Most Americans Polled Support Two Major Elements of President Obama's Tax Compromise

from Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx


PRINCETON, NJ -- Two major elements included in the tax agreement reached Monday between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress meet with broad public support. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years, and an identical number support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.



According to Gallup polling conducted Dec. 3-6, the slight majority of Democrats, as well as most independents and Republicans, would vote for a two-year extension of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003.

In terms of extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, more rank-and-file Republicans say they would vote against this than for it; however, the vast majority of independents and Democrats are in favor.


read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx

It's a shame that the American people trust him so. But the propaganda is so heavy that it's not surprising. Public opinion polls have no correlation with correct policy or good ideas. Especially not here.

That is as ignorant a statement as it is arrogant.

It's not about "opinions" or "disagreements." Anyone who elected someone to support their interests and then supports someone who is acting against their interests is likely to be conned.

Short term, perhaps they're concerned about the immediate impact of losing those tax benefits. I guess you have to be in that position to understand where they're coming from on the decrease in their income by fiat of the federal government.

Long term, possibly, respondents don't believe Congress has the will or ability to decouple the cuts in this or the next Congress, or believe there's any chance at all that their tax breaks would be restored by the divided Congress in the future.

I'm pissed about the top 2% part of the deal, but I also recognize that DU is a bit of an echo-chamber.

This is the country we live in. We seem to think the estate tax is the #1 issue.

:crazy:

The question is not divided in the poll.

"Are you in favor of extending the tax cuts for those making under $250,000?"
"Are you in favor of also extending the tax cuts for amounts over $250,000?"

Those are the questions being debated by the Congress and the American people.

This is a poll worded to tilt to the Repuglican position.

. . . respondents agreed that both should be extended. That's what compromise legislation is going to contain - an extension of both - and a majority of respondents agreed with that compromise.

Unless the question is divided, it is an assumption that the question represents the Obama-Bush-Repuglican "compromise".

. . . of a compromise agreement. That's what's being polled on in this instance. The wider questions were polled at the beginning of December.

Even more shocking is that twenty five percent, and climbing, are in favor of letting all the tax cuts expire at the end of the years.

As far as unemployment extension, well, Obama could fund that himself out of surplus stimulus funds. Mitch McConnell was wanting him to do exactly that over the summer, so bonus, Obama could claim bipartisanship:woohoo:

<http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Poll-Extending-High-Earner-Tax/2010/12/08/id/379288>

Kind of interesting too.

Tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - the cost
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/

Top 2% are getting a lot less of this total package than I thought.

The cutting of SS payroll tax has been a Republican wet dream since the nineties. Those other miscellaneous tax cuts and tax credits are simply extensions of the same tax cuts and tax credits that Obama threw into the stimulus bill specifically to attract Republican Congress members. So in reality, the deal is not a good one for the poor, middle and working class. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, the poor will get poorer, and we all get screwed.

And you ask folks about an extension of tax cuts for income over $250,000 independent of an extension of tax cuts for income below $250,000 (which everyone would get, even the wealthy), suddenly the "support" numbers plunge:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rbKOdlYIZF80

But that can't be right!

. . . not some fantasy scenario. It makes no sense to poll on something which isn't in play right now.

Those polled have consistently said that the worst option would be to let all of the cuts expire. The compromise allows both the upper-income and the middle to lower-income tax cuts to continue. Respondents favor that compromise.

Interesting methodology; almost as if they didn't want to know the answer, because as of a week ago when their questions were being formulated, de-linking was indeed still in play.

But that doesn't fit the narrative that's being sold, so let's relegate it to the realm of "fantasy" and be done with it.

I posted that here.

And, Gallup covers that poll a bit in their explanation on this one.

Here, see if this has what you're looking for . . .

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx

So the question must be avoided and the bias covered as well as possible to keep it out of the public mind. And while we're talking about continuing the reduced-rate ride for the wealthy, let's pack on a lower estate tax, higher threshold for estates to be liable for taxation, a social security holiday (instead of removing the cap on social security earnings), and three or four other things, so that the proles feel happy about their pennies while the sacks of money are hauled away by the affluent.

It's nauseating enough in the popular media; seeing the snake oil ads in other places is downright heave-worthy.

It doesn't seem credible to bash them for this one that disagrees with your position.

I don't see the bias in the poll. It's a straightforward question. You could, of course, load the question with your own perception of the extension of the cuts and get a different outcome.

It's 'nauseating' to see such denigration and dismissal of others' differing opinions.

They actually posted a handful of competing polls on the overall tax debate which showed fairly consistent similarities to their own.

If they agreed with you . . . ?

:rofl:

They ask, Do you support extending tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS?

This is highly biased toward "Yes."

Why not ask if they support turkey dinner and apple pie?

They do not ask separately: Do you support extending tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?

They do not ask separately, Do you support extending tax cuts for the rich, knowing that this will add XXX hundred billion dollars to federal deficits over the next X years?

They do not ask separately, If you had to choose only one option, would you extend unemployment benefits for jobless Americans, or would you extend tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000?

Each of these questions would be valid in the strict social science sense. But each would get a wildly different answer.

Polls of this kind always and necessarily have a large push element. Furthermore one-quarter of people do not have land lines and about 70 percent of everyone called by pollsters hangs up before the poll is concluded. It's

Gallup consistently run their polls with faux-naive apple pie questions that favor the right. Screw them.

The question now is on the compromise. The question was the correct one to ask now. Why ask that question when decoupling the cuts doesn't appear to be even remotely possible, politically or otherwise?

And, the bit about editorializing the effect of the tax cut in the question is not a legitimate way to poll. It's loaded and presumptive.

Many Americans will not see a tax cut at all, since they're not making enough money. The tax cuts are for earners who make enough to pay income tax.

Some of those receiving tax cuts are resident aliens, and thus not "American" (citizens of the US) in the legal sense.

Why doesn't Gallup at least leave out the patriotic emotional prompting of the term "Americans" and phrase it as "all income brackets" or "all households who pay income tax"?

It's obvious why. Who's wants to say no to goodies for "all Americans"?

"Editorialized" is a good description of pretty much every question Gallup has ever asked. I gave examples of questions from a different editorial stance, one that is no more editorial than Gallup's and that would make an equally valid question in the narrow social science sense of valid. (Data acquires meaning only in the course of analysis. That's what we're doing now with Gallup's data.)

Your "decoupling the cuts doesn't appear to be even remotely possible, politically or otherwise," is your assertion. And irrelevant. It's not part of Gallup's job description to reinforce politicians' perceptions of the possible, or to phrase questions so as to provide fake popular endorsements for whatever politicians have decided.

Pollsters are not observers. They are participants.

There's nothing at all 'bullshit' about this poll of theirs. I really don't understand the complaint about identifying the respondents as 'Americans'. I doubt respondents are as naive or impressionable as you suggest.

I don't see any 'fake popular endorsements' in that poll. I don't see any editorializing in that poll.

I do see someone trying like hell to dismiss the results. Is that because they weren't in line with what you expected?

...which, as I pointed out (but you do not respond to) is UNTRUE for multiple reasons...

- it is not a tax cut for "all Americans," but for income earners residing in the US

- resident aliens are included in the set of income earners

...but you do seem appalled by my proposal of questions that actually describe the objective consequences (loss of tax revenue), and not just the goodies (tax cuts), involved in a complex, multi-part policy measure.

Seems like your understanding and desire for precise language is only selectively applied, to suit your own ideological agenda.

I think Gallup covered all of the relevant points in their two polls . . . but, you go on. I'm not convinced, but maybe someone else might be impressed by your argument.

You've played blind on the ideology in the phrase, but tellingly you have avoided speaking to its factual untruth.

. . . I'm agreeing to disagree with you over what you perceive as bias in the poll.

also, that it's done for ideological reasons, but I don't care if you agree with that.

Let's just establish the facts:

True or false: Tax cuts for "all Americans"? I say: False.

(True: Tax cuts for all US resident households, regardless of citizenship, who earn enough to be subject to income tax. This set excludes tens of millions of Americans.)

Also, misleading: resident aliens will also receive tax cuts.

we disagree.

There is no "agree to disagree" on facts as simple as this one. You can be right, wrong, or evasive.

True or false: Are the tax cuts for "all Americans"?

I say: false. Inclusion of this phrase in the question is suspect.

which you gone to great lengths to express here.

Are the tax cuts for "all Americans"?

who cares?

Not me!

just sad.

. . . in such a sea of agreement with your own on this board. I think that's sad.