Without jobs, there will be no recovery. Whether we like it or not, consumerism is the engine of the capitalistic system. No jobs = no buying goods or services. What we need are the same kind of massive public work projects that occurred under FDR and helped people through the Depression. And no matter what the politicians and the economists who advice them say, we ARE in a Depression right now.

This just strikes me as a good example of how Republicans win elections. They don't care that their policies got us here (or simply close their eyes and don't acknowledge the fact), they don't care that Bush doubled the debt during a good economy - they care about winning.

This poll is the effect of Fox News, Limbaugh, etc - not reason!

There is something deeply wrong with both questions. The problem we face is that we had an economy based on the creation of consumers, not an economy based on the creation of the stuff consumers need. The solution is to become frugal and make stuff for ourselves, thus making our own jobs. All attempts to buy our way out of this mess will fail if we just return to our past ways, plus all the notions that the deficit is our biggest problem also avoid the real issue: we don't produce things we value. Other people do, and instead we are spending our money on overpriced homes in places that ensure our dependence on oil, things built in foreign countries, and on services that rich corporations skim all the profit from.

We don't need to "recover" to where we were a decade ago, we need to completely change the true sickness which is the American way of life: a bloated, credit-dependent, energy-wasting path leading all of us toward servitude.

Two solutions to the wrong problem is worse than no solution at all. I'm all for people having jobs, but shouldn't we strive for useful work rather than an existence that's little more than a cog in a consumer wheel? Especially if that consumer is of the self-eating variety living on credit?

jon is absolutely right. But, I don't know how best to get there. Things are so bad right now that I don't know that we can just turn around immediately and start living frugally. But I agree that should definitely be our ultimate goal.

But as to the questions posed on the poll, I think that this is one of those instances when the elected representatives of the people, such as it is, are should exercise the powers that we gave them--do what is best for the country. They should ignore the polls on this. We get out of this, then see where we are.

At that point, do we take a cold, hard look at ourselves and how we got to where we are? Or do we sigh, think about how close we came to failing, and then resume acting the ways that we did which got us to that point? I'm not hopeful, but I do have hope.

The fact is, individually and collectively, Americans are in too much debt. We can't just keep borrowing to get out of every problem. Indeed it was the borrowing that led to many of our problems. And yes, many times there are unpleasant consequences that you have to live through when you borrow too much (foreclosure, bankruptcy).

The only President to run a balanced budget for at least part of his Presidency (indeed a surplus) during my entire life was President Clinton. From Johnson to Obama, every other one ran or is running a deficit.

I would be far happier if we were talking tax increases to cover additional spending. Then, at least, the generation benefiting from the spending would be the one paying for it. And we could collectively decide if the return ("services") on our investment ("taxes") was worth paying for.

Granted President Obama inherited a disaster from Bush. But I will evaluate his Presidency negatively if he makes no attempt to reign in deficit spending. From my historical perspective, it is the Democrats who have traditionally been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans (borrow and spend is morally inferior to tax and spend). I would like to see it remain that way.

Some old, but good advice:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Sir Edmund Burke to the Electors of Bristol
November 4, 1774

>"consumerism is the engine of the capitalistic system. No jobs = no buying goods or services"

Most americans (apparently 62%) have little to no understanding of how the current economy 'works'.

The reality is that structural over-consumption (consuming more than you can afford) is the coal that keeps the furnaces of modern industry lit. Over-consumption, in turn, is fueled by un-sustainable debt.

While it's a noble idea, if everyone in the US simply lived 'within their means' (including the government) the economy would fall into a black hole from which it might never escape.

Several choices emerge.

1) Re-inflate debt via budget deficts to keep the economy afloat. (bank bail-outs, public works etc.)

2) Deflate debt by cutting deficits and collapse the economy into a deep, long-term depression. (Republican approach.. think Hoover).

3) Try and walk a fine line between the two.

Drill down another level from the above and it gets even worse. Our entire economic system (current debt bubble aside) is based on eternal growth. On a planet with finite resources, this will inevitably fail at some point in the future.

As Keynes wrote 'We are all doomed..."

I think I'll have a drink now.

I've not studied macroeconomics, but it seems to me that the ratio of wealth to production has become abnormally large, and is creating all sorts of ill effects on the economy as the excess wealth sloshes to and fro, looking for opportunities to compound itself. If this is a valid analysis, it doesn't seem that anything is likely to help the situation other than redistributing the wealth, either by direct public policy or by devaluing or rebasing the currency.

I bet if one polled the public on paying down the debt with wealth tax, it'd have comparable results to the poll noted in the post.

it doesn't seem that anything is likely to help the situation other than redistributing the wealth, either by direct public policy or by devaluing or rebasing the currency.

Fat chance. Didn't Bill Clinton say that if he could be reincarnated, he'd come back as the bond market, because he'd already been president and there was only one thing left more powerful?

The question poses a false choice. In the long term, the country needs tax revenues which are derived from earners and corporate profits. You can cut spending to a certain degree, but without a robust economic engine the deficits will not go away.

With jobs going to China and/or businesses just folding, I not only see no goods being bought, but no taxes being paid either.

Why is public opinion on the deficit critical and determining public policy, while public opinion on the public option for health care irrelevant?

Fat chance. Didn't Bill Clinton say that if he could be reincarnated, he'd come back as the bond market, because he'd already been president and there was only one thing left more powerful?

All things are not eternal. My naive analysis is that absent wealth redistribution by public policy, which is a political long shot, devaluing the currency is going to happen inevitably and the bond market wealth will try to seek safe harbor elsewhere in the world. Rebasing the currency would only happen if a calamity occurred, e.g. a domestic revolution or a shooting war with China.

Why is public opinion on the deficit critical and determining public policy, while public opinion on the public option for health care irrelevant?

Because it comports with the opinions of the powerful. But you knew that.

Is our children learning?

If education was a real priority, more people would understand certain fundamental truths in history.

Of course, even fewer Republicans would be taken seriously then. No wonder education had to be "reformed."

It shouldn't matter whether the public is wildly wrong. On healthcare, despite the fact that a significant majority of people WANT A GOOD PUBLIC OPTION (pardon the shouting, I'm irritated), that's not going to be what we'll get, because Republicans are of the opinion that THEY KNOW BETTER. "It's not a popularity contest," they say.

But when it comes to economic policy -- which the public in general is completely inexpert in -- those same whiny-a$$ titty-babies (yes, I am VERY irritated), will point to poll results like that described here and declare, "It's what the Amurkan peeple want!"

It's a good thing I don't live closer to DC. I'd be down at the Capitol every other day slapping some politician upside the head.

It might appear to be superficial, but an excellent way to garner support for the continued, necessary defits would be for Congress to forgo its annual pay raises. Also, every effort should be made to squeeze the last dollar out of every operating budget in the Federal govenment. Those efforst should be highly publicized.
Much of it will be looked at as mere public relations and decried as such. Those who are determined to moan and complain that it doesn't really address the problem (Republicans/"centrists") need to be continually asked: "What services do you want cut?". Then we need to focus on the human dimensions when whichever agency has its budget slashed/zeroed per the Republican pet hate of the week.
Oh, and tax increases on the top 5%. Move up the end of Bush's tax cuts; how much does that decrease the deficit?

Nice forced choice there - keep the peasants from thinking about kleptocracy, looting and institutionalized corruption. As long as that lasts you'll get shit for growth AND fiscal hemorrhage, and you can argue for your favorite pathology like Albigenses for the rest of your miserable life while bankers and their pol whores laugh at you and bleed you white.

FYI.

Krugman has a good piece on this.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/if-a-deficit-falls-in-the-forest/

I didn't see mention in the comments so far, but the poll is a cell only survey. Only 20+ percent of households are cell only and focusing solely on them skews the results in fairly important ways.