life feeding ourselves through osmosis.

It's not just human nature it is the very basis of survival for any species, period. I would love to read the account where the neighbors of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington built them Monticello or Mount Vernon because Jefferson and Washington didn't feel it necessary to provide it for themselves. That is THE main problem with that voodoo witchcraft called progressivism. It is not my or your or Ivy's responsibility or duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc, etc, etc. to people who choose not to or refuse to provide for themselves.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
If you truly believe in rational self interest, the invisible hand, the magic of the free market, and human nature than surely you recognize that a limited few will carry the weight for many. It's the price they must suffer for being the "producers".

Ummm, not even close.

"rational self interest" and "a limited few will carry the weight for many" are statements in direct conflict with each other...a complex oxymoron if there ever were one. The very basic elementary basis of human nature is the necessity to provide for oneself. Without the capacity and the desire to provide for ourselves, we would still be single cell organisms floating in the primordial sea of life feeding ourselves through osmosis.

It's not just human nature it is the very basis of survival for any species, period. I would love to read the account where the neighbors of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington built them Monticello or Mount Vernon because Jefferson and Washington didn't feel it necessary to provide it for themselves. That is THE main problem with that voodoo witchcraft called progressivism. It is not my or your or Ivy's responsibility or duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc, etc, etc. to people who choose not to or refuse to provide for themselves.

Yeah, Baldy, and we're here to make sure you fucks don't use slaves to build your Monticellos.


Unbridled capitalism is just as bad as communism.

Chizzang wrote:Is it just me..?
Taxes and the present state of taxation is not the problem - you can fiddle with it here and fiddle with it there a percent of two or whatever...

but I repeat "That is not the problem"

-We have a military that's the size of the five next largest combined (and that's not just crazy it's stupid)
-We spend on things the Federal Government has no business even being involved in
-We have lobby groups writing legislation

The Federal Government is collecting plenty of money - we can fix tax issues once we solve the real problems

700+ military bases.

761 military bases.

There's your budget solution right there.

D1B wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm, not even close.

"rational self interest" and "a limited few will carry the weight for many" are statements in direct conflict with each other...a complex oxymoron if there ever were one. The very basic elementary basis of human nature is the necessity to provide for oneself. Without the capacity and the desire to provide for ourselves, we would still be single cell organisms floating in the primordial sea of life feeding ourselves through osmosis.

It's not just human nature it is the very basis of survival for any species, period. I would love to read the account where the neighbors of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington built them Monticello or Mount Vernon because Jefferson and Washington didn't feel it necessary to provide it for themselves. That is THE main problem with that voodoo witchcraft called progressivism. It is not my or your or Ivy's responsibility or duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc, etc, etc. to people who choose not to or refuse to provide for themselves.

Yeah, Baldy, and we're here to make sure you fucks don't use slaves to build your Monticellos.

...and looking at the state of the current economic policy, you knuckledraggers don't want people who earn a living to build Monticello, either.

If our government would just simply quit spending money they dont have, this wouldnt even be up for debate.

They should get 1 Trillion to spend however they want, no more. That is way more than enough money to run this country for a year.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
If you truly believe in rational self interest, the invisible hand, the magic of the free market, and human nature than surely you recognize that a limited few will carry the weight for many. It's the price they must suffer for being the "producers".

Ummm, not even close.

"rational self interest" and "a limited few will carry the weight for many" are statements in direct conflict with each other...a complex oxymoron if there ever were one. The very basic elementary basis of human nature is the necessity to provide for oneself. Without the capacity and the desire to provide for ourselves, we would still be single cell organisms floating in the primordial sea of life feeding ourselves through osmosis.

I know they are.

Chizzang wrote:Is it just me?
The Federal Government is collecting plenty of money - we can fix tax issues once we solve the real problems

According the poll you are not alone, but significantly in the minority. People really like their big government, they just don't want to pay for it.

Baldy wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yeah, Baldy, and we're here to make sure you fucks don't use slaves to build your Monticellos.

...and looking at the state of the current economic policy, you knuckledraggers don't want people who earn a living to build Monticello, either.

I want you to earn a living, a good living too. But we'll be here to make sure you don't abuse people and pollute our environment in the process.

Unbridled capitalism is just as bad a communism.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:....as spun by another lefty website...

Feel free to enlighten us with your own interpretation of the poll results.

OK. The 2010 elections were about absolutely nothing. The GOP gained 63 seats in the House and several more in the Senate for no apparent reason. Obama's political sails furled to the left and unfurled to the right. Voters said that they wanted spending cuts, lower taxes, and balanced budgets.

Now, the poll gives Americans the chance to show that they remain conservative in the macro sense, while "kicking the can" (a trite, overused phrase that I hate) in the micro sense. Soak the rich! Cut the military! Don't touch my entitlements! "Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the man behind the tree!" Nothing new under the sun. At some point, some President -- not the current gutless empty suit -- will have to tell the citizenry that the "Holy Trinity" of SS, Medicare and Medicaid will have to be drastically overhauled, and soon, or the whole country will go under. The MSM and the cable networks are making this point, but the politicos are in full retreat, and the voters (bless 'em) are sticking their collective heads in the sand. That's how I read this Godforsaken poll. Thank you.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Feel free to enlighten us with your own interpretation of the poll results.

OK. The 2010 elections were about absolutely nothing. The GOP gained 63 seats in the House and several more in the Senate for no apparent reason. Obama's political sails furled to the left and unfurled to the right. Voters said that they wanted spending cuts, lower taxes, and balanced budgets.

Now, the poll gives Americans the chance to show that they remain conservative in the macro sense, while "kicking the can" (a trite, overused phrase that I hate) in the micro sense. Soak the rich! Cut the military! Don't touch my entitlements! "Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the man behind the tree!" Nothing new under the sun. At some point, some President -- not the current gutless empty suit -- will have to tell the citizenry that the "Holy Trinity" of SS, Medicare and Medicaid will have to be drastically overhauled, and soon, or the whole country will go under. The MSM and the cable networks are making this point, but the politicos are in full retreat, and the voters (bless 'em) are sticking their collective heads in the sand. That's how I read this Godforsaken poll. Thank you.

No, thank you.