Most Say Tax Cuts Always Better Than Increased Spending

This is a Rasmussen poll. Like any poll you need to take it with a grain of salt (why not a fleck of pepper?), but I do think this is indicative of the ability of the Right to promote their message and frame debate around their own language. Movement Conservatism's ideology appeals to people and they are good at selling it, at their core they made the GOP more of a public relations outfit rather than a party that takes policy and governance seriously. Their ability to promote discredited ideas still makes them dangerous and despite the beatings they've taken in the last two election cycles don't expect that to change. - WB


Most Say Tax Cuts Always Better Than Increased Spending

Paul Krugman, last year's winner of the Nobel Prize for economics and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that you should “write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.”

If you follow that advice, you’ll be writing off a majority of Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% say that it’s always better to cut taxes. Only 24% share Krugman’s views.

Republicans overwhelmingly say it’s always better to cut taxes, and so do 50% of those not affiliated with either major party. Twenty-three percent (23%) of unaffiliateds take the opposite view and agree with Krugman.

Democrats are evenly divided—38% say tax cuts are always better while 34% disagree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/most_say_tax_cuts_always_better_than_increased_spending

a poll a week or two ago showed that people thought spending created more jobs than tax cuts do. Of course, this was before that fake report was referenced 81 times in the media.

of how Republicans promote and sell wrong-headed or flat wrong ideas. If they can't come up with a valid argument, they'll create a dishonest one out of whole cloth and repeat it until people start believing it.

the false report, continued to allow Republicans to make their claims without calling them out on their deception. I blame the Repukes, the M$M, and the Democrats for allowing the Repukes to control the narrative. President Obama and the Dems need to be out there pushing their principles just as the Repukes do and publicly challenging these assumptions, but once again (just as with the Prop 8 opponents), I don't see our side out there fighting vigorously at all.

Is it starts with them. They lie and repeat it constantly. The media reports both sides like they have weight, they don't step in and call out lies. For example, if a Dem and a Repub were on a show together and the topic was the color of the sky and the Dem said it was blue while the Repub said it was brown, the moderator and the rest of the media would treat the ridiculous answer like it was valid. If somebody suggests otherwise, in the media or Dems, they attack them with more lies and distortions. So Dems and people in the media become cowed. But it always starts with the Republican public relations machine, they are very good at it. As evidenced by their discredited ideas being treated like they're still valid.

from Repukes and the media. What can be done? If the M$M controls the narrative through the Republicans (because Republicans are pro-corporate which benefits the corporate media), then how can we compact them? How will we ever win if we cannot get our narrative out there or fight back effectively?

Republicans had a great model. They built it up from the ground. Started running for school boards etc. They put together think tanks that churn out already written templates for legistlation that they lobby to city and state legislatures etc. They put together a media plan and began to use language and imagery that was simple, effective and resonated with people. The ushered in the real era of political public relations, they can't govern for shit, but they do have a message, they are rigid, stick to it and repeat it constantly. What they did that isn't as much an option for us is they used the other side as the enemy. Took "liberal" and made it a pejorative, found issues to divide and conquer on. They attacked Clinton relentlessly over anything and everything, just as they will Obama. If you disagree with them, they'll brand you as a traitor, Dems don't really do stuff like that. It's not really our nature.

What we have done though, is we started Air America, and then people like Rachel Maddow have made their way on to tv. Dems also know how to use the internet for fundraising and to cultivate a movement. Youtube has been important, for example, The Young Turks are one of the most popular channels. Also Republican mythmaking isn't as easy when you can see a McCain, Palin or a George Allen make an ass out of themselves by watching them screw up with their own words. Also in our favor are demographics, and this is where some of the old conservative strengths like talk radio has hurt them. Women and minorities vote for Dems, the fasting growing minority, Hispanics, went for Obama heavily, while McCain lost the gains Bush had made in that group. The hate spewed by the talk radio and cable mavens during the immigration debate hurt the GOP. Right now all those guys do is rally the ever dwindling GOP base. They have little more than white resentment from the New Deal and the 60s movements. The country is changing and they keep digging themselves a deeper hole. The grassroots Dem activists are getting this, unfortunately the politicians aren't. Too many are from the old school that's been getting run over by Republicans for 30 years now, people like Harry Reid for instance. As the demographics continue to change, the progressive movement builds up, and some of the older Dem politicians step out, we can probably get more Dems that actually have some fight in them in office. Al Franken could be an indicator of that, I hope.

But then again, it doesn't surprise me, as I see Mr. Schweitzer in your avy.

Thanks for this!

and thank you very much. :)

Liberal+Stalwart, we act like Dennis Kucinich instead of Nancy Pelosi.

All the media airheads in the world couldn't keep the truth down if Democrats stood up and spoke truth to power like the Rep Kucinich does. What Wetzelbill says is true, but it also minimizes what can be done when leaders act like leaders instead of politicians. Unfortunately, most of our Democratic Senators and Congresspeople are politicians who only lead once they figure out which way the mob is headed, then they run to the front and start acting like they did something brilliant.

If the united message from Democrats was that these tax cuts are one of the LEAST effective ways to stimulate the economy, and if every Democrat on every show parroted that talking point, pretty soon the message would get through.

Tonight Rachel Maddow presented the evidence to a Republican who simply kept repeating lies that backed up his claims. He would not be silenced or deterred. Do you think Harry Reid would be that forceful?

A big part of the problem is that Democratic leadership is so beholden to corporate interests that it is almost always going to do their bidding regardless of whether there's a longstanding Democratic ideal at stake--namely, let the rich pay their fair share.

In this case, the average Joe and Jane get a pittance to placate the Republicans and allow the corporations to take home even more money at a time when we need tax revenue coupled with spending on government-sponsored projects that will inject money into the economy and give jobs to the jobless.

All of it will be spent. If the government gives tax cuts, some of the money will not be spent, it will be saved. Maybe a lot of it will be saved. Plus the money goes out slowly over time. So spending provides a greater immediate stimulus, which is what they're trying to accomplish. But only if the money is spent pretty quickly. If they have to wait around to draw up plans and get approvals etc., then the money won't be spent quickly and the immediate effect policy makers are looking for will not be realized. And looking at the planned projects in the stimulus bill, it seems many won't get off the ground for some time.

I'd rather see some hefty tax rebates, to everyone. That's the quickest way to get the economy going. It worked in the second quarter 2008. The tax rebates of ~$600 per taxpayer provided a jolt to the economy in the 2nd quarter. GDP was positive largely because of the rebates. And the whole program only cost $150 billion. They should do the same thing in each of the next 4 quarters. That would only cost $600 billion but would keep the economy going for another year, and hopefully provide the longer term stimulus needed to turn things around. That's an obvious approach. The problem is everyone in Washington has his/her own pet project (and biases) that they're trying to apply to this program, many of them don't provide immediate stimulus. So what we end up with is a grab bag of stuff.

Another nice thing about rebates is their effect will not be narrow -- they will find their way into every part of the economy. They wouldn't be narrowly focused like infrastructure projects.

Maybe not so small of an indication. Lots of people buy into this stuff.

enough to make a valid judgement. It's going to be a long fight if we are to make it from our near depression economic crisis. Spending right now is critical (and I'm not talking about crony capitalism type of spending or the MIC which is not cut anymore due to the provisions of the cult).

Frame.

Tax cuts are fine if people have jobs but if everything is crashing and jobs are being lost then tax cuts will not help. Tax refunds will only be brief. People need to work period, but, our capitalist system already, by design, can't function at 100% employment.

Private industry steals the natural resourses for private profit and gives nothing back to the rightful owners of those resourses except pollution and sickness.

'Edward Louis Bernays, who is considered the founding father of modern public relations along with Ivy Lee, in the early 1900s defined public relations as a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interests of an organization. . . followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance" (see history of public relations).'

'Some historians regard Ivy Lee as the first real practitioner of public relations, but Edward Bernays, a nephew and student of Sigmund Freud, is generally regarded today as the profession's founder. In the United Kingdom Sir Basil Clarke (1879 - 1947) was a pioneer of public relations.

The First World War helped stimulate the development of public relations as a profession. Many of the first PR professionals, including Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, John W. Hill, and Carl Byoir, got their start with the Committee on Public Information (also known as the Creel Committee), which organized publicity on behalf of U.S. objectives during World War I.

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, "When I came back to the United States , I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans ... using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations".'>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_public_relations




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

They will not hesitate to repeatedly lie and/or distort. It's tough to deal with. They aren't just framing and promoting based on the truth, they just frame and promote until it's drilled in people's heads, whether they are right or not.

.

Dollar for dollar it depends... which taxes, which spending? In general spending is more efficient as stimulus but it depends on the details.

But since the biggest problem with the stimulus is size, not method, the question of method doesn't matter as much as it should.

Polls like this point up, among other things, the folly of invoking popular will in these discussions. Whether you get 51% or 99% of the vote, when the people are wrong they're wrong.

economy that much. I'm single and make about $35,000 per year, and I guess, that is a bit more for gas or to have a dinner out, but big deal. But I can see how a jobs program which creates new jobs can get more money circulating in the economy while also improving our infrastructure. People have to look at the big picture.

who've read economics and see how that works.

All else is a beauty pagent.
After eight years of a CiC you wanna drink with, you'd think our policy might have grown up.

It's why we had a fake cowboy who bought a fake ranch in the WH for 8 years. He screwed things up so much that it's come back to hurt his party, but people still believe the basics of what they've been sold. It's a culmination of over thirty years of selling a certain ideology, Republicans are good at it.

or rather, fear of the RW noise machine (who *really* should be quietly fucked up in a back alley while they are staggering stupid in the wake of the Bush/Friedman Depression)
doing another 'There he goes again'.

Let them show that they are still the party of Newt and Tom, then crush them in the gutter.

What you were touching on is important, the RW Noise Machine. They go nuts and attack attack attack over the smallest of things. Like Clinton was barraged by so many non-scandals and accusations that after awhile you begin to think that something has to be true. They successful cowed the Dems, or most of them, by doing these things. John Dean talks about it in his book Conservatives Without a Conscience, how they attack even other Republicans and browbeat them if they dare to disagree with the general crazy consensus. They are very good at playing the victim, too, and acting like they are in the minority. They fight against the supposedly monolithic Liberal Media, for example. And they need to have an enemy. Much of the time that enemy is the Democratic party, so they've done things like framed Liberal to be a pejorative and sling it around as an insult.

Big problem for them is that they finally got what they wanted for six years. Complete control of government and they proved that not only can they not govern, their ideas are a danger to the existence of the country. Can't win elections in that environment.

For the unemployed person spending is better because maybe they can get a job, or an underemployed person can get a better job.

If the goal is to grow jobs in a time of decreasing demand, then you should spend.

A tax cut will hardly begin to replace the savings that have been lost through housing and stock market losses.

Those people who spent freely because they felt they had enough assets to do so aren't going back to their old ways any time soon.

What someone thinks about spending and tax cuts depends on the effect they are hoping for, doesn't it?

The article doesn't say. If someone just asks me...is it better for you to be able to keep more of your money, or for you to lose more of your money so the government can increase spending....well, duh. That's a no-brainer.

But if you ask me....if we're on the verge of a depression like the one the country saw in the 1930's, and taxes were cut several times in the preceding 8 years, and the new government has come up with a plan to spend on infrastructure projects and such, much like FDR did in response to the depression....do you think it would be better for your taxes to be cut again, or do you think it would be better for your taxes to stay the same but for the government to implement its plan to try and avoid an all-out depression?

If that question had been asked, I think the responses would've been different.

the federal government is sneaky they dumped unfunded manadates on about 17 states which then dump it all the way down to the local level.

In 1995 Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to
curtail Congress passing along mandates to the states without adequate funding. At the
Washington meeting NCSL praised some of federal efforts: Although the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act has been effective in curtailing some forms of unfunded mandates,
Congress and the administration have continued to shift the cost of many major policy
initiatives to the states.

78% of my county tax bill went to Medicare & social welfare programs. My school tax bill is strangling me becuae in NY its not based on ability to pay but on what you own. That alone is a big burden even with STAR.

So when the politicians are talking about tax cuts they really are just taking it from your other pocket. This year the Congress offered a pittance to the states really stuck with this, it had little effect.

have had selling their dogma for 30 years. I live in Oklahoma and nowhere have I seen more blind belief in tax cuts (and generally defeating new taxes of any sort for any purpose) than in this state. In our campaigns for the state house and senate, the campaign ads are basically all about who has or will cut taxes more. It is sickening.

I totally believe that. I have a friend who was incensed one time about the estate tax, he didn't really know what it was, didn't even understand that there was no possible way he would ever be wealthy enough to pay it, but he was pissed. I don't grasp that thinking. His argument was literally this: "The Death Tax, WTF?!?!". That was it, that was all he knew and needed to know. I'm thankful he's evolved his thinking since then, but to even blindly buy into that stuff in the first place is beyond me. It's such a rigid, nonsensical belief in only one thing.

in a mess.

We are in a recession now. In order for the government to get the economy going again it is speculated that printing/borrowing money will revive the economy.

So the government prints/borrows the money. If it is given to taxpayers via tax cuts the money is in taxpayers hands immediately (or when refunds are due). Every paycheck will be higher immediately.

But fiscal stimulus takes time. Roads have to be planned then built. Same with bridges.
Most of the money will be spent next year or further on as people get jobs. it can also be inflationary if we are in a recovery next year and the project compete for people and raw materials with private sector investing (bidding up wages and cost of material).

So what do we do? Do we have a WPA that starts with the chronically unemployed and pay them to dig holes then fill them again. That would inject money into the economy. Do we pay people to go to trade school? Do we pay people to go to beauty school? Do we just pay people to watch the Maury Show? All these things are stimulatory also.

Government programs have an MPC of 1. If we cut taxes there is a very good chance that people will hold onto the money or bank it out of fear concerning the future. This would not be as effective a way of getting things moving.

Because in the truer sense, tax cuts are felt immediately, so hand in hand with the other measures, they are more valuable than standing on their own.

funny how all the NOBEL Prise winners all believe that ALL tax cuts are a FAILURE and ONLY Spending and Stimulus and Work projects have been PROVEN to help the economy...

and, the bottom line, when all is said and done, after SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON PROJECTS, YOU HAVE THE PROJECTS LEFT OVER TO SERVE EVERYONE AT A MINIMUM.

when the Tax Cuts fail miserably - again - YOU'LL HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO SHOW FOR ALL THAT SPENDING...!!!

Talk to the victims of this Monday job massacre and ask them what they would prefer.

Also, I think that when the Republicans are talking about "tax cuts" they are thinking business. Except, as with the auto makers - if no one is buying business will not hire new people.

Republicans have trouble with the concept that all individual interests being pursued without regard to the larger picture might be good for everyone individually (as long as I'm the only guy doing it) but worse for everyone else (when everyone pursues that individual interest individually).

Right now if someone gives me a tax cut that's great. I'll save it (to protect against a rainy day) I'll pay off my debt (to protect against a rainy day). Everything that I do individually makes sense, individually, for me. But since we will all do it we continue to spiral down.

Republicans have trouble with the concept of common good. Period.

Its shameful to say, but true. Our side has never asserted any strong position on this issue. As with many other issues, we have let Republicans have the floor on this one far too long.

at the great trickle down economics! :rofl:

lol

:shrug:

put out there by rich people can take over the whole country.

Rasmussen poll asked questions that were more than vague. Asked about Obama's stimulus package, people are totally in support.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/economic_stimulus_and_the_many.php

Hope others jump on the bandwagon. Wetzelbill, thanks for writing these posts.

That's exactly what my post is about, the GOP's ability to frame the message in their favor or through their lens.

a political hoax.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/

The point is how do you reach those people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x149150

And polls show people trust this stimulus

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

"If you had to choose, who do you trust most to improve the economy: President-elect Obama, the private sector, or Congress?"

Obama + Congress = 72% Private Sector =28%


"Do you think that an economic stimulus package is necessary to improve the current state of the economy, or not?"

Necessary 62% Not Necessary 32%




etc. Polls can say anything.

Sometimes the medicine people ask for isn't the medicine they need.

Tax cuts do not produce JOBS. They produce a little more cash in one's pocket. If we don't create more JOBS, we're all screwed. This economy has to have more jobs. Get more jobs, then demands for assistance drop, tax revenues increase, demand for goods and services goes up.

Tax cuts mainly help people who (1) have jobs and (2) can live without the tax cuts.

AS FINALLY someone pointed out. That would be ME and Olbermann. And our taxes are low-we made a $100k last year and the taxes are not the problem. They are already very low if you have a mortgage deduction and children.

The $700 a month for three people for medical insurance is. That's not COBRA, that's part private insurance and part through his small employer. I'm worried about my husband's job and health care. I'd pay more taxes to have those secure.

So I wouldn't trust just one poll on this. One poll company once asked people about housing assistance in a poll, and asked some questions that were basically asking the exact same thing, if you support the government helping people get their own house, but asked in different ways. On some of the questions over 70 percent supported the government helping people buy their houses, on other ways of wording the question over 70% of people opposed that very same thing.

But on this issue of how to stimulate the economy, if we really had to fight over spending on cutting taxes I'd think we could just cite most economists opinions to fight this battle, most economists agree that government spending has more bang for the buck the tax cuts, hence spending is better to stimulate the economy. At the same time though, economists also agree that tax cuts have the advantage of generally able to get out there and start stimulating the economy a lot quicker then government spending, because if you pass a stimulus to do something like build more roads, it's not going to stimulate anything until you start hiring people to actually build the roads.

In my mind tax cuts are generally passive while spending is active. I don't think many people or businesses sit around at tax time and say "Let's go out and spend that $400 (or whatever) that we didn't have to pay in taxes!" Rather they are likely to simply continue doing whatever they have been doing with their money, be it saving for a rainy day or building a new factory in China. Spending, on the other hand, is more like an infusion of new capital, a bonus, that one can imagine doing something new and exciting with!

When it's not clear when or how you will benefit from it. Tax relief is appealing because it's immediate. For most people, it's hard to get excited about construction firms getting contracts to rebuild infrastructure when your job is in danger of disappearing and the field you work in isn't a beneficiary. The stimulus bill isn't going to help everyone and most people are not going to see any benefit from it in the immediate future. It's hard to sell something this big by telling people several years down the road, your situation will improve. They just don't have the patience for it.

Spending would seem to be geared more toward benefitting communities and regions more broadly. I suppose the general theory goes something like the government invests in "shovel ready" projects in a given area and "some" individuals there are paid to do the work. They in turn spend their paychecks locally which boosts local businesses which in turn may have to hire some clothing salespersons and other employees. Those employees in turn start receiving paychecks and spending... Thus the initial gov't spending would seem to work like seed money to spark economic activity generally in a given area. I'm not an economist by any means but I see tax cuts as a more passive approach that will not lead to a new bridge or roof on the school building and may not even lead to new economic activity.

That it will help some businesses for a short time, leave most behind and when those jobs disappear, we're right back to square one.

We would have been better off spending that money to institute a single payer healthcare system.

what will happen after the initial spark ignites some new economic activity. Creating the spark comes first. If all else fails somebody will have a new bridge and the schoolhouse will have a new roof.

Hopefully they'll still be able to do health care at some point, the sooner the better.

At least in my community.

The larger construction firms in the state that always get the contracts will get any new jobs because they are politically connected and have access to lines of credit that would make it impossible for a smaller company to compete. Some of the work might be subcontracted out locally but we're talking about maybe a couple dozen jobs that are temporary in nature. It's not going to boost our economy but we will be stuck with the bill regardless. I'm not saying this just to be argumentative, we are honestly concerned about the health of our local economy. We all want to survive and we want our employees to prosper. At least if the money went into a single payer healthcare system, it would take pressure off of all of us and benefit all of us equally.

I don't know if the bill addresses any of those concerns or not. You might try contacting your state gov't or Congresspersons or the Obama admin to get some answers and express your views. I'm only making a general argument here for spending rather than tax cuts when trying to spark new economic activity, which is apparently a minority opinion according to the Rasmussen survey. :)

two polls indicate.

Put into context like those polls, yeah, but in a broader sense, no. The RW narrative is always ingrained in people in a broader sense. Look how the questions were asked, tax cuts vs infrastructure spending which includes schools, bridges etc or tax cuts vs spending. Spending could mean anything. The word government has been turned into a pejorative, so if the spending is "government spending" people often have a visceral reaction to it. Hell it even sounds bad to me just hearing it and I'm for it. We're trained to hear certain words and react negatively to them. A poll with specifics in it doesn't touch on the broader indoctrination the GOP has been doing for decades now.

assertions about it. (And I'd include myself in that 99%.) But even my limited knowledge of economics tells me that only a brainwashed fool would make the assertion that cutting taxes is *always* better for stimulating the economy than increasing spending. However, the poll's finding is more convincing evidence of how much more effective the right-wing are as propagandists than the left is.

Not the actual merits of the ideas being polled or anything, but that the RW is so good at framing the debate. Good catch.