Proponents of deficit reduction argue that governments who do not control budget deficits and debt are at risk of losing their ability to borrow money at affordable rates. Opponents of deficit reduction argue that government spending would increase demand for goods and services and help avert a dangerous fall into deflation, a downward spiral in wages and prices that can cripple an economy for years.
63% Yes |
37% No |
56% Yes |
23% No |
5% Yes, and eliminate federal agencies that are unconstitutional |
7% No, increase taxes on large multinational corporations instead |
1% Yes, and increase taxes |
4% No, reduce military spending instead |
0% Yes, but by drastically reducing the benefits and salaries of government officials |
2% No, cuts to public spending will negatively affect the economy |
1% No, increase taxes on the wealthy instead |
|
0% No, focus on ending tax evasion instead |
|
0% No, reduce the number of government officials instead |
See how support for each position on “Government Spending” has changed over time for 13.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Government Spending” has changed over time for 13.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@92JWXW72yrs2Y
No, reduce the amount of government officials instead. We should also focus on ending tax evasion too. Cuts to public spending will negatively affect the economy.
@8FTVLYP4yrs4Y
Essentially yes. But other things need to be done. Increase taxes on top income bracket, eliminate deductions and loopholes on taxes for large corporations, reduce military spending and police budgets.
@8D7X8VB4yrs4Y
Yes, replace many gov programs such as welfare with UNIVERSAL INCOME. too much waste in government spending and programs.
@8JCJLWV4yrs4Y
Changes are needed but this is a very complicated question
@8W6XWGK3yrs3Y
Yes, but only where there is unnecessary spending in public funds.
@92C5M7S2yrs2Y
No, reduce the amount of government officials instead. We should also focus on ending tax evasion too. Also cuts to public spending will negatively affect the economy.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Government Spending” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH35mins35m
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is facing intense scrutiny over her administration's purchase of a $19,000 podium, sparking a heated debate among lawmakers and raising questions about the legality of the acquisition. An audit report has brought to light several potential breaches of Arkansas law, putting the governor's spending decisions under the microscope. The controversy centers around the use of state funds to buy a customized lectern, complete with a carrying case, a move that critics argue could violate state procurement laws and guidelines for the use of public resources.The issue came to a head during a recent legislative session where lawmakers grilled representatives from the governor's office and the Attorney General's office. The intense questioning aimed to uncover the rationale behind the purchase and whether proper procedures were followed. The audit's findings have fueled a broader conversation about fiscal responsibility and transparency in the governor's office, with many calling for stricter oversight of government spending.Supporters of Governor Sanders have defended the purchase, citing the need for high-quality equipment for official state business. However, opponents see it as an extravagant expenditure that could have been avoided, especially given the state's other pressing financial needs. The controversy has not only sparked a legal and ethical debate but also highlighted the challenges of balancing public expectations with the realities of governing.As the investigation into the lectern purchase continues, the outcome could have significant implications for Governor Sanders' administration. The scrutiny over this single expenditure reflects broader concerns about governance, accountability, and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars in Arkansas. Regardless of the final verdict on the legality of the purchase, this episode has already served as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency and fiscal prudence in public office.The saga of the $19,000 podium is far from over, with more hearings and audits expected in the coming weeks. As the story unfolds, it will undoubtedly continue to spark debate about the appropriate use of state funds and the ethical considerations that come with holding public office. For Governor Sanders, the controversy represents a significant challenge to her leadership and a test of her ability to navigate the complex waters of state politics.
@ISIDEWITH3 days3D
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Friday released his annual Christmas "Festivus" report for the ninth year in a row, outlining $900 billion in government waste. Among notable instances, the National Institutes of Health allocated funds to study Russian cats on treadmills; photos of Barbies were utilized as identification to obtain COVID relief funds; the Department of Defense lost $169 million of outdoor-stored military gear; $6 million went towards tourism in Egypt by the United States Agency for International Development; and the Small Business Administration provided over $200 million to "struggling" music artists such as Post Malone, Chris Brown and Lil Wayne.Up from $30 trillion in debt in 2022, this year's debt amounts to $34 trillion, the report also highlights. "Who’s to blame for our crushing level of debt? Everybody," Paul wrote in the report. "This year, members of both parties in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling, which empowered the government to borrow an unlimited amount of money until 2024. As Congress spends to reward its favored industries and pet projects, the American taxpayers are forced to pay the price through record-high inflation and crippling interest rates."He added: "The same big spenders teamed up, yet again, to continue sending Americans’ hard-earned money to foreign countries and funding endless wars, all while ignoring our porous southern border."Rand's report highlighted government spending that included accepting Barbie doll photos to obtain COVID relief funds from a portion of an $800 billion allocation in Paycheck Protection Program funds. Other expenses highlighted were $659 billion for national debt interest, $33.2 million for transgender monkey research, $6 million for boosting Egyptian tourism and an unknown cost for USDA's dog-walking research in summer. "Researchers found the Labradors’ fur color did not affect their body temperatures after a hot summer’s walk. That’s it. That’s the taxpayerfunded, cutting-edge study," Paul wrote. "The Agricultural Research Service at the USDA, which funded the study at Southern Illinois University, gets $1.7 billion a year from Congress, but it’s unknown how much the hot dog study cost the taxpayer."
@BlueStateLuna3mos3MO
Initial Treasury Forecast was $202 Billion for January + February + March.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.