Comments for Gallup: Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy »
Posted By Mdiar 1 year, 5 months ago in Business & FinanceWhen given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Ameri
Read Full Story at gallup.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 53 of 54 Comments
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm... not much of a surprise here, but one must wonder, what would the outcome of several national polls be if specific issues, like health care, were the topic? Still, I think most Americans are on the right economically (I think most people in general in the west are, actually) and a little libertarian in ideology. Small government in general, in other words.
How will this effect the election, I wonder?
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One poll that seems slightly at odds with this, is this one:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106813/Many-American...
Of course, the options listed in the poll don't seem to include a "both" option, a redistribution (though perhaps not done by the government but done by market forces or other things) as well as an economic boom.
Reply -
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a partisan owned and operated poll, the same one and only one which magaged to massage the data to show McCain leading or tied with Obama in a national survey. (False information, as shown by every other objective poll.)
Its how you ask the questions, and who you call.
I smell republican partisanship, ownership and data massaging in this gallup organization.
If you phrase the question, do you think its right that 0.1% of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 3 billion on the planet? you'd get a different responce. If you asked is it right to give the rich a tax cut and eliminate inheritance tax for the super billionaire rich during a time of war, that is inriching the super rich, while the poor pay for it and die for it, you'd get another responce.
Gallup is being run by Murdock, or Fox or some other right wing partisan anti-science group.
The super rich are leaving the rich behind at an exponential rate. The average exec makes 350 times more than
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Democracy is a joke in the world. If you don't believe me go check with the Czech Republic about a recent agreement with the United States. You can find examples of this everywhere. They all are crap as far as I'm concerned. Everywhere needs a massive overhaul in which power is stripped from government with regards to civil liberties and infringing upon them and the mandate of the governments of the world being to provide the healthiest state possible as opposed to making the wealthy wealthier.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Mdiar.
Polls like this are skewed. The questions lead respondents to the results that are being sought. The article, while having the appearance of objectivity, is bias towards John McCain and the GOP.
If the question were also posed,"Do Americans support Bush's tax breaks for the rich only?" a different outcome would be produced.
Like statistics, polls have become tools to spin and manipulate voters.
The one advantage that Roosevelt had during the Great Depression was that there were no pollsters and spin doctors flooding the media with propganda around the clock.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which is why I was wondering what the outcome would be on specifics. I personally believe most Americans are moderate right economically, much like most of Europe. In fact a separate poll on that very question you posed is here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106813/Many-American...
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the real world, when you add the names to the economic proposals, the answers change. Remember, Bush is by far the most unpopular president in our nation's history. Do you think the question elicits a different answer when it is presented this way: "Do you support Bush's tax breaks for the richest segment of our nation only?"
In the real world, the question comes in the context of campaigns, campaign lies, and candidate's promises. The voters answer at the polls -- not to Gallup.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree regarding the phrasing of the questions; I do think this poll shows on thing that is rather good though. With a tiny minority within the Democratic party favoring wealth redistribution, it should be fairly clear that the Dems aren't socialists or communists! Also that the US need not fear a massive communistic revolution in the near future... though that's not very likely :D
Reply-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
cptnkrk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree most polls use slanted wording to get the results desired by the pollster.
"Do Americans support Bush's tax breaks for the rich only?" would be a good example of that.
these responses couldn't be more neutral
Which approach should government focus on to fix economy Either a> take steps to distribute wealth more evenly among americans --or-- take steps to improve overall economic conditions and the jobs situation.
Reply-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which approach should government focus on to fix economy Either a> take steps to distribute wealth more evenly among americans --or-- take steps to improve overall economic conditions and the jobs situation.
I see that as saying the same thing two different ways. The only question is how to do it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that US citizens have been by-and-large programmed that they would have this attitude.
But I also think that the expression "income redistribution" is a bit of a termus technicus that also plays to innate dislike of most Americans for what they perceive as government interference - and the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.
What this way of thinking doesn't really deal with is the colossal levels of difference of pay-scales which exist, that simply cannot be justified by the value of the work that is being done for society. the degree of knowledge and skill required to perform it and the benefit/deficit to society that the work provides.
That such factors should justify a precise correlation between work and rewards would be very far-fetched; that it should not even be a factor in the equation seems to this observer to be on the verge of insane.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe that when you look at past polling data and history of the United States with regards to a more leftist economic philosophy in general, you will find that it is probably not due to programming. Taxes and dislike of them date back to before the country's founding... it is very much a cultural dislike. However, if you look at the individual issues, I think you will find a surprising amount of willingness to redistribute wealth. To the point you posed, about pay differences, you actually find that most Americans favor higher taxes for the wealthy. The amount favoring this has actually grown since the 90s and since the height of the Depression. So I would consider it cultural as opposed to programming.
Reply-
Neutral
cptnkrk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very good reply.
Seems we think that taking money by force from one person to give to another isn't proper.
We don't like to think of it in quite so stark terms but that is what these distribution plans boil down to.
I prefer to look at those who make more and aspire to do the same through my own efforts rather than vilify them.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When George Bush took power, the FIRST thing he did was kill the inheritance tax.
Now, all of the money owned by the top 1% will go to their children. If you areen't one of those, good luck emulating the billionaire moguls.
The top super rich are leaving the rich behind at an exponential rate. The rich are writing the regulations for taxing the rich.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry! Accidental neg! I'm up late with a sick dog who's needing to go out every half-hour..
To the point:
Your last 3 sentences do make perfect sense theoretically; what I don't know so much about is what that looks like on the ground on the US, sonce I've only spent about 2 weeks there during the last 15 years - about half that time very recently, in NYC, which is not necessarily the most representative of US cities..
No question that the US has a fantastic capacity to change! In any and every direction, But there's always a catalyst needed..
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Indeed, gama! Around here we have been thriving, I must admit! Not as much as during the Clinton years, though! I also must admit its sort of hard for this town to not thrive with all the government and state money in it due to all the colleges and universities we seem to have! Not to mention money from students that don't live here, normally! We are opening up a few more businesses and still have a nice little main street full of local places! Not to mention we are the biggest thing within miles so if anyone is commuting anywhere, its here! So commutes aren't hurting us... gas prices, a bit, a bit of a sprawling town. Still, things are looking alright right now. But they won't be for long, I fear.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is one of the tenets of Obama's ex-church. It appears that he chooses to believe in this.
"The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution!"
If you work at leveling the income, it will be like East Germany was. It didn't matter how hard you worked, how much you scrimped and saved, everyone was paid the same. Their economy failed because no one put out more than the minimum effort.
Capitalism isn't a straight line, but generally speaking, it is the land of opportunity. You didn't see people illegally immigrating into East Germany.
Reply -
Neutral
cptnkrk1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More interesting to me is the later question regarding the role of government in our lives.
50% government is doing too much, 43% it is doing too little.
Reps lean towards too much, dems lean towards too little inds in a statistical tie with slight edge towards too much.
So some think government is too intrusive while others wish it was more? That is the real debate i think.
Reply-
Neutral
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are always going to have government. You are always going to have taxes. Much better your tax dollars are spent on treating you citizens like family rather than on weapons to kill poor people on the other side of the world.
Learn to share. If you don't one day the poor will just get fed up and take it.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thats also the motto of the super rich. They want no regulation, no nations, no protection for workers, nothing to oppose their insatiable greed, cause they can never make enough.
The billionaires only recognise other billionaires. The super rich are leaving the rich behind at an exponential rate.
The super rich love the idea of libertarianism. With that, with no federal oversight, the super rich can hire their own militias, make their own laws, pave or not pave their own streets, and decide if you live or die.
George Soros, didn't lift a finger, and made 2 billion dollars speculating stocks last year, while the economy tanked. That's just fine and dandy!
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You would be highly surprised to learn that libertarianism has nothing to do with economics. Its root word is "liberty" and, as a philosophy, it is summed up in a nutshell with the idea that liberty for all should be maximized. A true libertarian will advocate the economic philosophy that will best maximize the personal liberties of everyone. Some, like you say, believe all government oversight in anything is wrong. Others believe that wealth should be evenly distributed and property ownership is wrong. They can land anywhere in between as well. To put it in these terms, libertarianism is to fascism as left is to right. It rejects the notion that government can determine what you say, think, believe and whole heartedly embraces that which expands the liberties of all. The ultra wealthy DESPISE libertarianism if they have motives for using the government as a tool of power. It is the very antithesis of fascism.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Notice that in the various libertarian philosophies, among those listed are "Left Libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism"? Hardly sounds like a completely free market system. It is, basically put, the opposite of fascism. If you placed economic ideology on one axis on a graph as left/right, you would then place civil liberties on the other. This would be libertarianism/fascism. It is how Stalin, despite being clearly on the far left economically, is still considered a fascist.
Heck, we even have this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism
Reply -
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Irrelevant anyway, the super rich can just move their money overseas now, to dubai, after they rape the economy. The only think a middle class person can hope for, is government regulation with some teeth, and taxation rates preventing the rape of america for the benifit of the 0.1%
And I again, disagree. The rich are focusing on destroying the government as much as possible, to free them to operate with out regulation. With government or without, they can pay buerocrats to do their bidding, or mercinaries project their will, but they will always hold on to power. They much prefer to work with libertarian government, they'd own that in a heartbeat. NO TAXES, hell of an idea. No federal oversight, states rights would balloon, death penalty for abortion in alabama, free in oregon. Slavery in alabama, etc.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And your heartthob, the libertarian candidate, keeps refering to a national health care policy as socialized medicine, like that an evil concept.
The usa is the only "civilized" nation where employers are paying for health care. Insane. General Motors is going under, because it costs them a 1000 dollars per car to pay for health care. That, and they are paying their top execs hundreds of millions more that their peers at honda or toyota.
The only loosers in nationalizing health care are the insurance execs, paid billions, taking a 50% cut of every health dollar spent.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Heart throb? Please, I have no love of the libertarian candidate. He is a Republican masquerading as a libertarian. I will be voting Obama. Besides, I am a leftist libertarian. I believe in a large degree of regulation and placing the control of many things into the hands of the people as opposed to the ultra wealthy. At the same time, I recognize no authority that tells me what I can or cannot say and I recognize no authority able to tell that to anyone. I recognize no authority as able to tell me what to do as long as I am hurting no one or infringing on others rights. That last part is what makes someone a libertarian. Not deregulating or free market economics.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"NO TAXES"
You have no idea what libertarianism is. Regulation of an industry for the benefit of the people and the decreasing of the ability of the ultra rich to infringe upon civil liberties via money is something that is not against libertarianism at all. You are thinking through an American perspective. There is a huge world out there and libertarianism has nothing to do with deregulating anything, that is simply the predominant American manifestation of libertarianism.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
icono11 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA...."Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."
Wealth redistribution will not solve the problems of job/income losses and higher food/increasing energy costs just soften the blow.
So what happens if the economy does not recover? Then does the govt 'redistribute' more from the upper income levels to the lower income levels? And who decides what is 'upper' and 'lower'; we the people, the IRS, politicians? Soon everyone has the same 'income' irregardless of individual effort. So why would anyone want to try to improve their situation economically.
Several countries tried that, and if I remember correctly, they finally collapsed socially, economically and politically.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is a question no one here wants to address".....pantload.
If we nationalized health care, we could become more competative with nations whose industries don't have to pay health care to employees. Car industry for instance. And boo hoo for the insurance industry, who takes 50% of the profit from health care.
If we nationalized oil, we could take control national security, preventing trillions of dollars spend on war to protect exon. We could have a national high speed rail system. And boo hoo for the ceo of Exon, recieving a 350 million dollar retirement "gift" in 2006.
YOu think it's wise for the exectuives at Home Depot to recieve 20 million dollar bonus golden parachute while the company lost 20% market share and fired 20,000 employees?
Do you thinks its fine and dandy for the top 0.1% to own more than the bottom half of the planet, 3 billion?
In america, 1% of the population owns 85% of all stock. Wise? Is jesus republican?
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You voice your complaints quite well, but you do not address the central question that I asked. I understand that "the economy is broken," and I believe that it needs some fundamental restructuring before it can again become the engine of productive prosperity. You seem to think that the way to make things all better is to put lipstick on the pig.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, when you nationalize oil, you get return 100% of profit from oil to high speed rail, and the infuse billions into the economy, local workers, an entire industry created right there, instead of 350 million payouts to one rich white man, who sends it overseas to dubai.
You nationalize health care, reducing costs to employees of companies, reducing costs to empolyeers, who now have billions of dollars to invest in there own ventures.
You increase the tax rate for households holding over 5 million dollars to 85%, plowing that increase of tax dollars into paying off the national dept to china.
We set trade limits with China, so the trade is balanced, no more trade deficit, no more borrowing money from china.
We end the trillion dollar protection for EXon in Iraq, and stop sending small town adventurers over there to get their face and legs blown off, saving having to pay for their freaking medical expences for the rest of their miserable worthless lives.
Reply-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unfortunately, you are an unrepentant LIAR. I have NEVER advocated "more tax breaks to the rich," nor have I advocated increased investments in hedge funds, either foreign or domestic.
You make such charges whenever your dishonesty is pointed out. Apparently you do not understand that adding additional dishonest statements does nothing to bolster your "argument."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No one wants to address your question, because it's completely moot to the discussion at hand.
But, let me address it anyway: If the poor had more money to spend, they would spend it; as opposed to the rich who have so much they can't possibly figure out what to do with it other than investing it and letting it grow until they die and give it to their kids who still won't know what to do with it all despite never having to work a day in their lives.
In short: Poor people with more money spend it to improve their lives, thus stimulating the economy by buying stuff. Rich people with more money collect more money.
Henry Ford recognized this. If your workers have enough money to buy the products they're making, you'll sell more products.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which is the primary source of the economic woes of the United States right now :D
How income is distributed won't fix the economy, by and large. It will when you are producing something. Income distribution, in general, is best used as an economic indicator of how well the economy is working for everyone. It has clearly taken quite a blow under Bush, no? Lets hope Obama can at least begin to address these issues in a meaningful way; believing he can do more is overly optimistic, I believe.
Also, part of the reason for posting this was to see the reactions of people on the right and the left to the poll.
Reply -
Neutral
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When they make more money, they can have enough money to choose to "buy American" (if that's even possible any more). With extremely low wages, they can't afford to boycott Walmart or avoid chinese products, because they simply can't afford the price difference. Will paying them more cause local prices to go up? Probably. Is it necessitated? Not if the companies were to redirect profits and excessive executive salaries to lower level salaries. I don't think it's something the government can mandate directly.
Minimum wages encourage employers to pay the minimum, so unless they're actually living wages (which would be considerably more than current levels) I would say they do more harm than good.
Make minimum wage something like $15 per hour (through a series of pre-announced increases to let employers adjust) or scrap it completely, allowing employers to determine for themselves what the work is worth.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
alicante-carrental1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Over half of americans believe that a god created the earth 4000 years ago.
Half of americans couldn't name who the vice president is. Shotgun Dick.
99% of americans don't realize Exon is bigger than all of saudi arabia. Walmart is bigger than all but 20 countries on the earth. Most americans think they are living in a democracy, but don't realize that when the average CEO makes 350 times what the average employee makes, the consitiution is meaningless, democracy is meaningless, and wars are just mercinary projections of the power of the super rich .001% of billinaires on the planet.
When george soros can make 2 billion dollars betting stocks in a year that saw the economy collapse, democracy is dead. RIP america.
The only thing a middle class person can hope for is regulation with teeth, and another New Deal, with 99% tax rates for billionaires, and 99% inheritance tax rate.
Please raise your hand if you think anyone should inherit over 15 billion dollars.
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.