Down from 47% during the presidential campaign. I thought maybe we could use some good news for a change. OK, Democrats: Commence attributing this to Obama's policies. Republicans: Deny it, say it isn't enough, or point out that Obama had nothing to do with it.
The number getting money from government is also important. What percentage work for the government directly, on government contracts (paid indirectly), getting government benefits (not part of the 43%), etc. If it is greater than 7%, the deficit will only go up. There isn't enough votes to increase taxes (except on the rich - to little to make a difference). There is enough votes to cut spending (why vote yourself a pay cut?)
Correct. However, the deficit is now about half of what it was when Bush left office. It is still way too high, for sure, but it is going in the right direction.
After how much a debt increase since 2007? The deficit has a long way to go to zero. And if interest rates on the debt increase to 6% (from less than 2%)?!
The deficit has not been zero since the Clinton Administration, and wasn't even then if you factor in the money collected for Social Security and put into the general fund. And the debt increased less than it would have had the deficit at the end of the Bush administration not gone down, and less than it would be had the deficit gone down only as much as the candidates were promising that it would. and a tripling of the interest rate would no doubt be a huge blow to the recovery.
What did Clinton do to achieve that? The deficit fell because government spending went down (welfare rolls were cut), and the economy was in the tech, dot.com bubble, and the beginning of the housing bubble. 6% is far more historically typical than 1.5%.
He was a Democrat with a Republican Congress. Neither party got all of the spending that they wanted. Yes, it is, and 6% just now would be a financial disaster.
Total Democratic control, and we get Obamacare, Wall Street bonuses (it was in the agreement Geithner provided for the bail outs), no budgets, and spending that went way overboard. With total Republican control, we got no spending cuts (from the party of small government), and increased spending. The only time government behaves itself is now, and the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency - GRIDLOCK. The Gooberment is so screwed up, doing nothing is as close as we got to "behaving itself". The only way to cut spending is for the Tea Party & Libertarians to take control (give them 8 years to acclimate, the reinstate gridlock).
Reference: Table S–2. Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits Obama 2013 Budget 2012 to 2022 Projected deficits (billion$) in the baseline.................................$1,127, 772, 662, 749, 862, 815, 793, 862, 944, 1,0111, 1,193 Reference: Table S–1. Budget Totals Obama 2013 Budget 2012 to 2022 Gross domestic product (GDP)(billion$)..............$15,602, 16,335, 17,156, 18,178, 19,261, 20,369, 21,444, 22,421, 23,409, 24,427, 25,488 OMOF; Obama is showing aggressive GDP growth which IMO we cannot achieve...but then using these exaggerated numbers to show higher tax receipts in order to come up with the following deficit summary: Reference: Table S–2. Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits Obama 2013 Budget 2012 to 2022 Resulting deficits in 2013 Budget (billion$)...................$1,327, 901, 668, 610, 649, 612, 575, 626, 658, 681, 704 OMOF; During the period between 2012 and 2022 government spending increases each year; (billion$) 3,796, 3,803, 3,883, 4,060, 4,329, 4,532, 4,728, 5,004, 5,262, 5,537, 5,820. Obama is generously forecasting that GDP will grow on average by approximately $1 trillion every year! If GDP does not grow as Obama is forecasting, then the government receipts will be less and the deficits will be higher. Of course the opposite applies as well but much higher tax receipts are unlikely. To give an example of how aggressive Obama's GDP forecast might be, each $100K of GDP today creates about 1 American job, so adding $1 trillion per year in GDP will add about 10 MILLION jobs! Over the 9 years between today and 2022 Obama is saying he is creating about 90 million American jobs. If you believe the US will create 90 million jobs in the next 9 years then you can believe the deficits are in check...however...if you cannot fathom the US will create 90 million jobs in 9 years, then we should expect spending to continue to increase and deficits will increase as well. The $901 billion deficit for 2013 is not 1/2 of Bush deficits?
wow..good news ..only 43% of the people are consider dirt poor...and you are bragging about that..what a loser you and your party are
I'm not sure what my Libertarian Party has to do with it, as we're not in power, or what I personally have to do with it as I'm a part of the 57% and always have been... well, since college graduation anyway.
I would point out that the income tax argument is often a result of fallacious argumentation. For example, many people do not have to pay the alternative minimum tax. Are the people who don't pay the AMT freeloaders of America? Arguments along those lines are rather risible.
Only if only those that pay no income tax voted. Add in those that work for government, those that get money from government, and earn enough to pay taxes, and Romney could have got 43%. Add in those that believe the lefts talking points about all business people are evil and greedy (not just those being protected by government), and Romney get 33%. It is actually surprising Romney got 47% of the vote.
The surprising thing is that some people still buy into the nonsense that poor people all vote for Democrats.
Looks like a typical troll bait OP, but I'll bite. For one, why do we care so much about that particular tax? Of that ~43%, the vast majority work, of those who don't are the elderly, disabled veterans and a small percentage of people who are taking advantage of the system, those who work pay their payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and a whole boat load of other hidden and/or embedded taxes. So the real question is... what's your point? Why does it matter?
True, it is only about 65%, makes you wonder why 35% would vote themselves a pay cut. I guess that's why there is "economics". http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-etGndwrXG_E/T0VsyVn8yDI/AAAAAAAAAk0/jSAvBfaB9QA/s1600/maxwell.png Public housing...........81% Medical coverage......74% Food stamps.............67% Unemployment..........66% Disability....................64% Welfare......................63% Work full time.............54% http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html 2012..................................Group................Obama.................Romney RACE White...................................72%...................39%........................59% African-American.................13%....................93%.........................6% Hispanic...............................10%....................71%........ ...............27% Asian......................................3%....................73%......... ..............26% Other......................................2%.....................58%.......................38% AGE 18-29....................................19%......................60%........................37% 30-44....................................27%......................52%........................45% 45-64....................................38%.......................47%.......................51% 65 & over..............................16%.......................44%.......................56% INCOME <$50,000...............................41%......................60%.......................38% $50,000-90,000.....................31%......................46%.......................52% $100,000 & over...................28%.......................44%.......................54% UNION HOUSEHOLD Yes.......................................18%.......................58%........................40% No.........................................82%.......................49%........................48% EDUCATION Some HS...............................3%........................64%........................35% HS graduate.........................21%........................51%.......................48% Some college.......................29%........................49%........................48% College graduate.................29%.........................47%........................51% Postgraduate study..............18%........................55%........................42% MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES Economy..............................59%........................47%........................51% Budget deficit.......................15%........................32%.........................66% Foreign policy.........................5%........................56%........................33% Health care............................18%.......................75%........................24% Sources: "Exit polls 2012: How the vote has shifted." The Washington Post November 6, 2012. January 10, 2013 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/table.html>. "Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center." CNN December 10, 2012. January 10, 2013 <http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president>.
Interesting stats. The first set show that most people voted Democratic, even the people working full time. It makes one wonder just why, how the Republicans lost so much of the vote. The second set: I guess "group" means the percentage who actually voted?? There seems to be an age factor, with older voters having voted for Romney, as well as other factors. The more educated tended to vote Republican, until we get to graduate school. Had it been up to college grads who didn't go to grad school, Romney would have won by a hair.
That wouldn't be quite true. What you have is a screening effect. Those that achieve higher income through education tended to vote republican. Those that pursued education, however, voted against republicans. Education is anti-republican in the US
there is a positive correlation between income and voting Republican, to be sure. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the 43% who don't pay income tax vote Democrat, however. The Democrats are seen as the party that helps the poor, but I'm not so sure that's really true either. It's more a matter of perception.
Does that include the family of 4 living on 20K a year along with the MULTI- BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC THAT HASN'T PAID AN INCOME TAX IN SEVERAL YEARS !!!!!
There's nothing wrong with GE...if anyone has a problem with taxes paid by GE and all other US corporations, stop being petty in attacking GE and others and go after your federal representatives and president who create and enforce the tax laws! Just as nearly every individual American taxpayer cheats on taxes, or stretches the tax laws, so does corporate America...stop with the double standards. Lastly, regarding GE, and others, if you cannot quote corporate financials which unequivocally show how much taxes were paid or not paid in any given fiscal year, then stop spreading false rumors...
