Shut ‘er down: 57% of likely voters OK with government shut down if it leads to deeper cuts

by editor on April 4, 2011

“Drill, baby, drill” now has a doppelgänger known as “Cut, baby, cut.”

Would someone please send the results of this new Rasmussen poll to John Boehner and the rest of the cowardly Republicans in Washington, DC:

budget-chainsaw-massacre

Budget Chainsaw Massacre, starring Rand Paul, coming soon to a theater near you

A majority of voters are fine with a partial shutdown of the federal government if that’s what it takes to get deeper cuts in federal government spending.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think making deeper spending cuts in the federal budget for 2011 is more important than avoiding a partial government shutdown. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree and say avoiding a shutdown is more important. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

Republicans want to make more spending cuts in the current budget than Democrats do, but 36% of voters think it would be better to avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at a level most Democrats will agree to. Fifty-seven percent (57%) would rather have a shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on deeper spending cuts.

Everyone in Washington is addicted to spending and there’s only one way to cure it:

Cold turkey.

Source: Rasmussen

Leave a Reply

20 Comments on "Shut ‘er down: 57% of likely voters OK with government shut down if it leads to deeper cuts"

Notify of
RockingHorseGuy
Member

The definition of license, as listed in Black’s Dictionary of Law, is, “official government permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.” So, picking up trash is illegal, unless you have been granted permission. So is fishing, driving, being married, being a dog,……………….. You get the picture.

KimmyQueen
Guest

Actually in some parts it seems (don’t quote me) it is illegal to pick up trash if the trash is inside the property UNLESS of course it is a government worker who can walk up a bit and get to the thrash if necessary. A person that walks up to the curb to pick up trash and steps on private property can legally be shot by the owner. If it is outside the private perimeter and they are digging through the garbage it is all good. Also we are not allowed to just dump anywhere where there is an empty lot. We can only dump in certain areas and in certain areas that are state property I suppose you would need a license to dump there.

perlcat
Member

For what it’s worth, I think Black’s Dictionary has a lame-assed definition that was written by a shill for the statists’ perspective. Government can make eating Stilton cheese on Wednesdays illegal unless they grant a license. What they really mean is “a license is a way to dole out rights you may already possess in the supposed public interest, and is normally used to tax you and finance electioneering schemes and fraud by granting access to corporate and individual welfare.”

A.K.A. the “Gravy Train”.

As an example, I think that they use hunting licenses to turn your right to hunt into a subtle form of welfare and theft of property by misrepresentation. In a just world, you would compensate the landowner for hunting on his land, and that’s the end of it. However, the way they have us conditioned, you currently pay for the “right” to do something that, if done on private property, is already your right granted to you by the owner of the land. The landowner may ask for nothing in return (especially if it’s prairie dogs…), but that’s his right.

The government has essentially commandeered the royalty payment due the landowner, without compensating the landowner. If I went into a restaurant, fraudulently presented myself as an ASCAP representative, and hit them up for royalty payments for the music they play, wonder what ASCAP would do to me? EVEN if ASCAP never hit that store up for royalties, and had no intentions of ever doing so, they’d go ballistic. With good reason. In the Real World, they’d hit me with so damn many lawyers that my head would spin. The difference? They know their rights, and they aren’t up against a government that can simply finance more injustice by hiring lawyers with the taxpayer’s money to fight you until they run you out of money.

It is said that you can’t fight city hall but it’s not because they have anything so decent as truth or justice on their side, they just have their hand in your pocket, and can force you to pay for their legal assault on your property rights.

However, a hunting license is not a form of welfare/theft of services when it is granted for public property, as it is then a means of compensating the government for the use of the land as well as a (relatively) fair means of regulating the amount of game taken off the land…

I’m not an anarchist, but I do believe that we’ve been conditioned to expect and tolerate a very high level of governmental usurpation of our rights and property.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I have no problem with making the needed sacrifices. Let the government stop for as long as possible. THIS IS WHERE entrepreneurs and private people come into play. EXAMPLE: For my garbage? Guess what? All that is needed is for government to provide licenses for people to gather garbage and dump. They have them here, and there are many companies medium size or individuals that do this. Allow for private and small business or medium size businesses to take up the garbage to the dumps. If you have to fire the illegals who pick up the trash do it and then deport them, others that need to leave tell them to privatize it and get a permit get cracking. Those that have disgusting union stuff get rid of it or cut it way down and tell them to get their own business or to be hired by private companies. Payments for the licenses are revenue for the government. This us just ONE example on ONE government service throughout the states… can you imagine how much revenue for the government due to licenses and taxes coming from new business will create while at the same time the government stops with the union nonsense and gets rid of illegals and stops the services? Then once it picks up they can STREAMLINE their services and do things right. It is an ideal perhaps, but just think of what the government can do if they do it right accross the board.

YT
Member

Exactly. Life before income taxes and giant federal budgets was not drastically different than it is today. Thats their big fear….most people won’t notice the gov’t is shut down other than the mail man won’t deliver credit card offers and other junk.

the only people that will suffer are those living off social security and welfare. If it happens (it won’t) be far away from any ghettos as massive chimp-outs will ensue when the EBT cards don’t get refilled.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I live pretty well without government. I don’t NEED government other than defense (national guard, coast guard, etc.) and border control (which is a joke) and the military what else can the government do that a private company that is bound by competition to excel can’t do? If a private company fails to do a good job ad they have no bail money they either change to improve their services or go bankrupt and dissappear giving way to a better company. Sadly no matter the changes and the votes we can’t seem to get a better government from the previous one that also sucked.

Police, ambulance, hospitals, roads/highways, all of that stuff can be private without unions or with stringent union rules. You get these people in, the ones that will do the best job for the least amount of money gets picked. Make them compete. Don’t make the comfortable in their positions. Contract if they fail they do not get paid (or provide all the funds back except deposit). I mean come on… why can’t the government not be run like a responsible business? I don’t get it.

perlcat
Member

I sent my garbage to Washington. That’s how I solved that.

(actually, I didn’t vote for the jerk, but you get the picture)

Omar
Member

I agree with you Kimmy…except for one thing:

Seeing the trash not being collected for weeks presents a good business opportunity as you suggested.
So let’s say that I go ahead and rent or buy a dump truck, buy an insurance policy just in case I run over somebody’s mailbox, and charge house to house for those who want their trash taken away, and even employ several of my friends to help me and pay them for their help, then proceed to take the trash to the nearest landfill/recycling center.
But……..why make me get a “government license” in order to provide that service? What purpose would that serve, other than making me incur an additional expense that would only get passed on to my customers, and giving some government agency a purpose for existing? If such agency didn’t exist, we wouldn’t need to be taxed in order to pay for it, and I wouldn’t need to pass on the cost of the license to my customers for the trash collection services, so their fees would be cheaper.

This is all hypothetical, of course, but my question is: Why do we need government “permission” to do anything and everything these days? Why? :-/

KimmyQueen
Guest

Here the guy that did this for us (our business) a few years ago came and took all of our trash away for a fee that was more than comfortable for us to pay considering all the crap that we had in the back. However, he had TO have a license to haul that much garbage on his truck. I don’t know why I didnt ask him, I just told him that he has a good business going and he smiled and said yes ma’am. He was cute too, a little older but had that I am rough and I work hard good looking Texas swagger with tight jeans… uhm… what was I saying again? Oh yeah why the license? I guess if a cop sees all that crap they pull you over you can show it? Or when you arrive at the dump which in essence is state property you must show that you have the right to be there?

hisham
Guest

Shutting down the government wouldn’t have that much of an effect on essential services, but it would have a big effect on the non-essential, ie., larger, more numerous, more redundant parts of the government. We could afford to cut 60% of our current budget and slash 90% of current services and programs and still have too much government, so what’s the big deal?
I say, screw the leeches!

CAS
Guest

They are afraid they won’t be missed.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Wouldn’t that be cool? The federal government shuts down, and everything goes along just fine?

Omar
Member

Just like during that big snowfall in January…

“non essential” gooberment employees in the DC area (somewhere around 200,000 of them from what I heard) were told to stay home…and the world didn’t end.

Imagine that…we could actually breathe with DC being shut down!

perlcat
Member

Yep, you’ve hit on the donk’s greatest fear. They know that if the world doesn’t come to the end in spite of all their dire predictions, people will start asking questions.

They played chicken, and like any nutless schmuck that plays chicken, they lost.

whiskeyriver
Guest

It has before and things worked out pretty good for us taxpayers. In 1981 and 1984 President Reagan refused to sign any spending bills approved by the House and Senate so the federal gooberment closed shop until Reagan got a budget on his desk that made sense. The resulting economic boom is proof that President Reagan was right.

The next shutdown was in 1990. The first President Bush did the same thing Reagan did, he refused to sign the spending bills sent to him by the House and Senate. The continuing economic boom during shows he made the right decision.

The last shutdown was in 1995. President Clinton refused to sign the spending bills sent to his desk but for a different reason. Clinton wanted to expand government and increase spending while the Republican led House and Senate wanted to cut spending and shrink the size of the federal government. The big men in Washington at the time, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Dick Armey, eventually got their way and our economy continued to grow through the 90’s.

The point is that a federal gooberment shutdown will not hurt anything, it never has. In fact, every time it has happened the winners have been the American taxpayer. I say shut things down. When a couple of million federal employees stop getting a paycheck maybe they will remember who pays the bills in this country and it isn’t them.

deepthinker
Member

Screw the cowards. They where elected to stand up for the people the represent. SHUT it down and let it stay that way for sometime. Keep the military going. As for the rest of the federal govt shut it down.

One thing about it, if they do shut the govt down, the IRS will be right there with them.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I’m pretty sure that the IRS would be considered “essential” personnel. Don’t get your hopes up.

Wes
Guest

I’m wondering if Republicans are trying to lay low and do just enough to look like they’re doing something but are mainly just trying to let things be so they can get a clean sweep of the Senate and White House in 2012. Remember how Clinton gets all the praise for a balanced budget and all that even though it was a Republican Congress that helped keep him in line.

Republicans really pushing now might alienate people if it fails, but also would help Obama if they succeed. Now, instead, imagine 2012 rolls around and gas is at $5+, the economy still sucks, etc… the Tea Party might be upset at Reps, but the rest of the country would have a hard time still giving Obama the kid gloves treatment.

I’m not sure whether that strategy is good or bad, just that it may be what is.

YT
Member

They are talking big so they can sweep everything so they can then run the deficit back up with giveaways to the highest bidder…I mean political fund raiser.

we need to stop kidding ourselves about one party or the other being the magical savior. They do that schtick every election and its always business as usual afterwards. The deficits must continue or the entire financial system collapses and can’t profit by shifting ever increasing amounts of debt instruments around. One guess which industry contributes most to BOTH parties.

What has every assassinated (or attempted) have in common?

kb
Member

“we need to stop kidding ourselves about one party or the other being the magical savior. They do that schtick every election and its always business as usual afterwards.”

Amen, Brother!

wpDiscuz