Ninety percent of Americans are concerned about the economy, according to a new CNBC poll, and two-thirds of those surveryed think neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clear vision for improving it.
A majority of the respondents believe the Bush tax cuts should be extended, even for people making more than $250,000 a year.
Fifty-five percent think increasing taxes on any Americans will slow the economy and kill jobs. On the other hand, 40 percent believe those tax cuts should be cancelled for higher-income Americans.
Only 14 percent of those surveyed believe that the government’s policies dealing with the recession are helping them, while 56 percent say the policies are aiding banks.
A clear majority of Americans, 55 percent, believe that the president’s economic plans have made things worse, running up the deficit without ending the recession or creating new jobs.
Only 42 percent say the president’s policies have helped avert a worse crisis and are laying the groundwork for further growth.
And Americans have changed their mind about more regulation for business and industry. Eighteen months ago, 47 percent of Americans thought increased government regulation would be good for the economy. Today, only 34 percent of those surveyed believe more regulation is good, while 47 percent believe it would hurt the economy.
Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!
(Read More: CNBC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
14 Responses
This is the opening paragraph of a Washington Post summary of an August 19, 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); the CBO is generally accepted by Republican and Democrat alike as being objective, profewssional and non-partisan
“The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday that permanently extending tax cuts put in place under President George W. Bush would provide a “considerable” economic boost over the next several years but would result in substantial increases in the federal deficit, placing the country in a precarious fiscal situation by 2020.”
(For the full story see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906102.html)
Ameircans want lower taxes, but they also want multiple wars, lots of government services, and a lower federal budget deficit. These are incompatible.
Yonason, are you that incompetent or simply blinded.
The bailouts did nothing for the economy while leaving the taxpayers. The stimulus stimulated virtually nothing to start up the economy while getting the deficit to an all-time record deficit. Obamacare drove the deficit through the ceiling, increased the premiums, cut the services and did nothing for our economy (remember Obama saying it would generate jobs?). Spending bills with thousands of pages and trillions of dollars are being passed with millions of jobs lost a month and you’re fine with it?
Yes. A tax cut might drive up the deficit for a short while, but it would be worthwhile in the long run. A deficit isn’t good when it is gone to waste. It is bad because it will raise taxes and will drive our economy even deeper into the ditch (that the democratic-led congress drove on D…). Lowering taxes will get us more jobs to pay for the deficit. And tell the CBO to scrap all the democratic spending bills and earmarks and you’ll get a surplus.
#2 — The federal deficit ballooned to its current situation due to multiple wars and lots of government services, but the worst offenders were a failed stimulus and a bailout of companies that should have been allowed, according to the laws of free markets, to undergo an structured and orderly bankruptcy like any failed small business. The Community Organizer in Chief’s Great Stimulus cost taxpayers more than our entire involvement in Iraq. You glibly assume that those Americans wanting lower taxes also want the aforementioned deficit havoc wreckers. That’s a gross generalization, and unfair to many who eschew budget busters.
charliehall – you’re on the money (no pun intended)
charlieHall & YonasonW,
You keep showing us that liberalism doesn’t require brains because the thing you keep missing is how your Obama has spent & spent & spent A spent. The fact is if you were concerned about the deficit you would be ‘shraying chai v’kayum ‘ about the way Obama is wasting money.
I would also hate to interrupt your unconditional love of Obama & his socialism with facts but tax cuts bring in more money to the govt because people are spending money. Whenever taxes are raised, people stop spending. This is a fact!!
Finally if the two of you want to pay higher taxes, I would suggest you write out a big fat check & make it payable to Uncle Sam. Or are you only happy when its yenim’s gelt?
it would make sense to extent the bush tax cuts for all americans for at least a year. It is unwise to have a massive tax hike after we just experienced the worst recession in 70 years and we are not sure we are out of the woods.
extend them for a year, then if the economy is stronger it is time to raise taxes for everyone, to raise the retirement age, and to start cutting entitlement programs.
#4,
Bankruptcy laws were not designed for companies that are so large that their failure would bring down the entire economy.
#6,
Obama is not a socialist. When he came into office, the government owned most of the financial services sector because of the TARP bailout, which was forced through Congress by Bush. Under Obama the government is slowly divesting itself of these assets (such as they are). If he were a real socialist he would have replaced the boards of Chase, Citi, BofA, AIG, etc. Maybe he should have.
#7,
You say you want to cut entitlement programs. One of e biggest entitlement program is the mortgage interest tax deduction. How much do you want to cut it? Most other countries don’t have such a deduction at all; would you elminiate it entirely? Canada has no such deduction but their homeownership rate is essentially the same as that of the US — and Canadians on average have more equity in their homes.
CharlieHall,
There is no point in getting into a back and forth with you as you change the FACTS to support your extreme love for Obama and all things far left in this country.
So how is that hopey changy thingy going for you???
charlie i think the mortgage deduction should be phased out slowly until it is eliminated entirely. I do not agree that it is the Government’s role to prop up the housing market. There is no reason someone who pays a mortgage should be able to write it off, while someone who rents cannot so yes I agree with you.
The military budget needs to be reformed, social security should be cut for people with higher assets, and more help should go to struggling middle class families as opposed to many poor who do not even seek employment (the ones who do work or try to find work should ge help) i.e. food stamps, medicaid, section 8 etc.
its clear that unless military, Social security, medicaid, medicare, and public pensions are not reformed soon this country is in serious fiscal trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve -This is for all those who have never taken a course in economics. Based on the Laffer curve coupled with the fact of offshore accounts for people in a higher tax bracket, you have the more money coming in to the government when there are lower taxes.
Mark Levin, Dave Hirsch and Locknload – You guys are cognitive dissonence personified – Any statistic that is contrary to your world view you characterize as either liberal, mindless or misguided – no matter the if the source is ideological unimpeachable, such as the CBO.
So check the figures, rather than just regurgitate ideology – the deficit grew hugely under George Dubya, and that growth accounts for over 70% of the current total deficit – The thing for you hawks is that deficit was due to wars that you like – so you don’t never kvetched about it. Besides, George Dubya was your boy; sort of like how so many Yidden gave Netanyahu a virtual free pass on conduct that you guys retched over when it came to Clinton. So much for principle.
I note also that the proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts ranks 11 out of 11 in CBO rankings of measures proposed to help the economy.
gevald ugeshregin (#12) – I read the article for which you provided a link. You fail to report that, among other things, the article describes the Laffer Curve as theoretical, contoversial and as part of supply-side theory. When you read it . . . maybe it was preaching to the choir?