Americans blame Republicans more than Democrats for "fiscal cliff": Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Auburn85 434]

http://news.yahoo.co...--business.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans blame Republicans in Congress more than congressional Democrats or President Barack Obama for the current "fiscal cliff" crisis, as the deadline approaches for action to avert big tax increases and spending cuts, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

When asked who they believed to be more responsible for the "fiscal cliff" situation, 27 percent blamed Republicans in Congress, 16 percent blamed Obama and 6 percent pointed to Democrats in Congress. The largest percentage - 31 percent - blamed "all of the above."

A similar breakdown was found in response to questions about the economy. Asked who was responsible for the national unemployment rate, the poll found 23 percent chose Republicans in Congress, 16 percent said Obama and 7 percent said Democrats in Congress, while 32 percent picked "all of the above."

The U.S. unemployment rate stood at 7.7 percent in November, according to Labor Department figures.

"Fiscal cliff" refers to the tax increases on nearly all Americans and the deep, automatic government spending cuts due to begin in January - possibly pushing the United States back into recession - if lawmakers do not take action.

Sixty-seven percent of Americans polled in the online survey said the impending "fiscal cliff" was not affecting their holiday spending.

The survey of 1,477 Americans, interviewed online, was conducted December 23-27. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

(Reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Alistair Bell and Will Dunham)

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I HATE them both. They can all got hell as far as I'm concerned.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I HATE them both. They can all got hell as far as I'm concerned.

Here here!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

As much as I hate to say it, I sort of do too. I know both sides are to blame some, but I think if the Republicans came back and agreed to the return to Clinton-era tax rates on those making $250k or more the Dems would give in to some more spending cuts (particularly if it included some defense cuts). I just think this is more about the GOP right now and the internal in-fighting amongst them than anything else.

[japantiger 4,077]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

[TigerNBham 3]

Uh, well yeah.

GOP House leadership is MIA with comments about "God only knows " how to resolve this fiscal crisis.

What he means is, ' I am unwilling to work for the good of the country over my pettiness. '

House needs to replace the speaker or follow him off the cliff.

Unfortunately, they will fall on us .

[TitanTiger 20,708]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

Nice cliche. But no one is willing to enact Clinton level defense spending to get there.

[japantiger 4,077]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

Nice cliche. But no one is willing to enact Clinton level defense spending to get there.

Getting the military in line would be relatively simple; exit Cold War posts that are no longer relevant (why are we still in Europe?); exit non-strategic posts that suck up large amounts of resource (Afghanistan is not really strategic to our long term interests) , trim weapons programs that really aren't needed (don't upgrade hte M1 tank, F22? there are so many programs this would be relatively easy to do)...focus on projecting naval power, air power and more mobile-lethal ground forces...trim back large armored divisions...I'm willing to go there...

Let's see the falsely-named entitlement cuts...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

Nice cliche. But no one is willing to enact Clinton level defense spending to get there.

Getting the military in line would be relatively simple; exit Cold War posts that are no longer relevant (why are we still in Europe?); exit non-strategic posts that suck up large amounts of resource (Afghanistan is not really strategic to our long term interests) , trim weapons programs that really aren't needed (don't upgrade hte M1 tank, F22? there are so many programs this would be relatively easy to do)...focus on projecting naval power, air power and more mobile-lethal ground forces...trim back large armored divisions...I'm willing to go there...

Let's see the falsely-named entitlement cuts...

That all sounds easy. Problem is the second you propose one weapons program to be killed, representatives from districts where those things are made or that have bases where those things are stationed and used band together and scuttle it. As someone else said, the defense budget in this country has come to be seen by some as a jobs program.

[Auburn85 434]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

Nice cliche. But no one is willing to enact Clinton level defense spending to get there.

Getting the military in line would be relatively simple; exit Cold War posts that are no longer relevant (why are we still in Europe?); exit non-strategic posts that suck up large amounts of resource (Afghanistan is not really strategic to our long term interests) , trim weapons programs that really aren't needed (don't upgrade hte M1 tank, F22? there are so many programs this would be relatively easy to do)...focus on projecting naval power, air power and more mobile-lethal ground forces...trim back large armored divisions...I'm willing to go there...

Let's see the falsely-named entitlement cuts...

That all sounds easy. Problem is the second you propose one weapons program to be killed, representatives from districts where those things are made or that have bases where those things are stationed and used band together and scuttle it. As someone else said, the defense budget in this country has come to be seen by some as a jobs program.

Agree with both of you. Words such as "drastic cuts" have already taken over the political discussion. Only in America can allegedly ending two wars and ending most of the spending along with it, can be considered "gutting defense."

Ron Paul was chastised in the Fox South Carolina debate for wanting to cut defense back to 2006 levels. We had two hot wars going on in 06.

Yeah, it has turned into a jobs programs. Contractors, contracts. If we don't have perpetual war, people may lose jobs!

Need to prioritize better. However, prioritize and efficiency are words that congress refuses to understand.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

OK with Clinton era tax rates....as long as we get Clinton era spending....

Nice cliche. But no one is willing to enact Clinton level defense spending to get there.

Getting the military in line would be relatively simple; exit Cold War posts that are no longer relevant (why are we still in Europe?); exit non-strategic posts that suck up large amounts of resource (Afghanistan is not really strategic to our long term interests) , trim weapons programs that really aren't needed (don't upgrade hte M1 tank, F22? there are so many programs this would be relatively easy to do)...focus on projecting naval power, air power and more mobile-lethal ground forces...trim back large armored divisions...I'm willing to go there...

Let's see the falsely-named entitlement cuts...

That all sounds easy. Problem is the second you propose one weapons program to be killed, representatives from districts where those things are made or that have bases where those things are stationed and used band together and scuttle it. As someone else said, the defense budget in this country has come to be seen by some as a jobs program.

Agree with both of you. Words such as "drastic cuts" have already taken over the political discussion. Only in America can allegedly ending two wars and ending most of the spending along with it, can be considered "gutting defense."

Ron Paul was chastised in the Fox South Carolina debate for wanting to cut defense back to 2006 levels. We had two hot wars going on in 06.

Yeah, it has turned into a jobs programs. Contractors, contracts. If we don't have perpetual war, people may lose jobs!

Need to prioritize better. However, prioritize and efficiency are words that congress refuses to understand.

While Bonner and Sessions brag about all of the jobs (i.e. LCS and Joint High Speed Vessels built at Austal) they have brought to Alabama, what they fail to realize is those jobs could evaporate with the stroke of a pen in DC. All of the idiot employees say, "We have contract with the Navy", like that's gonna save their jobs. Pfft. I quit those guys because I didn't care for the element I was forced to work around. Idiot rednecks who think they are invincible. Too many bammers and Australians. I'd consider returning if General Dynamics takes over and fires those useless idiots, otherwise, it's just another cluster####.

[Tigermike 3,427]

Proof that there are a lot of dumbass Americans.

They did vote for this guy http://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/129285-obama-orders-pay-raise-for-all-govt-employees/ and look what he did.