Partisan divide on debt ceiling
July 21st, 2011
01:49 PM ET

Partisan divide on debt ceiling

The country is divided along predictable lines over the issue of the debt ceiling, a new CNN/ORC poll shows.

Some of the highlights:

Prefer a budget plan with mix of spending cuts and tax increases:

Democrats:          83%
Independents:     65%
Republicans:       37%

Crisis or major problems if debt ceiling not raised?

Democrats:         72%
Independents:    60%
Republicans:      50%

Favor proposal to raise debt ceiling, cut $2 to $4 trillion and increase taxes on businesses and wealthy:

Democrats:         82%
Independents:    65%
Republicans:      43%


Topics: Poll

soundoff (27 Responses)
  1. John

    Hmmm, where do those who do not, and are not expected to – pay taxes fall? If the number is as big as the media says +/-50% it helps us understand these numbers much better.

    July 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • jean2009

      Everyone who works regardless of income level pays taxes. When they receive their pay check there have been deductions made. Those who are retired pay taxes on certain types of income (capital gains, pension benefits, IRA distributions, etc.), and there are many other types of taxes people pay, State sales, city and county sales, excise tax, property, etc. Everyone who fills the tank of their vehicle or buys a license plate pays a tax. Even, if you rent your home you pay the property tax through your rental fees.

      So, where do you claim you can find these mystery people who are not expected to pay taxes...that you want to whine so much about?

      To me, these poles reflect that (in their vast wisdom) WE the majority of the American people, would rather WE pay our debts, and provide for the common good for us all.

      WE American tax payers being collectively all of us both rich, and poor.

      July 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • Mar

        Taxes aren't necessarily cut from everyone's paycheck. When you fill out your W-4 you can opt to not have any taxes removed from your paycheck. The taxes are collected when you file your tax return which the super rich of course file extensions or nothing at all and have their tax attorneys backing them. There are also people who don't have a social security number who earn cash and don't pay taxes. There are also people that commit social security fraud who don't pay taxes or those that understate their cash income or tips and don't pay taxes. I've been to various businesses that say if you pay cash, we wont collect sales tax. All this adds up and is lost government revenue. On the flip side, government spending is seriously out of control- they need to cut foreign aid if the domestic situation is in such turmoil...Israel, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, India...the list goes on but those are the recipients of the largest amounts.

        July 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Jean, they are talking about Federal income taxes. Thanks to President Bush's Earned Income Tax Credit many low income Americans' federal income tax burden is zero. Most Liberals want to bash the past president for his policies, yet do not want to give him credit for eliminating some Americans tax burden.

        July 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ Jay in NC and with the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthiest few, include all their tax subsidies, and write-offs, you have welfare for the rich.

        Things which the average worker cannot gains tax rate at 15%. With all these write offs the richest people are not paying a 35% rate it is more like a top rate of 17%.

        According to:The Seattle Times – Nation and World Report for April 17, 2011. "Super Rich See Tax Rates Drop Dramatically"

        July 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
      • jean2009

        Federal taxes are deducted from paychecks for everyone...just because working people qualify for enough child credits or low wage earner head-of-house write-offs to have their money refunded, when they file, doesn't mean they didn't pay taxes.

        You act like the rich don't have write-offs. They sure do...ones that the least wealthy would never remotely qualify for...such as deducting the mortgage interest on a second home, receiving a business, or farm subsidy, profit and loss write-offs, receiving the bulk of income in the form of stock funds which are taxed at the capital gains 15% rate...parking funds in other areas that earn at the capital gains name just a few.

        Bill Gates salary has always been at about the $250,000 level but the stock options have really made him wealthy.

        July 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Jean, an employee can tell their employer to deduct more or less taxes. The amount is not written in stone. Fill out a new Form W-4 to adjust your deductions.,,id=96196,00.html

        I never said that the rich did not have write offs. I only pointed out that the working poor benefited from President Bush's tax system. Under Bill Clinton tax system if grandma sold her home to move into an apartment, she was subject to capital gains.

        About write offs, you act like they are evil. The basic reason they exist is to shift the tax burden onto one party, so that both are not paying taxes on the same monies. Example is interest on home mortgages, you do not pay the tax because the bank pays a tax on the money as income. Same reason cost of goods are deductible, otherwise each time an item moved from manufacturing, warehouse, distributor, retailer, each would have to pay tax on the item.

        The rich no doubt have more write offs, however that does not mean that tax is not being paid on those items. I hear a lot about tax write offs for jets. I was thinking how is this different than a tax break for say road construction, or building new homes? They both create jobs. I think the only reason is it looks like the rich guy is getting a break, well what about the rich person that owns the construction company, or the private co. that build roads, are not they all so getting a gov. benefit for Barry's construction projects?

        July 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        About Bill Gates, yes his stock made him wealthy. Why is this such a hard concept for Liberals to understand. He did not make his money from taking anything from people. He ran a good company, the market rewarded him for that, his stock rose in value and he became wealthy. You could have also if you had purchased his stock. We are a capitalistic country.

        What do you want him to do, sell off the stock and give the gov. a share, or maybe all of it? Well what about the next year if the stock goes down, will the gov. refund him his money?

        July 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
      • jean2009

        Under President Bush, if you sold your home, and/or apartment building, you paid capital gains. I should know this great-grandmother did both.

        I am the one who has no problems with tax write offs if they are legitimate...I don't think corporations should qualify for farm subsidies unless they are actually farming, and I don't think oil companies need subsidies...since they are doing more than fine. Why are we still subsidizing tobacco farmers? That just makes no sense at all.

        Adjusting dependents is the person's prerogative to receive a tax refund, child tax credits for the working poor, just as any business staging all purchases in one year to obtain a tax refund.

        I am not the one who is complaining....other than I complain, when you complain about there being people who pay no taxes.

        If a member of the working poor earns such a meager bit that a tax credit allows them to feed and house their family and not live in a homeless me that is a good thing.

        Which for the life of you, you can't seem to see as being good...all you whine about is me, me, me. If the worst problem you ever have is being fortunate enough to owe taxes then you are in fine shape.

        July 21, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        You say ...
        "If a member of the working poor earns such a meager bit that a tax credit allows them to feed and house their family and not live in a homeless me that is a good thing.
        Which for the life of you, you can't seem to see as being good.."

        Where in the world did I ever say that that was not a good thing? Remember I am for the President Bush tax cuts. Why can not you see that we agree... arggg.

        You also said "all you whine about is me, me, me." I have not complained about my personal situation. Never have and never will.

        July 21, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
      • donfranko

        Jean2009, can you hear yourself? "taxes are taken out of the paycheck, but refunded in full later".... O.K., if you pay them in but get them ALL back, how is it considered actually paying taxes ??? 50% of income earners pay NO fed. income tax, MEANING that the deductions are taken from their paychecks, BUT, they get 100% of it refunded back to them , usually with a little extra bonus called an earned income credit. NONE of the money they pay in, and get back stays in the gov. accounts to pay for anything in America. OMG. Are you really that dense?

        July 21, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
      • donfranko

        By the way Jean2009, NO ONE is complaining that poor people keep their money. The problem is that when 50% of people who pay no fed. income tax as explained in my first post, BUT they demand higher taxes be paid by people they call "the rich", leads to an imbalance in who decides what in this country. I have no problem with people who pay NO fed. income tax, just don't tell me I should be paying more than I do now, or threaten to take more away from me and my family thru government theft. If you pay no fed. tax, you have NO right to be involved in the decisions about tax rates........ think about that.

        July 21, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
      • jean2009

        As I have said before, the Bush tax cuts were not instituted to help the working and middle-class taxpayers, that was not Bush's plan. They were instituted to help the wealthiest 1 to 2% of the richest people in the country. Plus, we are talking about taxpayers...not people who criminally do not file a return, and there are rich people who do that with off-shore accounts.

        This from an article about why the Bush tax rates unfairly targeted the middle-class.

        "Four-fifths of Americans will pay more for the Bush tax cuts than they receive. The tax cuts must be financed somehow, either through a reduction in government services or the addition of other taxes. Regardless of how this financing occurs, on average, households that earn less then about $76,400 will wind up receiving a cut smaller than the reduction in services that they accept. Thus, the “cuts” are better thought of as tax cuts for the wealthy subsidized by the rest of America. "

        So.... while you think about that, remember it is not the poor, the elderly on SS, the working poor who need a subsidy, or those on disability who are the problem.

        It is that the Bush tax rates were rigged to hit the middle class the hardest. I assume that is most of the people speaking up here. They took the middle income earners and lumped them with higher wage earners, and are holding them hostage as a shield against raising their own tax rates....and they have the tea party brainwashing you into doing their bidding, and Fox union busters network brainwashing you.... so they can cut benefits for the poor, the disabled,and the elderly, so your tax rates won't go up.

        Every thing I hear from you is not: "why are our tax rates being held hostage to shield the rich." but "there are those people who pay no taxes, and we need to cut their benefits." If I heard you complaining about the first sentence of that agenda, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. Unfortunately that has not been the case.

        Do you actually believe it is better for some billionaire corporation that claims to be a farmer who is able to receive a federal tobacco farm subsidy....than for a woman who needs WIC to supplement her child's diet to not receive those funds?

        This also from the article posted Dated 2004 about the Bush era tax cuts.

        1. It is not possible to postpone paying for tax cuts indefinitely. Government debt can safely grow no more quickly than the economy. With the deficit skyrocketing, and no plausible scenario for running surpluses for years in the future, we cannot afford to allow debt to increase any more. Thus, the tax cuts must be paid for with changes in the federal budget.

        2. The recent tax cuts will not pay for themselves. The tax cuts increase the deficit, thereby decreasing national savings and, in turn, future national income. This substantial negative effect is more than enough to offset the small supply-side benefits created by a reduction in marginal tax rates. Studies show that Americans’ decisions about working and spending are relatively insensitive to changes in tax rates.

        So there you was understood, in 2004, that the tax cuts were not sustainable over a long period of time, and you were perceived as being relatively insensitive to changes in tax I would say the rich and their minions are playing you like a harp. it is just a current case of the Reagan rant about the non-existent "welfare queen".

        July 22, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • John

      Jean, we need to go no further than the presidents aunt – Look up his Aunt Zatunie then come back back and let us know what you find. She is a real person, she is known by all Americans, if they bother to read. It seems to me you are the whiner who doesn't want to see what is in front of you.

      July 22, 2011 at 7:08 am |
      • jean2009

        Yes, I have not lived in a cave. I have heard of the case...How would anyone have not?

        But this again I guess is another of your obvious attempts at the "WELFARE QUEEN" rant.. So, if she came to this country in 2000, and was here illegally as early as 2004....just who dropped the follow through on her deportation?
        That was not the Obama era.

        She was granted asylum in May 2010.

        "Medical issues could have played a role. In a November interview, Onyango said she was disabled and was learning to walk again after being paralyzed from Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare disorder in which the immune system attacks the nerves.

        When Onyango testified in February at a closed hearing in Boston, she arrived in a wheelchair, and two doctors testified in support of her case.

        Onyango moved to the United States in 2000. Her first asylum request was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she did not leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston.

        Onyango's status as an illegal immigrant was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November 2008. Obama said that he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and that he thought the laws covering the situation should be followed.

        A judge later agreed to suspend Onyango's deportation order and reopen her asylum case.

        Wong has said that Obama was not involved in the Boston hearing. Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said Monday that the White House had no involvement in the case at any point in the process.

        Onyango plans to apply for a work visa and then for a green card, her attorneys said."

        But, here again .... we have not a case of you complaining about being held hostage by our tax code as a shield for the very rich...instead again you whine about paying for someone disabled and obviously not well-off...and it is very possible your tax dollar is not paying for her stay at you complain for nothing

        Why do those with some money always complain about helping the less fortunate?

        GOP = Greedy old Pharisees.

        July 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  2. Mike G

    I hope they can work out a reasonable agreement. Good commentary on the budget and Catholic issues at

    July 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
  3. mark

    Why can't those who are in favor of rasing taxes understand that you'll be seeing more unemployment and jobs going overseas. Stop living off the government (not refering to the elderly, children, or those with a disability) and take it upon yourself to make it on your own. WAKE UP AMERICAN

    July 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • John

      Mark, more unemployment means more entitlements and bigger governmnet.

      July 22, 2011 at 7:10 am |
      • jean2009

        Again a complaint about helping those less fortunate. If you lost your job, I bet you would be first in line for unemployment. Don't you think taxes paid by the employer should be used for just this type situation, and furthermore don't you think the tax rate to sustain the current situation should be such as to fund situations just like this?

        July 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
  4. Ken

    What actually happens if the credit limit is raised? Do we suddenly have more money? It seems to me that it's like giving another new credit card to someone who is already deeply in debt or one more drink to a alcoholic. I think that almost everyone would feel that these are both bad ideas. All this talk about how often it has been done in the past just shows how well it didn't work, to me not a good reason to keep doing it. When the bubble fractures, and it will sooner or later, if thing aren't changed. Everyone gets hurt, both rich and poor, but as usual the poor will suffer the most.

    July 22, 2011 at 6:09 am |
    • John

      We can continue to spend – 3 million at UC Irvine so they can play video games – 700,000 at UNH to study methane gas emissions from cows, 239,100 to Stanford to find out how Americans find love on the internet, 615,000 to UC Santa Cruz to digitize photos, t-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead – 239,100 to Stanford to research a more safer way to find same sex partners – 216,000 to study whether or not politicians gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions – 1 million to create poetry for the Little Rock, NO, Milwakee and Chicago zoos to help raise awareness on environmental issues – 175 million to maintain hundreds of building that are not in use – I can on with a bunch more. Anyone who supports more money for this governmnet supports this crazyness.

      July 22, 2011 at 10:32 am |
      • jean2009

        You do realize $5.9 billion was spent last year on video games, and another $74 billion spend this year on video gaming? So, a $3 million study to see what sells and works is excessive? Doesn't UC Irvine train a lot of the future developers of video software?

        July 22, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
      • jean2009

        This from the UV Irvine video gaming club.

        "The Video Game Development Club’s purpose is to create opportunities for members to learn essential skills and build their portfolios in pursuit of post-college careers in the video game industry. To that end, we organize members into teams to build student computer and video game projects, host industry and academic speakers, hold educational events, provide information on job and research opportunities, and promote networking opportunities both between students interested in game development, and with members of the local game development community. The opportunity to become involved in student game development projects is without a doubt the most important facet of the club, as these invariably represent the strongest point on an aspiring game developer's resume."

        Reasons we never understand; until we do some research about why?

        Keep that in mind.

        Three million for research which supports an $80 Billion industry. I would say that is worth the investment. Just think of the jobs created.

        July 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
      • jean2009

        As for cattle methane emissions, it is evidently a big enough problem so much so that McDonald's is paying for a study in the UK. Safe use of livestock methane for several commercial applications would relieve greenhouse gas especially in California. The study could very well be worth the investment.

        As for the unused buildings....are you one of those Republicans who says "just let the infrastructure rot" so it become a blight on the landscape, or maintain it, and then you would need to ask: How much is the cost for maintaining or tearing the buildings down. I'm sure many of the buildings are salvageable and if owned by the government, likely should be put on the market and sold. If a buyer can be found.

        I'm sure many of the things you list probably are worth the cost....and several are probably pure waste. This is where oversight needs to come into play to make certain money being spent is not a waste. And that is not always a guarantee since waste is not always apparent at first sight....what may be a waste for you, might be very beneficial for many others.

        Do you think every one of the items you list wasn't in some way vetted?

        July 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • jean2009

        For starters they could quit subsidizing that stupid "pray the gay away" clinic run by Bachmann's husband.

        July 24, 2011 at 10:02 am |
  5. benrisher466

    The market rates may have gone down, or remained the same. For the homeowner to get qualified for lower rates, there are certain prerequisites but I would recommend you search online for "123 Refinance" before you decide because they can find the 3% refinance rates.

    July 22, 2011 at 6:58 am |
  6. DNS Lookup

    Taxes aren't necessarily cut from everyone's paycheck. When you fill out your W-4 you can opt to not have any taxes removed from your paycheck. The taxes are collected when you file your tax return which the super rich of course file extensions or nothing at all and have their tax attorneys backing them.
    DNS Lookup

    August 4, 2011 at 1:56 am |