Gregory uncritically reported Republicans' baseless assertion that Americans prefer president on taxes
SUMMARY: NBC News correspondent David Gregory uncritically reported a claim by "Republican leaders" that the "president's strengths, like tax cuts or tough anti-terror measures, have been overlooked" because of Americans' concern over the war in Iraq. Gregory ignored the most recent polling on the subject -- a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll -- which found that 43 percent of Americans trust Democrats to do "a better job of handling taxes" than the president. In that poll, only 34 percent said the president would do a better job. And regarding "tough anti-terror" measures, polls indicate that American approval of the president on terrorism is decidedly more mixed than Gregory's statement suggested.
On the March 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically reported a claim by "Republican leaders'" that the "president's strengths, like tax cuts or tough anti-terror measures, have been overlooked" because of Americans' concern over the war in Iraq. In repeating Republican assertions that the issue of taxes is one of the "president's strengths," Gregory ignored the most recent polling on the subject -- a January 22-25 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll that, as Media Matters for America has noted, found that a plurality of Americans (43 percent) trust Democrats to do "a better job of handling taxes" than the president. In that poll, only 34 percent said the president would do a better job. And regarding "tough anti-terror" measures, polls indicate that American approval of the president on terrorism is decidedly more mixed than Gregory's statement suggested.
As Media Matters has previously documented (here and here), other media figures have baselessly asserted that the public trusts Republicans over Democrats on the issue of taxes. In addition to the polls Media Matters cited at the time, a March 10-13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that more Americans think Democrats (35 percent), rather than Republicans (26 percent), will do a good job "dealing with taxes."
Gregory also uncritically accepted the idea that the president continues to enjoy support for his "tough anti-terror measures." However, even that support is mixed. President Bush's approval rating on the issue of terrorism, which at the time of the 2004 election was at 60 percent (Gallup, 11/7-10/2004), now has Americans divided: A February 28-March 1 Gallup poll found that 47 percent of respondents approve of the president's performance on terrorism and 49 percent disapprove; a March 2-5 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 52 percent approve and 46 percent disapprove; and a March 9-12 CBS News poll found that 45 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. While the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) does not appear to ask respondents if they approve of Bush's handling of the issue of terrorism, it does, however, find public support for the USA Patriot Act and majority support (52 percent to 46 percent) for the president's action in "using wiretaps to listen to telephone calls between suspected terrorists in other countries and American citizens in the United States without getting a court order to do so." Media Matters, however, has noted that other polls -- ones that more clearly separate public opinion of spying on suspected terrorists from opinion on the means through which the Bush administration has conducted the eavesdropping -- show that a similar majority do not support the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. For example, a February 22-26 CBS News poll asked respondents: "Regardless of whether you approve of the President authorizing the wiretaps, do you think the President has the legal authority to authorize wiretaps without a court warrant in order to fight terrorism, or doesn't he?" Fifty-one percent said the president does not have the legal authority to do so.
From the March 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, with anchor Brian Williams, NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss, Republican pollster Bill McInturff, and Gregory:
GREGORY: Well, they're [the White House] clearly shaken, as you might understand, politically, by the president's eroding support in the country, Brian. And yet, I think what we've reported on in the last few minutes underscores the point that for now at least the president is sticking to his guns, militarily and philosophically. They may be worried about losing time here, but for now, as one adviser said, the president wants to keep chipping away at the issues that are creating so much opposition.
At his lowest level yet in the polls, the president is left to wonder, which way is up? Iraq, says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, has enveloped the Bush presidency.
McINTURFF: And no matter what the president says, if events on the ground don't match what he hopes to have happen, he's -- you know, these numbers about Iraq will continue to get softer or worse.
GREGORY: Republican leaders have said they're worried that the president's strengths, like tax cuts or tough anti-terror measures, have been overlooked. White House aides admit that a month-long effort to sell ideas from the State of the Union address has been lost to bad news.
BESCHLOSS: What history suggests, and you look at Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson with Korea and Vietnam, is that when a president has an unpopular war, until people feel better about it, they're not going to listen to him.
The headline of this thread reads "..........Americans prefer President on taxes". Gregory actually says "tax cuts".
Historically the Democrats, and many of their supporters here, want nothing to do with tax cuts so why would the public support them on that issue? The current Republicans are spending like there is no tomorrow, and that can't be denied. The difference is the Republicans are borrowing and spending, and the Democrats tax and spend.......neither is economically sound.
While I am no supporter of this administration's spending spree, however when it comes to Democrats they have never met a tax they didn't like and that means watch your wallet!
The solution lies in divided government. Spending should be a battle between Congress and the Whitehouse. Right now, it is too cooperative. Taxes cuts/increases should also be hard fought lest we change the rates too frequently in either direction.
When one party is in control, the country loses. I have decided to vote straight ticket Democrat in the next election for the first time in my life. We currently have too many Republicans for the good of the country.
If the Democrats take over the Presidency, we should vote Republicans into Congress. One party rule is a complete failure.
You and I have always agreed that divided government works best - or maybe it's because it works least. Although when I vote I don't really consider that as I vote for the candidate I feel would reprensent us the best..........but if it splits the branches and gives us better checks and balances, all the better.
From 1994 to 2000, Clinton was President, and the Republicans controlled Congress. This resulted in a Record Budget Surplus, and also a War with ZERO USA casualties. George W. didn't take long to change this.
By all means, let's keep our eyes on our wallets and cut every tax we can.
By keeping our eyes on our wallets, we won't have to see the world passing us in the areas of :
- education
- efficient, reliable and affordable public transportation systems
- alternative energy research and development
- managing natural resources
- health care
- elder care
- international relations
... the list goes on ...
By all means!
Why is that when anyone advocates cutting taxes, the leftist liberals come back with the same red herring........"Oh my God, you don't want public transportation and you want all basic services slashed completely". Get a new tag line, please.
It is funny though, that your list doesn't include all the tons of pork projects each elected official wants to bring home??? Why is that?
... re-read my post, then re-read your response and then tell me you didn't do what you always do: distort what was said and then completely avoid the point(s) made.
Go ahead.
If you do that honestly, you'll see that my point is that in societal issues as in science, nothing is more true than TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
We have fallen behind many other countries in the areas I mentioned because we refuse to part with the money it takes to be "World Class."
If you deny this, you, and those who share your beliefs should not be surprised to find yourselves falling over a cliff while staring into your wallets.
Tommy, "Taxes are the price of civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Let's put it this way, no taxes, no military. We can discuss what, who, and how taxes should be done. But we kid ourselves to think that we don't benefit from taxation.
The country had this debate during the time of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was, arguably, created to answer this. So even the Founding Fathers understood that the Federal Government requires the right to tax. Otherwise, we are a loose confederation of states, not a country. Also, you get a bunch of pissed of citizens you have to shoot because you want to tax whiskey.
I was just in Peru and Chile last January. A tale of two worlds really. Peru is dirt poor. They have little internal investment, taxation, going to the public good. It is a sad sad place but for the beautiful people there. Chile has reached a middle ground. Socialist in a new, freer economic, sense. It is a beautiful modern country that is stable and democratic.
didn't include all those "pork projects" because he doesn't think they're worth spending the money on. and it's the republican party that has been ladling pork by the barrelful. these people are spending like drunken sailors and admiral bush refuses to stop them.
How is it anyone who remembers history knew that the Bush tax cuts would cause a huge defecit? Because we remember it from the first time it was done in the 80's and at that time it was called voodoo economics.
This was a predictable result as economist Paul Krugman wrote when the first tax cuts went through. As he said at the time anyone who crunches the numbers will come up with the same answer. Defecits.
I've posted these before, and you haven't replied; I'll try again:
Here are the figures for discretionary spending at the end of each presidential term from 1980. They are given as a percentage of the GDP - basically, as a percentage of the economy, so we can account for inflation, population growth, etc.
Remember, this is discretionary spending, which the president and congress can control; it doesn't include entitlements or interest on the debt.
Source: The Congressional Budget Office
Discretionary Outlays, 1962 to 2005 (as a Percentage of gross domestic product)
End of Carter's term 1980: 10.1%
End of Reagan's first term 1984: 9.9%
End of Reagan's second term 1988: 9.3%
End of Bush's first term 1992: 8.6%
End of Clinton's first term 1996: 6.9%
End of Clinton's second term 2000: 6.3% (Lowest since 1962!)
End of Bush's first term 2004: 7.8%
Today 2005: 7.9%
Changes in discretionary spending:
Reagan: -0.8%
Bush I: -0.7%
Clinton: -2.3% (!)
Bush II: +1.6% (!!)
Democrats DO NOT spend more than Republicans - they CUT spending more than Republicans. That's a fact.
You are simply wrong. JFK was a Democrat. He was for tax cuts. In fact, many Republicans cite JFK as a model on this issue. But of course JFK is not the only Democrat to favor cutting taxes. If I am not mistaken, the most stimulative part of the Bush II tax cuts was added at the insistence of Democrats.
And this GOP idea that cutting taxes leads to increased revenues is just nutty. This recent, very thorough article ("Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves") debunks that notion: cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
But which is worse: taxing and spending or borrowing and spending? Republicans have proven that they can't resist wasteful spending any more than Democrats. They've had 12 years to break the habit and haven't done it yet. In fact, since Bush came into power, it's gotten worse. As for those wonderful tax cuts, do you think the average person has really benefitted from them? There's no proof that they've helped the economy, and local governments are just raising their own taxes to make up for what they've lost from the Feds. So, really, who's been helped, other than the super rich, who wouldn't miss the money anyway?
Let me tell you that I think low taxes and restrained and smart spending is the answer..........we are all burdened enough with one tax after another. If some people feel differently then they are more than welcome to send any extra money they feel the government is entitled to directly to the IRS.
Personally, I'd like to see a checklist on our IRS forms. That way, we can check the programs we'd like our money to fund. The cons can neglect to check funding for the peoplem in America with the most need, and we can refuse to fund the military-industrial complex. Without the funding, our war machine couldn't go on unnecessary adventures.
That would be a wonderful idea. Whatta novel idea actually getting to choose where our money goes. Love it.
Ted Stevens should be shown the door. That would be a good start.
The real issue is not Democrats will increase taxes vs. Bush will keep the tax cuts in perpetuity but the tax structure being adjusted so rich people pay AT LEAST the same percentage of their income in total taxes (FICA and Federal Income Tax) as middle class workers. Right now, with this ridiculous 15% onto infinity bracket for passive income (capital gains and dividends) the idle rich pay 15% total taxes (just income tax, no FICA) whereas poor old Joe Blow America working his keyster off for $50,000 a year is paying 20% income tax (after applicable deductions and such) plus another 6.45% in FICA tax for a grand total of 26.45%. What is so wrong with PHASING OUT these preferential brackets for the ultra-wealthy? They ought to be paying a minimum of what the middle class do in total taxes, not just income taxes, which, as it stands now, they don't. We don't need a flat tax. We need to prune these moronic welfare-for-the-wealthy tax preferences. When you give a rich person more money they don't spend it and stimulate the economy. They put in the treasure vault with the rest. That's what being rich means: you have more money than you really need. It's a diminishing utility issue. Common sense dictates that you don't give a well-fed obese pig of a man a bowl of soup. You give it to the thin hungry man. Why doesn't this seem to apply when redistributing wealth, which is what we are talking about?
Why is handing money upward to the rich a tax break or an economic stimulus package while downward to the poor is dubbed welfare? It's either ALL tax breaks or an economic stimulus packages or ALL welfare.
Still looking for consistency from the powerbrokers running the show. I haven't found it yet.
When "rich people" put their money in "the vault", it doesn't just sit in a room somewhere. It is taken by the bank to handle loans, or investments. Normally, "rich people" don't have stacks of dollars and coins sitting around their mansions. They are in investments, etc. So while it appears they are doing nothing, the economy is being stimulated. Sorry to interrupt. Back to your discussion.
But the notion that rich people won't invest their money if they have to pay taxes on the returns is absurd. Rich people like to make money; they always have and always will. If they are taxed on the returns, what will they do, bury it in a jar instead? Of course not. Poor and middle class people do their share to stimulate the economy, as well. Who do you think buys all those products made by the companies in which rich people are invested?
I was simply stating the fact that money made by rich people does not just sit in a "treasure vault". It is active in the markets, etc. Without "rich people" investing their money, it would be tough for banks to just start handing out home loans and small business loans. I'm not saying this is the best tax system, just that "rich people" get harped on so much, when they actually do help the poor by investing. Without them, I would never own a home. Unless the sweepstakes comes up 4-12-16-18-27 (14). Now I could really help the economy with that!
Rich people do their part to help the economy, but so does everyone else. The idea that rich people deserve special treatment beyond the lavish lifestyle to which their wealth entitles them is usupported by logic. Rich people do more individually than middle class or poor people, but they also get more in return. If I were making 20 million a year, I would happily pay half of it in taxes for the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world, which enabled me to get rich in the first place. And, guess what...I could still live like a king and buy anything I need or want. What a concept!
Greed is a terrible thing sometimes. On the other hand, they earned it. Tough line to walk. Sense of entitlement versus sense of greed. Nothing that will be solved here.
But could they have earned as much if they lived in Bolivia, or Greece, or Haiti? Probably not. So, in all fairness, they owe some of it back to support the infrastructure and society that enabled them to get rich in the first place. They can pay a fair tax burden and still enjoy the fruits of their good fortune and hard work. I know that's difficult for people with the "It's MY money" mindset, but living in a civilized society requires a little compromise from all involved. Otherwise, we devolve into feudalism.
I love the hard work Paris Hilton did to earn her riches fighting her way to the front of the line in the genetic lottery
How does a rich person investing in the various markets stimulate economic growth? Sure, it stimulates HIS economic growth, but adds little to the bottom line of corporate America, which makes its money through use of goods and services by customers not increases in market values of stocks and bonds. Check the average retailer's income statement and you'll find nominal gains from investments in the securities of other companies or the government. Their “meat and potatoes” is consumption. Rich people aren't stimulated into buying more goods and services when you give them more money. They're stimulated into rolling it over into more passive sources of income, which, again, has a cursory affect on economic wellness as a whole.
included in my concept of "markets" is buying and selling of corporate entities in part or whole. This produces nothing but a profit for the wealthy entrepreneur. Tangible consumption drives the economy not PASSSIVE investment stratagems.
I've never understood why money earned from investment is somehow more sacred than money earned by labor. I guess part of the problem is that the people making the rules are generally wealthy themselves, so why not stack the deck in their own favor? I'd love to see a spread sheet detailing how much money Puddinhead George and his cabinet members have accumulated as a direct result of his tax policies. My guess is that it would be an unflattering example of self-enrichment. What's sad is that Joe Red-State living in a trailer park still supports this gang of thieves and liars.
The Ultra-Rich complain that they pay too much tax, 15% on Investment Income, while the working people have their wages limited, and pay a higher % of Taxes than the Ultra-Rich. Wake up America, vote the Neocons out. Bring back the Fairer Tax rates under Clinton, which resulted in a Record Budget Surplus, and higher employment with GOOD Jobs.
I forgot to add the Record Stock Market during the Clinton Administration, with Fairer Tax Rates.
This is what I would propose in order to achieve this;
Repeal the Medicare drug entitlement - it's a big bloated entitlement program, pass a line-item veto fast, pass a balanced budget amendment forcing politicians to live within their means, means-test social security benefits, move retirement age to 72 (and have it regularly extended as life-spans lengthen), get rid of agricultural subsidies, end corporate welfare, legalize marijuana, tax it, eliminate all tax loopholes and deductions, including the mortgage deduction, but keep the charitable deduction however.
Also, get rid of the NEA and the Education Department.
Do these things would bring spending more in line and cut taxes for everybody - Republican or Democrat, rich or poor.
No line item veto, that gives the President too much power to change spending priorities to suit HIS agenda when budgetary priorities were clearly given to Congress by the Constitution. Tax income made by money at least at the same rate as income made on labor. Every bit of wealth created in a society is done so by labor not one bit is created by buying and selling. End corporate wellfare and tax subsidies for sending our companies overseas. End the tax loophole that allows corporations to set up a mail box in the Grand Caymans and say they are not an American company so they get out of taxes. I would reinstate the Estate tax, as soon as possible pay down the debt as the interest we pay is a substantial burden and I would end the Federal reserve. The money we borrow from now on I would not pay interest on. I would end the Iraq war immediatly as that drain is a waste of all possible resources, financial, moral, and in the terms of lives.
Solon for President! You could even drive your own "whistlestop" train tour.
You be the judge:
[link to time.blogs.com]
But my back-of-the-envelope wish-list is that I'd repeal the Medicare drug entitlement, abolish ear-marks, institute a line-item veto, pass a balanced budget amendment, means-test social security benefits, index them to prices rather than wages, extend the retirement age to 72 (and have it regularly extended as life-spans lengthen), abolish agricultural subsidies, end corporate welfare, legalize marijuana and tax it, and eliminate all tax loopholes and deductions, including the mortgage deduction, (I'd keep the charitable deduction). For good measure, I'd get rid of the NEA and the Education Department.
Gee, sound familiar...
Great catch! Tommy was caught doing this before (I believe by BillMN), but like a fool, I took his apology about that incident to mean something.
I am deeply disappointed in Tommy's plagiarism. He simply needs to cite his sources even when he agrees 100% with the source. It is simply dishonest to put something up and not attribute it properly.
Seriously. Doesn't he seem very much like a professional troll? He loves to set up a conservative vs. liberal argument that just barely relates to the purpose of this site (conservative media misinformation, hate, and spin) and the topic of a given thread -- only his conception of "liberalism" is a very simplistic, crude, bumper-sticker parody (circa 1980) of the real thing.
Wow! Good catch! When I was in school lots of slower kids copied off my papers. I didn't mind so much as I was shy and it endeared me to some popular kids. Tommy is a little slow as well. It's too bad that he's taken the same tack.
I give Gregory a break on this one. He is no right wing spinner.
I saw Gregory on last Sunday's The Chris Matthews Show (which is a much better show than Hardball if this progrram was typical) where he indicated he did not think Bush took us "recklessly" to war. Andrew Sullivan, expressing what I think is fast becoming the consensus opinion, disagreed.
Thanks for turning this discussion back to what it should be. We can sit here and debate tax policy all day long, but this thread should be about whether or not Gregory was spinning the news in a Conservative direction.
I don't think Gregory was trying to sell the public on the idea that these are Bush's strengths. I think he was merely reporting that Republicans typically see these (tax cuts and anti-terrorism) as his strengths but that lately these ideas (not facts) are being eroded (overlooked) by those same Republicans because of all his other recent failures, especially the recent decidedly downward turn of events in the Iraq war. Ask any Republican who still supports or once supported GWB what they think or thought were his strengths and they will say tax cuts and anti-terrorism. Doesn't mean Gregory agrees and is purposely ignoring recent polls in order to shift our view of the Pres. and his policies. I think he was actually acknowledging the polls without saying as much.