Americans Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling, 47% to 19%

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147524/Americans-Oppose-Raising-Debt-Ceiling.aspx
    By a 47% to 19% margin, Americans say they would want their member of Congress to vote against raising the U.S. debt ceiling, while 34% don't know enough to say. Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling by 70% to 8% and independents by 46% to 15%. Democrats favor raising the ceiling by 33% to 26%.

    Related (depending on what happens): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/160021-gallup-poll-sees-growing-support-for-third-party-in-gop-tea-party
    Fifty-two percent of Republicans, and an even stronger number of Tea Party supporters, support the creation of a major, third political party, underscoring the occasional tensions between grassroots conservatives and the GOP establishment.

    More here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147338/Americans-Blame-Wasteful-Government-Spending-Deficit.aspx
    The large majority of Americans say spending too much money on unneeded or wasteful federal programs is to blame for the federal budget deficit, while 22% say the deficit is a consequence of not raising enough in taxes to pay for needed programs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    This is really emboldening the Republicans and moderate Democrats who will be up for re-election. Out in the cold are the big spenders among the Democrats and the administration who would like the debt ceiling raised without spending cuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 1:25 AM GMT
    And after they raise it this time they will raise it again and again and again and again until finally it doesn't matter anymore when we're all living in huts and hunting wild game.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 2:02 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd after they raise it this time they will raise it again and again and again and again until finally it doesn't matter anymore when we're all living in huts and hunting wild game.

    But some of the hardcore libs really don't give a shit. We don't deserve to live any better than the poorest country in the world, and if they can wreck our economy, the hardcore will be happy and the dumb followers will ask what happened?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 2:09 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd after they raise it this time they will raise it again and again and again and again until finally it doesn't matter anymore when we're all living in huts and hunting wild game.

    But some of the hardcore libs really don't give a shit. We don't deserve to live any better than the poorest country in the world, and if they can wreck our economy, the hardcore will be happy and the dumb followers will ask what happened?


    You don't understand though, Trump already told us what they have in mind to fix everything. It's called the principle of:

    Everybody's money is everybody's money!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 2:17 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd after they raise it this time they will raise it again and again and again and again until finally it doesn't matter anymore when we're all living in huts and hunting wild game.

    But some of the hardcore libs really don't give a shit. We don't deserve to live any better than the poorest country in the world, and if they can wreck our economy, the hardcore will be happy and the dumb followers will ask what happened?


    You don't understand though, Trump already told us what they have in mind to fix everything. It's called the principle of:

    Everybody's money is everybody's money!

    Till it's all used up. Remember the quote widely attributed to Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd after they raise it this time they will raise it again and again and again and again until finally it doesn't matter anymore when we're all living in huts and hunting wild game.

    But some of the hardcore libs really don't give a shit. We don't deserve to live any better than the poorest country in the world, and if they can wreck our economy, the hardcore will be happy and the dumb followers will ask what happened?


    You don't understand though, Trump already told us what they have in mind to fix everything. It's called the principle of:

    Everybody's money is everybody's money!

    Till it's all used up. Remember the quote widely attributed to Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "



    I do remember that quote!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 5:42 AM GMT
    jprichva saidWhat a gang of smug idiots.
    The debt ceiling doesn't mean what any of you apparently think it means.
    And making light of the consequences of failing to raise it goes way beyond stupid.

    {Insert brainless insults about "libs" here.}


    Yes. It's quite clear not a single person on this thread besides J has any idea what they're talking about. Nor do the majority of people on who oppose raising it. And the spending cuts the Republicans have proposed are even less efficacious than the Progressive Caucus' "People's Budget."

    Anyone serious about cutting spending has to look at the military, the bloated and fairly useless Department of the Freuher's Homeland, and, then raising taxes. Arguing around discretionary spending when we spend a trillion on military is just foolish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 5:58 AM GMT
    There are a lot of things that can and should be cut including parts of the defense budget.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

    I suspect those who have commented previously have a very good idea of what it means not to raise the debt ceiling. The Obama administration have a significant responsibility for bringing the US to this point given how much faster spending has been under its watch - and debt is anticipated to more than double.

    A look at how things have changed over time:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/30-years-spending-priorities-federal-budget-2012/

    As a reminder of what the deficits are projected to be:
    obama_budget_deficit.jpg

    Sorry, I've forgotten, what year did the Obama Administration take office? I think if you can answer that question then you also get a sense and understanding of why the Obama Administration has been getting such low marks. What's remarkable is that despite (and I'd argue because of) all this increased spending, the growth in jobs has been so slow.

    A reminder that eliminating the deficit is more than possible - though one revision to that is that I would eliminate all tax breaks but raise the effective tax rates marginally which would also have the effect of reducing the cost of compliance: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zz4rh01b
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 14, 2011 6:12 AM GMT
    And, about 60% of voters are as dumb as rocks.
    If you asked them to define the debt ceiling, they'd just stand there and



    2cqo9x4.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 6:15 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidAnd, about 60% of voters are as dumb as rocks.
    If you asked them to define the debt ceiling, they'd just stand there


    Thank goodness then for the tea partiers who are better educated and wealthier than the general public according to the NYT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/tea-party-demographics_b_540082.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 7:50 AM GMT
    jprichva saidWhat a gang of smug idiots.
    The debt ceiling doesn't mean what any of you apparently think it means.
    And making light of the consequences of failing to raise it goes way beyond stupid.

    {Insert brainless insults about "libs" here.}

    I don't know if smug idiots is to refer to those of us who posted in the thread or the population who was polled, but to clarify my comments above. I don't think the issue is really whether it should be raised or not, although that was what the poll was about. I think that poll emboldens the opponents of this administration to demand serious spending cuts along with raising the ceiling. The real "smug idiots" are those who are resisting these spending cuts who apparently don't really care about the debt and are loathe to change their habits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 9:33 AM GMT
    riddler78 said

    I suspect those who have commented previously have a very good idea of what it means not to raise the debt ceiling. The Obama administration have a significant responsibility for bringing the US to this point given how much faster spending has been under its watch - and debt is anticipated to more than double.

    Sorry, I've forgotten, what year did the Obama Administration take office? I think if you can answer that question then you also get a sense and understanding of why the Obama Administration has been getting such low marks. What's remarkable is that despite (and I'd argue because of) all this increased spending, the growth in jobs has been so slow.

    A reminder that eliminating the deficit is more than possible - though one revision to that is that I would eliminate all tax breaks but raise the effective tax rates marginally which would also have the effect of reducing the cost of compliance.


    To your first point, I suspect that you're either wrong, or those who commented previously are not really interested in cutting the deficit/debt but actually in using as an excuse to dismantle the hollowed out shell of a welfare state that remains in the US.

    Obama took office in 2009, during one of the worst economic downturns in the last 100 years (though others like to pretend he caused it - via witchcraft or voodoo). And within two months of his so doing the Tea Party began engaging in the relentless drumbeat to delegitimize his presidency using primarily racists and xenophobic messaging at the behest of their corporate overlords.

    The projections you cite are based on nothing changing. They are a snapshot in time. Perhaps if the Republicans got serious and stopped playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States, we could enact some policies that would alter those projections. Instead all we've seen from this Congress and most Republican controlled state legislatures if a gush of racist, misogynistic, anti-worker and and anti-gay social policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 10:16 AM GMT
    99% of people should have answered they don't know enough to answer...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 2:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said...Perhaps if the Republicans got serious and stopped playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States, we could enact some policies that would alter those projections. ...

    What a disingenuous statement totally inconsistent with both the facts and your own previous words. Obama put out a budget completely ignoring the recommendations of his own debt commission. When asked about that, he stated his budget was a negotiating position. Instead of taking the budget process seriously and showing the slightest bit of leadership for a change, he was just playing politics as usual. It was pointed out by many including myself on RJ that the Democrats were playing chicken, refusing to suggest spending cuts themselves, but waiting for the Republicans to make the first move so they could criticize and hopefully gain political points. You remarked that it was good politics for the Democrats to take that tact.

    Well, maybe it's not such good politics as the poll numbers cited suggest. Many of us do agree the the ceiling will have to be raised, but not without serious spending cuts, which the administration has been resisting. Absolutely ridiculous. Appears even moderate Democrats agree.

    The problem for this administration and supporters is most ordinary folks, while they may not understand the impacts of defaulting on obligations or be cognizant of international finance know a simple fact. When your debt continues to increase, you need to change your spending habits. The Democratic politicians who want to persist in spending either don't understand this or don't really care. I think it is the latter. 2012 will be a repeat of 2010, but this time extending to cleaning house from the top.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 6:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Arguing around discretionary spending when we spend a trillion on military is just foolish.


    Yes, $680 Billion (the actual DoD budget) does equal $1 Trillion. icon_rolleyes.gif

    You liberals have such difficulties with numbers and handling money! icon_lol.gif


    Completely incorrect. The number you cite is the money appropriated for Defense and does not include hundreds of billions in other parts of the budget. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Perhaps if the Republicans got serious and stopped playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States, we could enact some policies that would alter those projections. ...

    What a disingenuous statement totally inconsistent with both the facts and your own previous words. Obama put out a budget completely ignoring the recommendations of his own debt commission. When asked about that, he stated his budget was a negotiating position. Instead of taking the budget process seriously and showing the slightest bit of leadership for a change, he was just playing politics as usual. It was pointed out by many including myself on RJ that the Democrats were playing chicken, refusing to suggest spending cuts themselves, but waiting for the Republicans to make the first move so they could criticize and hopefully gain political points. You remarked that it was good politics for the Democrats to take that tact.

    Well, maybe it's not such good politics as the poll numbers cited suggest. Many of us do agree the the ceiling will have to be raised, but not without serious spending cuts, which the administration has been resisting. Absolutely ridiculous. Appears even moderate Democrats agree.

    The problem for this administration and supporters is most ordinary folks, while they may not understand the impacts of defaulting on obligations or be cognizant of international finance know a simple fact. When your debt continues to increase, you need to change your spending habits. The Democratic politicians who want to persist in spending either don't understand this or don't really care. I think it is the latter. 2012 will be a repeat of 2010, but this time extending to cleaning house from the top.


    Fantasist or delusional? Hard to decide but what you've written is the exact opposite of what has happened to date.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 6:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Perhaps if the Republicans got serious and stopped playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States, we could enact some policies that would alter those projections. ...

    What a disingenuous statement totally inconsistent with both the facts and your own previous words. Obama put out a budget completely ignoring the recommendations of his own debt commission. When asked about that, he stated his budget was a negotiating position. Instead of taking the budget process seriously and showing the slightest bit of leadership for a change, he was just playing politics as usual. It was pointed out by many including myself on RJ that the Democrats were playing chicken, refusing to suggest spending cuts themselves, but waiting for the Republicans to make the first move so they could criticize and hopefully gain political points. You remarked that it was good politics for the Democrats to take that tact.

    Well, maybe it's not such good politics as the poll numbers cited suggest. Many of us do agree the the ceiling will have to be raised, but not without serious spending cuts, which the administration has been resisting. Absolutely ridiculous. Appears even moderate Democrats agree.

    The problem for this administration and supporters is most ordinary folks, while they may not understand the impacts of defaulting on obligations or be cognizant of international finance know a simple fact. When your debt continues to increase, you need to change your spending habits. The Democratic politicians who want to persist in spending either don't understand this or don't really care. I think it is the latter. 2012 will be a repeat of 2010, but this time extending to cleaning house from the top.

    Fantasist or delusional? Hard to decide but what you've written is the exact opposite of what has happened to date.

    Simply ridiculous. Hard to believe what you deny so blatantly.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1548428/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2011 7:10 PM GMT
    My thing is: where was all the concern about raising the debt ceiling during Bush Administration? Wasn't it seven times?

    Why the outrage and concern now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 6:00 AM GMT
    Balljunkie saidMy thing is: where was all the concern about raising the debt ceiling during Bush Administration? Wasn't it seven times?

    Why the outrage and concern now?


    There was concern - which is why the "porkbusters" movement developed as a precursor to the "teapartiers". That being said, under the Bush administration the expansion of government and government spending was not nearly as large nor deficits nearly as big. The irony, of course, is that the same Democrats, including the current President who voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush are forced to explain why they would vote and push for an increase now - particularly when the rate of spending has grown so substantially.

    As an illustrative chart:
    obama_budget_deficit.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 7:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said...The irony, of course, is that the same Democrats, including the current President who voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush are forced to explain why they would vote and push for an increase now - particularly when the rate of spending has grown so substantially.

    I'll have to google that... quite interesting if true.

    In the mean time, you are aware that your chart is using the congressional budget office as it's source?
    According to this article which deals with possibilities of what might happen if the ceiling is not raised states " Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reported that — oops! — its baseline forecast of $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002 to 2011 was off a tad — $11.8 trillion to be exact."http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572237/201105131859/Public-Reaches-Its-Own-Limit.htm
    Even many "educated" people figure it means default... I think that the number of people who claimed that they did not have enough information to make an informed choice should have been higher...
    ISSdef_110516.png.cms
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 15, 2011 11:29 AM GMT
    Once again the publican way is to work on the jingoism rather than dealing with reality

    The reality is that we have been in the worst recession since the Great depression
    Thank you very much George W Bush
    And working on the debt crisis has not been a possibility and even now isn't such a good idea because if it isn't done correctly it will push us into a double dip recession
    But That would fit the republican agenda perfectly

    Just like with the healthcare debate when you poll and ask do you like Obamacare or do you want to raise the debt ceiling ? Of course the overall uninformed answer is going to be negative
    Than tote 24 hour misinformation News service we have out there
    Deathpanels anyone?

    But when you ask them specifically about the things in the health plan or tell them what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised then you have a different answer

    The republican party keeping America down one idiot at a time icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 1:44 PM GMT
    west77 said
    riddler78 said...The irony, of course, is that the same Democrats, including the current President who voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush are forced to explain why they would vote and push for an increase now - particularly when the rate of spending has grown so substantially.

    I'll have to google that... quite interesting if true.

    In the mean time, you are aware that your chart is using the congressional budget office as it's source?
    According to this article which deals with possibilities of what might happen if the ceiling is not raised states " Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reported that — oops! — its baseline forecast of $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002 to 2011 was off a tad — $11.8 trillion to be exact."http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572237/201105131859/Public-Reaches-Its-Own-Limit.htm
    Even many "educated" people figure it means default... I think that the number of people who claimed that they did not have enough information to make an informed choice should have been higher...
    ISSdef_110516.png.cms


    Yes, but look at why the CBO greatly underestimated (and I should emphasize that they've greatly _underestimated_ the deficit). The information was accurate based on an assumption that the Administration and Congress did nothing. Of course, this is also instructive given that the CBO and OMB typically almost always underestimate deficits and spending while overestimate any revenue gains from additional taxation. It's quite likely the picture will be worse than what's stated under the current Administration - which still goes back to the original point of why an overwhelming number of Americans do not want to raise the debt ceiling as a blunt way to control spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Balljunkie saidMy thing is: where was all the concern about raising the debt ceiling during Bush Administration? Wasn't it seven times?

    Why the outrage and concern now?



    Every time one of the liberals writes this or I hear it on the news or one of those political shows I wonder, "Is this person saying that we SHOULD or we SHOULDN'T be "outraged / concerned" about it NOW?"

    It's like these people are in a burning building and all they can do is stand inside the inferno screeching, "Why wasn't something done to prevent this?" instead of actually DOING something about it NOW.


    The funny thing is: I am not that liberal. I just asked a simple question, and you choose to lump me in with others.

    My question is: why the outrage now if the debt ceiling was raised 7 times and not a peep was made? Outrage should have been the first time, and the subsequent times wouldn't have happened.



  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 15, 2011 5:34 PM GMT
    why the outrage now if the debt ceiling was raised 7 times and not a peep was made? Outrage should have been the first time, and the subsequent times wouldn't have happened.

    The debt ceiling has actually been raised more 10 times in the last ten years

    But who's counting huh?

    You ask why Now ?
    Since the debt limit’s introduction in 1917, Congress has never failed to raise it
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/graphic-10-years-10-broken-u-s-debt-ceilings-20110411
    Hmmm .... well the 8 times that it was raised before was under a republican President so That doesn't count
    and why now ... well let's see

    We have a new President
    but we had one before so that's not it

    ... But he's a democrat icon_cool.gif Aha !
    and the other thing is that he doesn't match the decor .... get it - huh?
    The decor ... right?
    There ya have it the reasons why the debt ceiling ALL of a sudden is an issue