Do you support a compromise that includes a combination of
revenue increases and cuts in expenditures as part of an agreement
to increase the country’s debt limit?
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Question of the week: “Do you support a compromise that includes a combination of revenue increases and cuts in expenditures as part of an agreement to increase the country’s debt limit?” Yes: 7 No: 4
-
Karen Anderson: “Yes. I do not see how it could be otherwise. The president has veto power. However, I would want to evaluate the items on the table before committing.”
-
Dave Appling: “Yes. Ledgers have two sides. In the real world, balancing them means working with both the revenue and expenditure sides. Most real people understand and accept that. For those who don’t, the adage ‘there’s none so blind as those who will not see’ applies. And all this political theater has nothing to do with the debt limit, except as irresponsible extortion that puts our nation at risk.”
-
Bert Berson: “No. The revenue increases would result from the closing of ridiculous corporate loop holes. The cuts in expenditures would be supplied by cutting benefits for working people; particularly Medicare and Social Security. The real problem is that these cuts will only worsen unemployment as a result of less money coming into the economy.”
-
Chris Bryant: “Yes, without making real changes in spending and revenue the debt will just keep growing out of control. Spending over 36 percent more than the government takes in is unsustainable. Unfortunately, it is going to take a real crisis for the politicians to rein in spending.”
-
Bob Chidester: “No. An increase in the debt limit is not needed. There is more than enough coming into the treasury ($200 billion) monthly to pay interest on the debt, social services, and military. Shut down the costly, do-nothing, ineffective bureaucratic agencies such as the Dept. of Ed., Energy, EPA, etc. It’s time to cut-up the federal credit card.”
-
David Cohen: “Yes. While I would prefer a clean vote on the debt limit, the compromise packages that will make it happen must include some form of revenue enhancement along with budget cutting.”
-
Julian Mancias: “Yes. Both sides must be willing to give and take a little. The stakes are to high for partisan politics.”
-
Henry Miller: “Yes. And those nay-saying objectionists should put the public good ahead of their political ideologies and ambitions.”
-
Jeff Nunes: “No. The taxpayers are always the ones who lose in these ‘compromises’ and it has to stop. At this point, a compromise does little more than push our real spending problems down the road again. The proposed tax increases do nothing to solve the problem and the political cowardice surrounding real cutbacks has to change and now is the time.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “Yes. While I’d prefer a clean vote on just the debt ceiling, it’s clear that long-term we must address both revenue and spending, and polls consistently show that a clear majority of Americans understand this. The devil, however, is in the details.”
-
Jeff Smith: “No. First of all I don’t think we should raise the debt limit. If we raise it they will just keep spending and want to raise it more. Second, I don’t support tax increases. That’s a good way to further depress an already lagging economy. I do support major spending cuts across the board, and elimination of many departments and agencies that are simply unnecessary.” Vote in
