Truth vs Propaganda in the Debt Ceiling deal

[MobBoss]

Just saw this story: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ic-sold-on-tax-increases-in-debt-ceiling-deal

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

80%???? Does anyone really believe that? Well, in a conflicting story, this has been published:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal

As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.

Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

That doesnt sound like 80% of everyone wants a tax hike to me, and it seems like Obama is only counting what democrats want as opposed to everyone else in this country.

So why the falsehood? Why would Obama say such a thing that is so easily disproven? Is it just bad propaganda? Failed populism?

Please opine.

 

[GenMarshall]

I found something on the contrary of what you posted MobBoss (mainly on the 80% claim in the first article)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

I'll find any more in my dig.

 

[Hygro]

maybe they don't want taxes in the debt ceiling deal but do want taxes for closing the budget deficit

 

[timtofly]

Since 80% of the lower 50% work for the government any way, raising taxes would not effect them. It would take more out of their check to allow them to get more in return.

 

[MobBoss]

I found something on the contrary of what you posted MobBoss (mainly on the 80% claim in the first article)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

I'll find any more in my dig.

Actually, what you found makes it even worse for Obama's claims. From your second link:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches. Twenty percent favor an approach that relies only on spending cuts and 4% favor an approach that uses tax increases alone.

That particular poll indicates that Americans favor spending cuts over taxes by a pretty good margin. No where near Obama's 80% claim is shown to be true.

 

[aw3524]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

 

[timtofly]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

Just like the weather? The money trickling up is how they get rich.

 

[downtown]

The 80% line comes from a recent Nate Silver blog post, which showed gallup data indicating that only 20% of Americans want a budget deal that comes 100% from budget cuts. Most Americans favor a plan with a majority of cuts, and then revenue increases...which would prob come in the form of addition business taxes (or rather, the closure of specific tax breaks).

It's really all in how you word it. I imagine most Americans are not excited about paying additional income taxes towards a debt deal, but they would support specific industries, or the highest wage earners, paying more, if the middle class is going to shoulder the majority of the "austerity" measures (which is whats happening now).

 

[SG-17]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

Except, you know, the tax cuts didn't.

Trickle-down economics are a bold-face lie and a horrible idea.


Tax the rich proportionately. Remove subsidies for oil and gas companies. Remove tax loopholes for corporations.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Trickle-down economics are a bold-face lie and a horrible idea.

The spendulus and the bailouts proved that once and for all.

 

[Tristan_C]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

Except, you know, the tax cuts didn't.

Trickle-down economics are a bold-face lie and a horrible idea.


Tax the rich proportionately. Remove subsidies for oil and gas companies. Remove tax loopholes for corporations.

I guess the old notion that the rich and powerful are going to find a way to adapt/exploit any situation doesn't apply when you're talking about raising their taxes. They're obviously going to just quietly pay more taxes and solve all our problems. They aren't going to hire fewer people, they aren't going to look for income sources offshore, they aren't going to game domestic tax shelters, and instead of holding onto more of their assets, they're going to keep trading at their normal rate so they get the opportunity to pay your upped capital gains taxes.

 

[Theige]

Here is the Nate Silver post Downtown was talking about, which is the source of the claim.

20% of those polled said they wanted a deal to be done "only with spending cuts"

 

[BasketCase]

I think Americans are smart enough to realize that "tax hikes for the rich" have a way of trickling down.

Wrong. They're smart enough to realize the opposite. I oppose tax hikes on the rich because I want to keep my job (hell, my boss lets us play World of Warcraft at work--it's a job I intend to keep) Raise taxes on the rich, they compensate for firing people. Nothing doing.

There's no way to beat rich people. Try to tax them harder, they simply move the money to some other country where you can't tax it. I'm doing that myself right now.

 

[Tarquelne]

Except, you know, the tax cuts didn't.

Trickle-down economics are a bold-face lie and a horrible idea.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

Here's a link: Educate yourself.

 

[aw3524]

Wrong.

I don't see what you're disagreeing with me about. I was more commenting on Obama's tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires" bait-and-switch, but I guess one-liners don't always convey my ideas fully.

Trickle-down economics are a bold-face lie and a horrible idea.

Lose the rhetoric; I wasn't alive, but I'm sure it was old 30 years ago. Just call them "tax cuts." I know people lose the ability to think clearly when it comes to simple economics, but is it that surprising that people invest and produce less if they get to keep less of the proceeds from doing so?

Educate yourself.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10687426&postcount=88

 

[Zelig]

Wrong. They're smart enough to realize the opposite. I oppose tax hikes on the rich because I want to keep my job (hell, my boss lets us play World of Warcraft at work--it's a job I intend to keep) Raise taxes on the rich, they compensate for firing people. Nothing doing.

There's no way to beat rich people. Try to tax them harder, they simply move the money to some other country where you can't tax it. I'm doing that myself right now.

I support tax hikes if it leads to people who waste time by playing World of Warcraft at work getting fired.

 

[aelf]

I guess the old notion that the rich and powerful are going to find a way to adapt/exploit any situation doesn't apply when you're talking about raising their taxes. They're obviously going to just quietly pay more taxes and solve all our problems. They aren't going to hire fewer people, they aren't going to look for income sources offshore, they aren't going to game domestic tax shelters, and instead of holding onto more of their assets, they're going to keep trading at their normal rate so they get the opportunity to pay your upped capital gains taxes.

But if you cut benefits, the poor and working class can't just take themselves elsewhere. How convenient. Clearly, the 'free' market is lopsided.

 

[pi-r8]

Just saw this story: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ic-sold-on-tax-increases-in-debt-ceiling-deal

80%???? Does anyone really believe that? Well, in a conflicting story, this has been published:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal

That doesnt sound like 80% of everyone wants a tax hike to me, and it seems like Obama is only counting what democrats want as opposed to everyone else in this country.

So why the falsehood? Why would Obama say such a thing that is so easily disproven? Is it just bad propaganda? Failed populism?

Please opine.

Political polling is as much art as science. The way you phrase the question makes a huge difference, especially on something arcane like the debt ceiling negotiations which most voters don't understand at all.

The way rasmussen phrased the question was "As part of legislation to raise the debt ceiling, should congress and the president raise taxes?" With no mention at all of spending cuts. It shouldn't be a surprise that most people aren't going to answer like "yeah I want higher taxes!" The fact that even 34% answered yes is pretty remarkable.

Obama's number comes from the gallup poll that CivGeneral linked, which asked voters to choose between spending cuts, tax increases, or both. In that poll, only 20% said they wanted only pure spending cuts, which is the republican position, so Obama was assuming that the remaining 80% opposed the republican position.

It's definitely political spin, but it's not really propaganda like Bush's "OMG we need to invade Iraq to stop Al Qaida and destroy their chemical weapons" was.

 

[Tarquelne]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10687426&postcount=88

The really cool thing is how the good stuff seems to have started as soon as Reagan took office and then stopped virtually the instant he left office.

Ordinary presidents have to cope with some sort of lag between initiating and economic policy and the effect, but not RR!

And when numbers are so "pat" like that it really adds to the verisimilitude of a graphic. Hat's off to whoever made it. It can take some real effort to find the way to pick and choose among the various possible figures to find what may very well be the only one that makes things seem to favor your point.

That just claims basic income over a large period and doesn't break down the brackets much. I wonder what after-tax dollars looks like? How about with cost of living and/or inflation? Perhaps more detailed info on dates?

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/aftertaxinc97.gif

I even have a source: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm.

There's some good stuff about David Stockman at the beginning. I suggest ignoring the blather that follows. Except for the graphs, which do offer links to the CBO documentation below each.

Here's another graph. It shows top rate vs. unemployment:

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_emp.gif

 

[Grimz101]

Any one can rig the polls, and ask questions in slightly different ways.
Real question boils down to which position is better spending cuts or tax rises to eliminate the deficit? The answer of course is a mix of both, with a slightly heavier emphasis on spending cuts, and maybe one or two stimulus to soften the already high unemployment such as a cut on corporation tax.