Americans support the economic-stimulus plan being pushed by President-elect Barack Obama but worry the government will spend too much money and widen the budget deficit, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found.Read the whole thing, here.
Overall, the poll found strong public backing for the stimulus plan and its major planks, particularly proposals to spend more federal money to create jobs.
As Mr. Obama prepares to take office next week, he enjoys enormous good will and higher approval ratings than his predecessors enjoyed upon entering the White House.
The poll found that the handful of problems Mr. Obama's transition has encountered have had little, if any, effect on his standing with the public. And even before the Illinois Democrat is sworn in as the nation's first African-American president, the poll found a large increase in the number of Americans who view race relations positively.
The survey of 1,007 adults was conducted Jan. 9-12 and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
As a whole, the nation's mood remains glum, with three out of four people surveyed expecting the recession to persist for at least an additional year.
Asked about the economic-stimulus package, now estimated to cost $850 billion over two years, 43% of people surveyed called it a "good idea," while 27% said it is a "bad idea." The rest didn't have an opinion.
Even Republicans and independents think GOP lawmakers should work to move the legislation forward. Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation, or look to compromise with the Obama administration, 68% of Republicans and independents chose compromise, with 20% picking standing firm.
By a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, people preferred government spending to create jobs over tax cuts to give Americans more money to spend. Large majorities endorsed many details in the plan, with 89% saying they like the idea of creating jobs through increasing production of renewable energy and making public buildings more energy efficient.
At the same time, the survey suggests many remain concerned about the potential impact on the government's budget. Sixty percent said they worry more that the government will spend too much money and worsen the deficit, while 33% said they worry more that the government will spend too little.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Public Prefers Spending Over Tax Cuts, Poll Finds
From the Wall Street Journal, "Obama, Stimulus Proposals Enjoy Broad Backing in Poll":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think I got enough for a can of Pepsi with my Reagan tax cut. I did a little better with the Bush tax cut. I got a twelve pack when it was on sale. I would gladly give back the twelve pack if the Bush deficit wasn't 11 trillion dollars. The Clinton era tax rates worked fine.
How about some Obama tax cuts, Truth101? Won't that be great?
Clinton's tax increases occurred at a time where innovation and economic growth -- seeded during the Reagan/Bush years -- masked the detrimental effects of those increases.
He also expanded upon the Bush "peace dividend", and cut our military to the bone during that time ... increasing his "surpluses". And rebuilding that led in part to the "Bush deficit".
Riddle me this ... who would you think would be more likely to use the finances placed under their control in ways that TRULY benefit everyone to a higher degree ... Congress, or (to cite just one example) Steve Jobs?
We think that the productive among us will continue producing as before, continuing to be a herd of cash cows that "owes" us "what we deserve" without making the effort to be productive ourselves.
We are starting to go down the road of mediocrity ... except, unlike Europe, there will be no one to pull our butts out of the fire when we get there and the barbarians show up soon thereafter ... thanks to the Biggest Lie of All.
I think that the new administration is realizing this ... and is at least pulling its foot off the accelerator, and at least checking the GPS for an exit ramp, based upon the departures from campaign rhetoric I've seen recently.
(But the teenagers in its back seat will be pushing them hard to put the pedal back to the metal, because the rich must be burdened in the name of social justice.)
So you would rather have a Nation in debt to the tune of 11 trillion dollars so I could buy a case of Pepsi. Rich: we spend more on defense now and when Clinton was president than any other country. John McCain said he would have cut defense spending had he been elected president. You know Rich. If you're for our Nation spending it's tax dollars on world welfare by stationing Troops in Japan, Korea and elsewhere, go ahead and own upto it. You right wingers switch allegiances all the time. Be a naughty right winger for once.
Professor Douglas: for your info, I'm against tax cuts. We owe 11 trillion dollars. We gotta face the music.
T101 -- how about some SPENDING cuts, instead? Where are the layoffs for government employees ... are they above sharing the pain?
Oh, I forgot ... more government is the answer, despite the lessons of history in my lifetime, from the Great Society to midnight basketball to the Ponzi scheme that Social Security has become.
How about we keep the money in the hands of those like Steve Jobs, and do more to pay down the debt at the same time ... without shortchanging the military.
Good defense ... and valuing innocent lives ... means staying way ahead of the capabilities of your enemies, to the point that either the war never starts, or it can be decisively ended quickly. Parity is not enough.
BTW, those spending cuts should include cutting defense spending that serves more of a political purpose than a defense purpose, which is where McCain was heading, IMO ... including the "welfare" you refer to, where it exists (OTOH, it makes sense to keep troops in Korea to keep the Dear Leader to the north honest ... as is keeping enough troops in Europe to capture Putin's attention).
Did you ever consider that the reason your tax cut amounted to "a case of Pepsi" is that your taxes at the time were already low ... in large part because others were paying more than their fair share in our "progressive" system?
Of course, my attitude may be because I just wrote out checks, to the Feds and NY, today that ate up around 1/3 of the year-end bonus that I busted my butt to remain eligible for.
I'm not against paying taxes ... what I am against is attempting to impose government upon areas where its very structure precludes efficient/effective problem resolution.
Unfortunately, those in power will once again persist in such an imposition and waste OUR resources, because they value credentials, expertise ... and their own influence ... more than the common sense that tells us 300 million problem-solvers are more likely to find the answers than a few experts.
BTW even Clinton admitted that he raised the taxes too high. Funny how people on the left never want to cut spending. Oh, and which party didn't want to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It sure wasn't the GOP...
Post a Comment