RASMUSSEN POLL-64% of americans prefer LESS SERVICES and LOWER TAXES..

[J.E.D]

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Whattya know?
most,if not almost the super majority of americans polled dont like excess services and taxes.
liberal thinking in the toilet.
"flush".
if it matters,nebraska is romney 51%,39%obama.
WISCONSIN DEAD HEAT!!!
46% both...
there is hope and change yet...

Welcome back, Trish, err I mean Eddie...wait, who is this?

 

[francoHFW]

Explain SALT JONES on USMB here...
al sharpton,obama,etc...
BIGGEST HYPOCRITE RACISTS ON THE PLANET.

Actually, they don't like racists, dittohead.

 

[francoHFW]

I agree let us cut some wasteful government services.
First thing we can cut is the endless argument over gay marriage. How much money and time have we blown trying to keep 2 adults from entering into a government contract? It costs money and it does not benefit anyone in society. Hey, we would also a huge burst in jobs and revenue as gays make weddings.

Hey ***, how does growing the government to get into the same-sex marriage business cut costs? ****** behavior is very costly to society (AIDS, child molestation, etc.), without providing any benefits in return. The reason faggots want the government to come into their private relationships is so that the government will add indoctrination of faggotry to public school curriculum and to ban freedom of association/speech (e.g. anti-discrimination laws). The enforcement of that tyranny is costly.

Your Liberal idea to reduce government spending is for people to stop opposing increases in government size. You ******* moron.

what a disgusting Ugly 'Merican brainwashed moron...

 

[RightWingFerret]

raz and gallup should just take a poll of the 25 million or so unemployed americans who are on the edge financially and very very angry at the democrats who caused this mess,,,,then maybe we can get a better idea of whos gonna win in november.

 

[g5000]

Hey ***

Here's a tip. Only a gay-basher like yourself is offended by being called a ***.

****** behavior is very costly to society (AIDS, child molestation, etc.),

Please provide evidence the only molestation of children is done by people of the same sex as the victim.

Oh wait! There ISN'T any evidence. Grown men molest little girls ALL THE TIME! My God, we better stop men from marrying women!

As for AIDS, that disease pales in comparison to the death toll caused by syphilis. You know, millions upon millions of straight people like us died from syphilis for CENTURIES! And syphilis is still going strong in the hetero world. Good thing for you there's a cure now, eh?

Dammit. It looks like you don't have any real point. Shit. And you were on a roll, too. You expended all the energy you had in your two brain cells for nothing. What a shame.

 

[Listening]

Explain SALT JONES on USMB here...
al sharpton,obama,etc...
BIGGEST HYPOCRITE RACISTS ON THE PLANET.

Actually, they don't like racists, dittohead.

They told you that ? Wow ! And you believed them ????

You are stooooooopppppppppiiiiiiidddddddd.

 

[Avorysuds]

I would be willing to bet that by "less services" they mean services for other people, not ones that benefit themselves

Why not poll people on whether they would be willing to give up their own benefits for lower taxes?

I 100% agree... And if you polled people and asked if THEY would want to pay an unavoidable 90% tax and still have our Government run a Trillion + dollar deficit every year just to keep the services we have (not new ones), I have a feeling people wouldn't favor it very much...

The honest questions that none of you “liberals” will answer are:

How high do taxes have to be to balance the budget?

Who gets these tax increases?

How much of the revenue raised goes directly to paying down the deficit that is built by programs we currently can’t afford?

Do you still plan on adding new programs, how much will it cost, where will the money come from, how are they constitutional?

What happens to the economy when you raise these taxes on people, be realistic.

 

[Avorysuds]

Public services such as fire and police should be removed from state general funds and be put into into special funds. This way state legislators could not hold voters hostage to the threats of "protective services" during budget and election votes. Of course democrats would start losing reelections or be forced to slow the growth of government.

Have you ever seen Republicans reduce government?

In fact, no.... Bush grew the crap out of it, he spent nonstop on social and military and look where it got us? I find it odd you support Obama being he spends more on military than Bush and has spent more on social stuff as well. I guess if you never learn from the past mistakes you are doomed to repeat them.

Sadly, I highly doubt you ever cared about any of the things you hated Republicans and Bush for, otherwise it would be an impossibility for you to support the war expanding, war adding, tax cut, NDAA passing, homeland security growing, patriot act expanding President known as Obama. Then again, you believe Reps made him do all of that... Makes me wonder if Dems made Bush do all the dumb crap he did...

 

[tererun]

I agree let us cut some wasteful government services.
First thing we can cut is the endless argument over gay marriage. How much money and time have we blown trying to keep 2 adults from entering into a government contract? It costs money and it does not benefit anyone in society. Hey, we would also a huge burst in jobs and revenue as gays make weddings.

Hey ***, how does growing the government to get into the same-sex marriage business cut costs? ****** behavior is very costly to society (AIDS, child molestation, etc.), without providing any benefits in return. The reason faggots want the government to come into their private relationships is so that the government will add indoctrination of faggotry to public school curriculum and to ban freedom of association/speech (e.g. anti-discrimination laws). The enforcement of that tyranny is costly.

Your Liberal idea to reduce government spending is for people to stop opposing increases in government size. You ******* moron.

Ok, I guess perhaps you do not understand how this works. Things like DOMA and the anti-gay marriage legislation we pass cost money and legislature time. To get it on a ballot for a popular vote is also expensive. then we have all the campaigning for it. In the end we spend a lot of money in each state arguing this issue. Now there is the alternative that we do not get in the way of two same gender people of consenting age entering into the standard marriage contract that already exists. Even making a separate status of civil unions for gays makes for repetition and that costs money. So the first thing is we lose money fighting against something that does not harm anyone.

As for making money that is simple. Weddings are a big business. people could spend tens of thousands of dollars in weddings. The first gays to get married are going to want a good party. So you give business to caterers, rental halls, perhaps willing churches, limo rentals, tux rentals, dresses, and tht is not to mention the indirect profits of tourism as relatives come in from other places and spend money. All of this can lead to increased local tax revenue and federal taxes by employing people to do these things. Married couples often fall into higher federal income tax brackets due to their combined incomes and often end up paying more without kids to deduct.

Also, we are talking about gay people, and not child molestors. gay marriage exists between two people of consenting age and no law has been proposed to change the age of consent or allow sexual contact with a person below the age of consent. So the child molestation thing is just a flat out lie unless you want to show me a proposed marriage contract that would allow a person below the legal age of consent to get married and participate in sexual relations with an adult.

Oh, and do not be stupid. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. this means it can be passed through straight intercourse. it would be a shame if your ignorance made you feel immune to a disease all humans can get and that caused you to have unprotected sex which lead to you getting HIV. So do not ignore the reality of AIDS and think you are immune because you are not gay. That is just dangerous.

Finally, your last argument makes less sense than the others. I can understand you have been told lies and bullshit and you have not thought through all of that to come to a real conclusion. However, your argument that by allowing more freedom the government is taking away freedoms shoots itself down. That is like telling me i am stealing money from you while giving you a million dollars.

Do you have anymore easy questions i can answer for you?

 

[tererun]

Public services such as fire and police should be removed from state general funds and be put into into special funds. This way state legislators could not hold voters hostage to the threats of "protective services" during budget and election votes. Of course democrats would start losing reelections or be forced to slow the growth of government.

Have you ever seen Republicans reduce government?

In fact, no.... Bush grew the crap out of it, he spent nonstop on social and military and look where it got us? I find it odd you support Obama being he spends more on military than Bush and has spent more on social stuff as well. I guess if you never learn from the past mistakes you are doomed to repeat them.

Sadly, I highly doubt you ever cared about any of the things you hated Republicans and Bush for, otherwise it would be an impossibility for you to support the war expanding, war adding, tax cut, NDAA passing, homeland security growing, patriot act expanding President known as Obama. Then again, you believe Reps made him do all of that... Makes me wonder if Dems made Bush do all the dumb crap he did...

This is great, but is there a real alternative? Especially since the libertarians have been hijacked by the really pathetic tea party? We are looking at a choice between Obama and Romney. They are both going to expand government. We know Obama will because he has done it. We know Romney will because he has done it. We know congress will because they do it. Really the choice is who do we think will **** things up the least, and who might have a possibility to getting something good done. It is not like mitt is not going to expand government.

 

[Artevelde]

Well, I guess the US could do without the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Delta Regional Authority, the Northern Border Regional Commission, etc. etc. The list in the budget is pretty long.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree let us cut some wasteful government services.

First thing we can cut is the endless argument over gay marriage. How much money and time have we blown trying to keep 2 adults from entering into a government contract? It costs money and it does not benefit anyone in society. Hey, we would also a huge burst in jobs and revenue as gays make weddings.

Really? HUGE burst in jobs..

No, this is rather meaningless on any scale. The issue here is rights and it has no impact on anything other than that.

How about we cut congressional pay? Seriously, do they need this much money? Do they do their job in a timely efficient manner? No, so let us put that on the chopping block.

Again, meaningless, and even more to the point, unsupported to both sides so what was your point in brining this up?

How about we cut the war budget? Let us get out of afganistan. How much money could we save by not trying to keep people in the middle east from killing each other?

Excellent idea. There is real efforts to be made here. Too bad Obama has no plans whatsoever to actually do anything about the constant war profiteering. Oops....

I know it is small compared to some other things, but we could cut funding for abstinence only education. It doesn't work, and we could take that money and put it into actual education which would increase our education budget while not costing us more money.

And yet the evedence proves your compleatly incorrect on this one. Too bad.

The fact is that abstinence programs are the most effective education through earlier years, giving ground to more complete education as children pass into their late middle school/high school years.

Here is an idea, we target plans based on costs and savings rather than partisan hackery which is what targeting abstinence programs is....

Here is a good idea which will not only cut our prison and legal system budget while raising tax revenue. make pot legal and tax the hell out of it. No more spending tons of money imprisoning people for possession, making legitimate jobs, freeing up the present police force to deal with real crime, sales tax revenue, lower medical costs (pot is much cheaper, healthy, and more effective than many designer pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors), and a reduction of criminal organization profits which reduces the amount of problems we have on the mexican border. Not to mention with more jobs we might get some of those people off of welfare.

Again, good idea. Too bad no one is actually supporting such an idea. Oh wait, never mind, Ron Paul does support that
Ron Paul: End Marijuana Prohibition Now!

But I would guess that you actually do not care about legalizing pot at all.

Look, I am with the OP in that we could cut many things our government pisses money away on every year. If the republicans were really for cuts of wasteful spending i would be all over supporting them. They do not want to cut anything, they simply want to move money from one thing to another. Taking money from social programs that help americans and putting it into bombing the middle east is not saving money or saving america. Stupifying our children by cutting education while increasing biblical nonsense is not saving money. The republicans only want to cut certain services which play into their power structure. They piss money away much worse than the democrats want to. We have plenty of bullshit to cut long before we start looking at kid's education and giving poor people food. If you really want smaller government than shrink it's bloated parts like the war machine. You can cut the huge intrusive legal system which pokes it's heads into all of our lives and tries to limit who we have consentual sex with, or what substances we take. Poor people need food and housing, but no one needs a ban on same sex marriage.

You may buy the load of bullshit republicans shovel about cutting the size of government, but it does not make any sense when they clearly rally around expanding our government in some very expensive and pointless ways. Our drug wars got into high gear with regan and nixon poking their noses into our private lives. Bush pushed the war on gays and the intrusive patriot act. The last person who balanced a budget and lowered our defecit was a democrat. Why should I, or anyone, believe that republicans are going to move away from expensive and pointless bullshit in the government when they have been expanding it for as long as most of us have been alive.

Really, please explain to me how cutting welfare is going to increase revenue and business considering welfare is a lot of people can buy food which makes jobs for people. Welfare is one of the reasons some people can pay rent which benefits land owners in our failing housing market. Welfare lets people have utilities, which makes more jobs and helps our utility companies. It is not like these people can put welfare money into the bank and sit on it. It is money they have to spend that goes back into our economy. You cut welfare and you cut food sales, you cut jobs, you destroy farmers. On top of that what do you think happens to these people when they do not have a place to live and money to eat? They end up in jail. Believe me it is a savings to give people food, housing, and utility assistance rather than paying the large cost to imprison them. So you either save some money by giving them some help fending for themselves, or you pay a lot of money to guard and imprison them while increasing your crime rates.

And there is what you are really getting at.. REPUBLICANS are not reducing governemnt. Tell me then, why do you support the democrats that are also (surprise, surprise) increasing the size of government? Nice double standard.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would be willing to bet that by "less services" they mean services for other people, not ones that benefit themselves

Why not poll people on whether they would be willing to give up their own benefits for lower taxes?

This is the real problem. America is filled with people that are blatant hypocrites. They scream about taxes and spending and then, in the same breath, demand that their Medicare and social security not be touched. It is this asinine concept of MY benefits are due to me but YOURS are just freeloading when the reality of the situation is going to demand that all benefits are impacted in one way or another. That may mean small sacrifices like changing the retirement age or larger sacrifices but in essence, sacrifices are going to have to be made across the board or those programs are simply going to end rather than be reduced.


It can be infuriating to watch the hypocrites in action.

 

[zeke]

* Generally speaking, would you prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes or a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?

From the survey.

Generally speaking, this answer has been the same since 2006. According to the article.

So what does that mean? Just what it says. Generally speaking, we citizens want smaller guvmint.
Just don't take away anything I get from the guvmint. That's what it says.

Ask these same people specifically what guvmint service they will give up and how much should they pay in taxes.

Thar would be a question worth reading the answer to.

The current article is just rehashing the same shit from 2006.

What's it all mean alfie? Why didn't the Rethugs have this revelation back in 2006. When they could have shrunk guvmint. Instead of tanking the economy.

 

[zeke]

And yet the evedence proves your compleatly incorrect on this one. Too bad.

The fact is that abstinence programs are the most effective education through earlier years, giving ground to more complete education as children pass into their late middle school/high school years.

Got a link saying this works? And I guess you could say abstinence works for second graders and such.
But I don't believe sexual activity is real big in those early elementary years. But I got to admit, a teacher telling her class of third graders not to have sex, would prolly be "effective".

But high school? Jr high? Some ignorant southern (Alabama maybe) state has abstinence only high school education and also has one of the highest teen birth rates. Not working so well is it?

 

[Mac1958]

They scream about taxes and spending and then, in the same breath, demand that their Medicare and social security not be touched. It is this asinine concept of MY benefits are due to me but YOURS are just freeloading when the reality of the situation is going to demand that all benefits are impacted in one way or another.

Indeed, this is the core of the problem. I wouldn't say they're necessarily hypocrites, the way I see it is that there are many who maintain a fairly shallow thought process on these issues. That can be due to a lack of intellectual curiosity, or it can be due to the fact that they just parrot what Limbaugh and Hannity say. Or some combination therein, I suppose.

They just aren't thinking it through. Then, of course, we get folks like the OP who claim this poll is some kind of mandate. Amusing, if nothing else.

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet the evedence proves your compleatly incorrect on this one. Too bad.

The fact is that abstinence programs are the most effective education through earlier years, giving ground to more complete education as children pass into their late middle school/high school years.

Got a link saying this works? And I guess you could say abstinence works for second graders and such.
But I don't believe sexual activity is real big in those early elementary years. But I got to admit, a teacher telling her class of third graders not to have sex, would prolly be "effective".

But high school? Jr high? Some ignorant southern (Alabama maybe) state has abstinence only high school education and also has one of the highest teen birth rates. Not working so well is it?

Abstinence-only programs might work, study says

Not working well? Did you even bother to read my post? Here, again...

The fact is that abstinence programs are the most effective education through earlier years, giving ground to more complete education as children pass into their late middle school/high school years.

As the study suggests, abstinence only is effective for 6th and 7th graders. Above that, a more comprehensive model will likely do better though there has not been a comparable study in that aria. Real world results like the one you spoke of are sufficient to tell us that it simply does not work in high school.

 

[candycorn]

Obama wants to spend billions to upgrade roads and bridges all over the USA,,but what the point of doing that when so many businesses are folding and/or leaving the country?,,,then we will have all these new and repaired roads lined with empty office and retail space,,,,yup,,,our tax dollars down the drain again.

and as an example (but not regarding new roads) within a ten mile radius of my community/country club here in Naples, we have our share of 1/2 ass projects,one is a shell/aka/skeleton of a mall that has been sitting there since 2007ish. we have a Target Super Complex in the planning,land cleared but no construction,,200 homes were planned to have been built, and a few others. Whats the hold-up? OBAMA!! no one wants to build or finish building their new businesses here until Obama is shown the door in 2013.

It's morons like this who make me hope Obama is re-elected. Its fun watching the whining and bitching from fools like you who deserve it.

 

[peach174]

I would be willing to bet that by "less services" they mean services for other people, not ones that benefit themselves

Why not poll people on whether they would be willing to give up their own benefits for lower taxes?

This is the real problem. America is filled with people that are blatant hypocrites. They scream about taxes and spending and then, in the same breath, demand that their Medicare and social security not be touched. It is this asinine concept of MY benefits are due to me but YOURS are just freeloading when the reality of the situation is going to demand that all benefits are impacted in one way or another. That may mean small sacrifices like changing the retirement age or larger sacrifices but in essence, sacrifices are going to have to be made across the board or those programs are simply going to end rather than be reduced.


It can be infuriating to watch the hypocrites in action.

That is because the media and the democratic ads lied about Medicare. Remember ?
Throw grandma off the cliff.
Now seniors are learning that the New Health Care bill really does throw them off the cliff.

 

[mudwhistle]

Explain SALT JONES on USMB here...
al sharpton,obama,etc...
BIGGEST HYPOCRITE RACISTS ON THE PLANET.

Pure Hyperbole.

Salt Jones isn't the biggest hypocrite racist on the planet......just on USMB.....

Well, he's running neck and neck with a couple of others, but he's one that should know better. He's teaching his Grandkids to hate whites like he does. That makes him a sick mo-fo fo sho.......