"Americans have contradictory preferences regarding public policy. They want to balance the budget and pay low taxes, but majorities also support most government programs" - AP Gov textbook. Do you agree with this assessment?
"Keep your government hands off my Medicare"
- tea party republican
People are forced to prepay their SS and Medicare. If we could we'd rather be responsible for both. And even though the federal government mixes it with the general fund and likes to call it an entitlement it's not.
".....but majorities also support most government programs"
This is where the error is. There are probably fewer than 5 Americans who actually know every government program there is. So the idea that a majority support most programs is nonsensical.
If you were to give Americans a list of every government program in existence and ask them to cross out the ones they don't support, when they hand the lists back to you in 6 months, I think you'll find that a majority of Americans oppose a majority of programs.
We have a high taxes and spending group on one end, and a low taxes and spending group on the other. Then we have the group that plays off the other two that doesn't really care how it works, they just want stuff but they don't want to pay for it.
I want both a balanced budget & lower taxes by reducing waste, welfare corruption & Government over-reach.
Americans want to pay low taxes, usually for certain programs. For instance, I'd like to see the defense spending drastically cut, which can be done safely with little impact, and then we have lower taxes. On the other hand
Id like to see more states raising their gas taxes (I realize I'm talking federal and state taxes, but my point stands), as cars get better mileage, and we start having more drivers on the road, the old infrastructure is either crumbling, or can't
Handle the increasing number of drivers. That tax goes to a lot of road/bridge repairs etc, and puts people to work.
I think that's true. I want lower taxes, zero deficit, a solid plan to lower--and eventually eliminate--the public debt, and have a significant reduction in government size and scope.
Balanced budget and lower taxes are possible with smaller government.
True, but the point of the poll statement is that many support the programs behind the spending.
Typically the people who want bigger government are the ones not paying for it. The 49% that don't pay anything are the ones screaming the loudest for more government spending.
You mean republicans? Considering republican states take more from the federal government than democratic states
Lol. That propaganda has been debunked. Your article is not only extremely biased but it includes money going to military bases, farming, and money going to maintain land that the federal government controls. Only a liberal would think paying people to work and defend our country to be welfare. The worst cities are controlled by democrats like in Detroit, Baltimore, philly, and flint, just to name a few.
"Using data from the IRS, WalletHub ranked all 50 states on four key metrics: return on taxes paid to the federal government, federal funding as a percentage of state revenue, the number of federal employees per 1,000 residents, and the number of non-defense federal employees per 1,000 residents."
What does non defense mean, and even when controlled for farm subsidies, republicans still take more. 93 out of 100 poorest counties are red countries which makes sense that they take more in government benefits
And actually, Michigan and Pennsylvania have slightly above average scores in terms of dependency on federal government (still far better than states in the south) and Maryland has a AA bond rating, also average on dependency
What does "number of federal employees per 1,000 residents" mean? It means they are people getting paid to work. That is not welfare. When the democrats controlled the congress and White House actual welfare skyrocketed. The worst cities in America are mostly run by democrats. Detroit voted 94% for Obama. Was it the 6% of non democrats that ran that city to the ground? Your propaganda may fool the fools but anyone looking at reality can see how democrats turn neighborhoods into ghettos.
Yes, the state is unable to afford services, so federal employees must work for the state using federal dollars. Liberal states such as California, Massachusetts and New York must pay for the failed policies of Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi. 93 of the 100 poorest counties in the US are republican leaving liberal counties to pay for them. And like I said, the states those cities are in, are actually better than the national average in terms of dependency
Lol. "the state is unable to afford services, so federal employees must work for the state using federal dollars." That is simply not true. Federal employees work for the federal government so you are either ignorant or just trying to spin your propaganda. And your bias link is talking about median household income which is not welfare and does not consider cost of living which is tremendously lower in rural areas than in big cities. You can make half as much and live twice as good in some areas than others. You need to learn some basic economics.
"What if, for example, a particular state can afford not to tax its residents at high rates because it receives disproportionately more funding from the federal government than states with apparently oppressive tax codes? That would change the narrative significantly, revealing federal dependence where bold, efficient stewardship was once thought to preside."
Actually it is true as more dependent states would receive more federal benefits, any the employees would be federal employees
"Federal employees work for the federal government"
No, actually dependent states(mainly republican states, rely heavily on federal funding and federal employees on where they fall short
". And your bias link is talking about median household income which is not welfare and does not consider cost of living which is tremendously lower in rural areas than in big cities."
Again, these are the poorest areas with the highest level of poverty, so of course they'll receive more benefits. And look at how dramatic it is. 93 out of 100! No matter how you construe it, democratic counties are much better of
Not to mention the higher standard of living in democrat than republican states. And if the federal government are employing more people, than they are receiving more federal dollars. And republicans are taking in the most
And you somehow keep alluding to jobs as being welfare. Paying people to work is not welfare. Also over 60% of Alaska, for example, is owned by the federal government which means the federal government has to pay people to take care of the land they have control of, which again is NOT welfare.
Here's a study showing the republican voters are more likely to take food stamps. You've been proven wrong, and it's also not a coincidence all the southern republican states are federal takers while liberal New England states pay into the governments. We are paying for your failed policy
Most of the federal land is owned in the western region on the country, but the southern region (Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi) are much more privately owned. And they take in FAR more federal dollars than they pay in
Here's a map of the federally owned land, but notice how federal spending STILL isn't heavily concentrated in the west where there's more federal land, but rather in republican states where there's more failed policies and less personal responsibility
"1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita. The third measure received only half the weight of each of the others in the calculation. "
This is how it was measured, and even though federal employees received half the weight, and far more federal land is in the west, republicans states STILL take more federal dollars than democratic states. You have been proven wrong and this really shows the hypocrisy within the republicans. Although they have higher rates of poverty, they're the ones preaching personal responsibility, when it is us in Massachusetts paying for them
Lol. Higher standard of living? Flint is one of the most liberal cities in the USA and the place is a disaster and the water is literally brown. You still won't answer why Detroit is such a crap hole if you genius liberals are running the place. You guys run places like Chicago, Ferguson, Philly, and Baltimore where crime is ramped and you burn down your own neighborhoods. That is higher living? Lol
Actually as the darts shows, Philadelphia, Michigan are all better than average in dependency and Illinois even provides MORE to the feeder all government in Tax revenue. Revenue which is then used to fund the failed policies of conservative states as they rely FAR more on government benefits due to their inefficiency to generate revenue of their own. 9 out the the 10 poorest states are republican. And even when adjusting for standard of living they are still overall poorer. We in the liberal states have to pay for . And no, the west has far more federal land but areas like Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi lack personal responsibility and take in far more than they receive. THis is the hypocrisy of the republicans as every study shows they rely more on the federal government because they maintain failed policies and are parasites of liberal states.
Lol. Still dodging the question as usual. The republicans are having to pay every time you democrats loot, riot, and burn down your own cities but cities like Detroit are having to support the conservative areas in your mind. 👌🏼. Well you should move to Detroit and live in your liberal utopia.
Again, the data doesn't support that, and the liberal cities you have mentioned are in states who dependency on the government is far less than southern states. You attacked Chicago, but Illinois puts more money into the government than it takes out. South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana on the other hand take far more, due to high levels of poverty in republican areas and the failed policies of conservatives that force liberal states to pay for them.
I agree. People are simple minded and selfish. They want to balance the budget by cutting the programs they don't like whilst growing the ones that benefit them. Such is the common theme throughout American politics - "what can government do for me that my neighbor will pay for?"
100% spot on. The budget could easily be balanced by eliminating a small handful of tax deductions and with a few small tax increases. Nobody has the guts to do it. IE: corporate welfare costs $250 billion a year, the mortgage interest deduction costs $145 billion. Eliminate both, eliminate the bogus carried interest loophole, crack down on corporate inversions and we are well in the black.
I'm ok with the suggestions you gave so long as we hit non-corporate welfare too. At present it's the loopholes that save me from funding 3 people's free ride instead of just the one slacker I'm currently supporting. Let's close all the loopholes where citizens are given a benefit and not just the loopholes we don't like.
Totally agree, I was just tossing out a couple ideas. It seems to me that social welfare could be more efficient but I don't know enough about it to comment. But if we are ever going to be in the black again, it needs to be a shared sacrifice.
I can agree wth that. The Mormon welfare model is very efficient and effective at getting people to a state of independence. Something similarly implemented at local levels and without federal involvement could be effective.
Duh. It's the Walmart-ization of American life: we don't care about societal consequences, we want MORE and CHEAP stuff.
"Free stuff" in the context of government programs.
The thing about Walmart is that when people buy stuff they're not leaving the bill for their neighbor to pay. Such is not the case with government programs.
We wouldn't have this problem if:
- lower military budget
-closed tax loopholes. We lose billions, if not trillions, to tax evasion.
Lower taxes usually make the economy grow which ultimately increase revenues. Also, republicans believe in cutting government expenditure.
I do think we, generally, do have a preference toward both but not a contradictory one. The program's supported should be within the budget and not result in excessive taxes. That's not a contradiction; it's just not what happens.
I'm not sure if most people support most programs, but I would definitely believe most people support a good deal of programs be it on one side or the other.
Germany has a lot of government programs and a bearable level of taxes but a balanced budget. How? Magic ? 😹
So many people complain about the national debt yet vote for politicians who will only increase it.