Poll 4 in 10 Approve

thats one way to look at it. another is one party wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and children anything rather than pay thier fair share and the other party is willing to sacrifice things they truly believe in, such as Medicare and Social Security in an effort to at least negotiate. Should we cut programs that benefit the elderly, fatherless children, and the handicapped, while not closing loopholes for the wealthy and corporations? Should we hold the military, wounded veterans, and elderlys checks hostage for a manufactured crisis? My husband was wounded in Iraq. I'd like one of those good patriotic, flag pin wearing Tea Party members that are playing with his livelihood right now to explain that to him. By the way...the balanced budget spokesman, mr fiscal responsibility, Walsh... is $100,000 behind in child support.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2...
Mrs Tea Party, Bauchman, miss fiscal responsibility that rails against government handouts...her antigay clinic recieves a whole lot of government aid, she gets government farm subsidies, student loans, and a Fannie May Mortgage. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/many-of-us-including-###-###-#...

12 moms found this helpful

Ahh that means that 40% approve of how Obama is handling the debt ceiling talks. 52% disapprove, the rest don't know what they think. On Boehner 31% approve of how he is handling it and 48% disapprove, the rest don't know what they think.

Basically more people disapprove of how Obama is handling this but less people approve of how Boehner is handling it.

In other words it is a stupid poll.

Seriously what makes it stupid is that Obama is in the news and speaking more than Boehner and Reid therefore the opinions towards Obama are more polarized. So more people like him and more people hate him. To even have a fair comparison you would have to compare Boehner to Reid.

11 moms found this helpful

The debt ceiling debate isn't about raising government expenditures and taxes into the future. It's about making good on debts we already owe, allowing the gov't to borrow to pay its creditors.

An analogy would be your family running up debt to the limit allowed on all its credit cards in 2010, depending on your ability to get your credit limits raised (or get another source of credit) if necessary, in 2011. But then you find out you can't get the extended credit you need to meet the principal and interest on last-year's loans and promises. So you begin to default, picking and choosing among which creditors you can pay. Your interest rates shoot up as your credit score falls. It becomes even harder for you to keep up because your interest payments start compounding.

At some point, our government will have to get spending under control. I'm socially liberal but fiscally much more conservative. Like all my liberal friends I see the very real need to limit programs into the future, eliminate waste and make responsible budgetary decisions.

AND there is no sane reason that the wealthiest Americans should not contribute more to the system that is heavily weighted toward making their growing success possible, so revenue reform should be on the table, as well (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-on.... The richest 1% of Americans earn a quarter of all income. And the same 1% controls 42% of the material wealth in this nation. Every year, the rich are getting richer while middle America stagnates or loses ground. All the hand-waving about reducing taxes or preserving tax cuts is a smoke-screen thrown up by the extremely wealthy (with corporate interests), to protect their profits at the cost of all other citizens. But if you use the right words, you can make it sound like a policy that will protect and benefit the average Joe, and patriotic, to boot.

I'll limit my response to the issue of fair taxation. To say taxes should be reduced for all citizens is to say that all of the programs we depend upon, and that most of us have paid into for decades, have to be reduced, too. That means younger people will have to work more years before they retire, unless they have the good fortune and foresight to be able to put away money for their own retirements. That means the average working family could end up with parents depending upon them for more of their living expenses and medical care. That means homeowners may lose tax deductions for mortgage interest payments. That means more poor will be living and panhandling on the streets, fewer children will be completing their educations as the quality of our schools decline, and there will be more hunger and illness and desperation. Churches and private citizens will be asked to carry more of that burden. Crime and despair will grow. Roads and bridges will become less safe. Less oversight and regulation will let corporations pollute the air, water, and food we all depend on for life.

And our voluntary military services, which have given so much and received so little over the past decade, will continue to give more and receive less. But there will be plenty of soldiers, because at least that will be one job where desperate young men and women can still earn an income.

Bleak. And unnecessary.

I happily pay taxes, and although my income is very small so that I can do work that I feel best contributes my gifts to the world, I would happily pay a larger proportion of what I earn to keep this country that I so dearly love functioning. For everybody. Because we are all in this together.

11 moms found this helpful

Cut, Cap and Balance. Government needs to live within its means. Not everyone can have everything they want. I want a trip to London, I want new wedding ring (upgrade please), I want a new car, I want to remodel my kitchen, I want to redo the pool in the backyard. I want a lot of things. I can't afford them so guess what? I don't get them! I have responsibilities, I have two kids in college. Those are the bills I have to pay along with my mortgage. I cannot continue to see my tax bill increase and yes it does. So, I have a hard time when I hear "oh we need to increase the revenue".

Here's an idea, get rid of the drilling mortorium. Right there would open great paying jobs. Increase the jobs you increase the revenue and hey my taxes didn't go up. The corporate tax rate in this country is one of if not the highest. Cut it. That would bring back jobs to the US. The only thing federal government should be doing is our defense. Everything else should be the states. Education, EPA, etc.

This can be fixed but the left wing's first and only thought is "increase taxes on the wealthy". Well guess what? I'M NOT WEALTHY. I'm just trying to make a living to support MY family. Sorry, I can't continue to support everyone elses family as well. The well is dry.

9 moms found this helpful

because the people that support Obama and his administration WANT more money to spend on entitlement programs.

The people that support Boehner want the spending stopped and for Congress to live within what they are given.

That's the simple answer...

The American People just want this over...MANY Americans want the finger pointing and so-and-so did this so what's the big deal...this didn't happen in 10 years, it didn't happen in 20...it's been 60 years coming...EVERYONE is to blame...this is NOT one party...this is the whole country...no kidding..people have been sheeples and lemmings - only following a party or voting party lines instead of doing their research - they rely on the news media of their choice - whether it be Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, World News Daily, WHATEVER their choice is....and they go that way...

Too many Americans have sat back and let the government grow and entitlement programs grow because "it wasn't hurting them"...now? it is..it's hurting EVERYONE...now instead of taking personal responsibility and saying "you know what? I messed up!!!" they are pointing fingers...

This poll? It's a scare tactic and a blowing smoke piece....while the article simply states many Americans approve of HOW Obama is handling the issue...why do they approve? because on the outside/public - he is giving the impression of compromise and bi-partisan....but behind closed doors? threatening to veto any thing that Boehner presents if it doesn't give him the authority to spend more...

9 moms found this helpful

It's not as simple as "one person wants to get more money out of us, the other says no."

We live in a country that wants certain things that we cannot have without government. We want roads, bridges, some sort of public transportation. Safe food, safe planes and airports, safe cars. We want clean air and water. We want police and fire protection, and prisons to put terrible people in to keep us from being hurt by them.

We want to be able to compete in the global economy by having educated people take over the reins. That means getting our kids in good schools and colleges. That means public schools, not just private. Our taxes go to public schools that everyone pays for. Colleges cost a lot of money and grants and loans are what help us down the line get people to pay MORE taxes because they can get better jobs than just a high school graduate can get.

We also want to take care of our sick and elderly so that we don't look like India. (I've been there, so I'm not talking out of my rear.) Without safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that's what our country will look like.

There are SO many more things that government provides us. Federal, state and municipalities included. Which of these and other things that you are used to having in your life are you willing to give up? Think about that before you say "one person wants to get more money out of us, the other says no."

D.

9 moms found this helpful

No one asked me in this poll. lol I think it's all a bunch of media scare tactics- all the debt ceiling talk, end of the free world because the US will fall B/S, etc... Basically, Obama wants to reduce the debt by taxing the higher income earners more (who can afford it) and close up some corporate tax loopholes, while Boehner says no- these higher income earners create jobs and closing up the loopholes hurt businesses. Ironically, no jobs are being created and unemployment is rising... The government is basically giving tax breaks to these corporations to send $$ overseas. The republicans say just cut spending, like it's the fix-all. Corporations come out smelling like a rose, and the rich get richer to line the pockets of more politicians with their own special interests. All of it makes me sick.

8 moms found this helpful

Like MLK, I Have a Dream.......

I have a dream that within the next six months, all of our troops will be out of the Middle East and home where they should be.

I have a dream that within the next five years, we, the People, will have a Revolution (through our votes, not violence) and get rid of every one of the politicians in office, and fill them with Americans who are team players, and all playing for Team America. They will all work together to make this nation live to its potential.

I have a dream that the politicians in this country will only be paid what they are worth. Their pay will be paid based on performance, just as the average American's is. They will not receive all the perks they are getting now; writing off all their expenses on the taxpayers' dimes.

I have a dream that EVERYONE will pay the same percentage in taxes. There will be no loopholes for anyone. No tax breaks for anyone. Everyone pays a percentage of their income and that's that.

I have a dream that Americans will band together - every last one of them - and start buying only products produced in the USA, owned by American companies. If American companies want to continue making money off us, they will bring back the factories and jobs to our country.

I have a dream that Americans will band together and refuse to purchase gasoline until the oil companies are forced to bring down their prices. That Americans will look for and support alternative fuel options and quit buying cars that get 15 mpg and pollute this beautiful planet. That we will find jobs closer to home or move closer to work so we can walk or bike more.

I have a dream that every American will be helped to the best of our ability. There will be no more homeless or hungry, and we will care for our sick.

I have a dream that companies will no longer be allowed to pollute our air, our water, our land. They will be held responsible for all trash that they produce. They will have to find cleaner ways to operate.

I have a dream that we will learn to be tolerant of one another's beliefs. That Christians, Jews and Muslims, and any other religion, will be allowed to worship the way they want without fear of the ACLU saying it violates the rights of the atheists. That we will accept that some do not believe in a higher power, and let them be. That we accept that some DO believe in a higher power, and not claim that it offends us just because we don't.

I have a dream that we will be good stewards of this beautiful planet and do all we can to protect it. That we will leave this world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

sigh............ I can dream...........

8 moms found this helpful

One important thing to note about the "debt ceiling". (A word I hope we can retire for the rest of the year as I think my head will explode if I utter or hear it one more time. The "debt ceiling" is simply a procedural process that allow our government to pay for committments it has already approved (both parties have ordered and ate the dinner and the check comes). It does not have anything to do with future spending. Our government (both parties) are putting our already fragile economy in jeopardy by using this procedural vote to play political posturing games. Often I have heard Republican Senators say there #1 objective is to make Obama a one term president (notice the lack of priority on jobs, economy, anthing else that means anything to real people). The real question is, are they willing to crash our economy and hurt millions of people to do it? I hope they are not, but at this point I am not too sure. By the way, SS & Medicare are fully funded for another 20 years on our contributions, the fact that cuts to them are on the table are ludicrous. Taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in some 40 years.
Just for fun: Here's how many Republicans Senators voted to raise the debt ceiling each time it came up for a vote since 1997. Be sure to check out the Republican votes after Obama was elected. Interesting?
1997: 55
2002: 31
2003: 50
2004: 50
2006: 51
2007: 26
2008: 34
2008: 33

Then Obama was elected.

2009: 2
2009: 1
2010: 0

8 moms found this helpful

What Tracy K said, 150%

Polls of average Americans show 70% are perfectly okay with raising taxes on the wealthy as part of this balance.

8 moms found this helpful

Our representatives and POTUS keep us quibbling between ourselves when the real truth is that NONE OF THEM want to give up their pets and the funding they need to get re-elected. It happens both sides of the aisle.

You can't fight two wars for a decade and not feel the pinch at some point. Extended war-making is what brought pre-Revolution France to its knees, and ultimately horrendous crimes against innocents. Do we never learn the lessons of history?

We can't cut 80 MILLION checks to entitlement beneficiaries and not have a way to pay for it! What will we do when the baby-boomers retire? A tsunami is coming!

Do we ever stop watching football and/or Real Housewives and wake the heck up to what is being done to this country?

Sorry - rant over.

7 moms found this helpful

It is not a matter of one side being all right or wrong, the answer is in the middle somewhere, and Obama seems to understand that way better than Boehner. That is how I see it.

7 moms found this helpful

In every poll I've read, the majority of Americans want a BALANCED approach -- cuts and more revenues. EVERYONE has a stake in this country and everyone needs to give a little. How on Earth can we pay for two wars simultaneously, bailed out financial institutions, unfunded Medicare D, etc. while the taxes being brought in are at their lowest level since the 1950s? We can't. Raise those damn tax levels to the Clinton year levels and be done with it. I'm sick of the middle class being stuck with shouldering all of the burden! I'm sorry, but if you read analysis by all of the economists out there on the right OR left, they all say that more revenues MUST come in, not just cuts.

P.S. Seems like everyone was prosperous during the Clinton years!

7 moms found this helpful

I agree w/Peg on all but one point: the wealthiest people ALREADY pay more in taxes and as things stand right now, almost half of our population pays no federal income tax at all.

It's time to stop the partisan and class warfare tactics. Obama offers little BUT these things every time he addresses the American people. Where is HIS plan? Why is everyone blaming rich people? They work hard to get what they have. Just because they chose a more lucrative path, or have the skills needed to acquire wealth, they should be penalized or asked shoulder more of the load than those who didn't? Why am I entitled to anyone else's money just because I chose a field where I don't make as much as they do? That's absurd!

I find it ironic and deeply disturbing that we rail on about "THE RICH BUSINESS PEOPLE" (a class of which I am not a part, by the way) and everyone's fine with sports players getting multi-million dollar contracts, or drug addicted actors commanding millions for boneheaded sitcom episodes?

Before we go off on the "blame Bush" train, please remember that Bush had a DEMOCRATIC congress in charge of the spending, headed by Reid and Pelosi - the same point people who want to continue to spend us into oblivion. Pelosi's personal wealth skyrocked last year and yet she prattles on about "shared sacrifice". Please.

I don't get this issue at all. If individuals ran their family finances this way, they'd be sunk. Everyone is responsible for their own choices and contributions. Entitlement programs need SERIOUS reform so that they don't continue as the fiscal black holes that they are, regulatory balance must be found so that businesses can afford to hire people and function, and politicians need to remember that their JOB is to vote the will of their constituents, not play political games for their own interest.

@Peg, I would love to live in a country where the government actually did a decent job managing its money and providing for its people. As it is, there is so much corruption and waste that I don't trust them to handle anything well! I don't want them having more responsibility or power when they can't handle it. It's a shame.

I'm trying to be very careful about where I get my information. Everything is slanted so heavily on both sides - be careful what you believe!

6 moms found this helpful

This is straight from the Horses mouth....

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Senator Barack Obama, 2006...so where's he leadership now? And it's OKAY NOW? that he's in power?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256199/obama-not-alw...

This will show more detail regarding the Debt Ceiling and the NUMBERS...
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1500-The-Republ...

5 moms found this helpful

The poll actually shows a 52% disapproval rating of Obama vs. a 48% disapproval rating of Boehner. That's pretty close, actually.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by, "One person wants to get more money out of us, the other says no." If you mean that Obama wants to get more money out of us and Boehner doesn't, that's a pretty simplistic summary of the problem. That's not really the way it is.

48% vs. 52% -- looks to me like Americans are pretty disgusted with the whole lot of them.

I fully support Twice Blessed's dream, below. And go Peg.

4 moms found this helpful

These polls...essentially...mean nothing. I do believe it means more disapprove Obama, then approve.

4 moms found this helpful

You do know that a poll can be slanted by the way of questioning to come up with whatever poll tally the ones running the poll want..??! Ask the questions right, and you'd have people saying the sky is green and the grass blue!

...oh, and part of the reason few jobs are being created by the "rich business folks" that so many are vilifying is that they have no idea what the politicking is going to end up costing them so they are very leery of outlaying too much cash!

(and I so agree with the posts about the rich actors and sports follks - how come they aren't vilified?)

3 moms found this helpful

You know this will probably be pulled right? Only saying because I'm sure it will eventually go into a political battle. I think it's valid because it is so much of our lives right now. Either way, both sides need to quit playing games and handle this.

2 moms found this helpful

As usual, Peg M. got it exactly right. Go Peg!

2 moms found this helpful

I will start by letting you know that I am fiscally conservative - in our personal lives and in politics. I believe that you you shouldn't borrow what you can't pay back, shouldn't spend what you don't have, and shouldn't mortgage tomorrow to live the good life today. Old fashioned, I know, but it's the way I was raised.

I feel so badly for our children, who will inherit a mess that they have no hope of ever correcting. My generation is caught in the middle because we have to pay into all of the social programs (medicare, social security, pension programs*), but we will most likely never get anything out of them. As a family, we are saving for our own future... yet I fear that when it comes time for us to tap those savings, we will be "taxed" on that money to pay for all the people who would rather play today than save for tomorrow.

Unfortunately, our nation has gotten into a situation where we have too many people who are completely dependent on government checks for survival. No one wants to be the one to pull the rug out from under them, so the situation gets worse every year. Many elderly are living off medicare and social security but complain about paying property taxes - the only way that education is funded in PA. How can our children grow up to contribute to society if we don't teach them well? OK, now I'm getting off the topic of the debt ceiling...

I guess I'll end my little rant by explaining that the reason why more Americans aren't irate at the idea that we would (once again) strap our kids to another increase of the debt ceiling is that so many are living beyond their own means. I mean, why ask Congress to manage their budget when we don't do it ourselves?

Finally, I would gladly stroke a check directly to our national debt if there was any indication that the powers that be would use those funds to right this ship any time soon...

* Before you tell me that employees aren't required to pay into pension programs, consider that every cent the company puts into the pension (or healthcare or any other "company sponsored benefit") is a cent that didn't go into wages. It's simply a matter of who you want controlling your money...

1 mom found this helpful

I feel bad for Boehner (and I'm a Democrat). He's taking the blame for the whole Republican party. He can't get the most fiscally conservative Republicans to pass his plan through the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Some are still pretty steamed that he was meeting with Obama to negotiate a plan (in hush-hush meetings for awhile and then openly).
Apparently the deal Obama and Boehner were trying to work out put a little over 4 trillion dollars in cuts on the table. (That's more than the current Republican proposal in the House of Representatives and the Democrat proposal in the Senate.) The deal they were working on apparently also included changes to social programs and closing tax loopholes. Some Republicans believe closing the loopholes is the same as raising taxes on the wealthy. Democrats would counter that closing loopholes means applying the law as it was intended in the first place. My personal opinion is that the only way to pay down the deficit is to make changes to social programs like Social Security and Medicare. But it's such a touchy and scary issue that most politicians fear losing reelection if they mention it. The only way to do it would be if you had both parties accepting responsibility for the changes. I think that Obama and Boehner were actually trying to cut just such a deal. Boehner was quoted in Time magazine as saying something to the effect of "Let's you (Obama) and I grab hands and jump off this boat together." Both men knew they would face anger from voters for the compromise they were working on. Apparently they came really close, but neither could convince the extremists in Congress (in both parties) to go along so the deal fell apart. Obama's Democrats rejected it because they are fearful of what such large budget cuts would do to the poor. And most of Boehner's Republican's have signed Grover-Norquist's No Tax Pledge while running for office; closing loopholes also counts as raising taxes according to that pledge. They feel that any new taxes will stifle the economy.
Anyway, I feel bad for Boehner. I do believe he and Obama were trying to make an actual difference with the deficit, and I'm really sorry their deal died. So are some conservatives. One conservative columnist wrote that Republicans needed to admit they won. They got a Democratic president to agree to cut over 4 trillion from the government's budget a year before the election. Time interviewed former Republican congressman Alan Simpson (a co-chair of the deficit reduction commission) and the reporter asked what he thought the biggest obstacle to cutting the deficit was. He said, "The absolute rigidity of the parties. They're as rigid as a fireplace poker, but without the occasional warmth." Asked if he would run for office now, he replied, "Oh hell no. Now it's just sharp elbows, and instead of having a caucus where you sit down and say 'What are you going to do for your country?" you sit figuring out how to screw the other side."

There is a deficit that needs to be paid. In a nutshell, one side wants to cut spending in certain areas they don't feel are important and not raise any taxes, and one side disagrees on where to make cuts (of course, opposing sides have opposing priorities) and also wants to tax wealthy people.

First let me state that I am a lifelong Democrat. Second, I voted for Obama and will happily do so again. My Father was a Republican so I can see that point of view, too.
Boehner doesn't want us to keep our money, he wants to make sure that the top 1% or so makes sure to keep their money with no tax increases for the wealthy. This is not just liberal trash-talking, you can look up specific fact check stuff on factcheck.com (or might be .org)-they are non-partisan.
Boehner wants to have government cuts, a smaller government (which is fine) but he wants to do this by cutting spending on Medicare/Medicaid and other social needs. Perhaps it's not him as much as the tea party people that signed a pledge to their group-why as our government representatives did they not sign a pledge to the people of this country. Just signed something to the money of this country. I think that tells you a lot about their motives. And really, and also can be fact checked, the government grew so big under Bush who was a republican.
Check out some of the non-partisan fact information to help you on your quest for information about this terrible situation.