Matthews mischaracterized polls showing people trust Democrats on taxes and claimed "nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting"
SUMMARY: Continuing to mischaracterize polls showing that the public prefers Democrats over Republicans on handling taxes, Chris Matthews acknowledged that "the latest polling shows that people trust Democrats more" on taxes, but still stated that the polls referred to "tax cutting" and suggested that the results were surprising because "nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting." In fact, the polls asked more broadly about tax policy, not merely "tax cutting," and contrary to Matthews's suggestion that Democrats do not cut taxes, numerous Democrats have enacted or proposed tax cuts in recent years.
While MSNBC host Chris Matthews did not repeat his prior false claim that "people trust Republicans more than Democrats on tax cutting" -- which he stated on the March 13 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews -- he nonetheless continued to mischaracterize polls showing that the public prefers Democrats over Republicans on handling taxes. On the March 28 edition of Hardball, Matthews acknowledged that "the latest polling shows that people trust Democrats more" on taxes, but he still stated that the polls referred to "tax cutting" and suggested that the results were surprising because "nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting." In fact, the polls asked more broadly about tax policy, not merely "tax cutting," and contrary to Matthews's suggestion that Democrats do not cut taxes, numerous Democrats have enacted or proposed tax cuts in recent years.
Three recent polls that have asked respondents which party they believe would "do a better job" handling taxes found that the Democrats garnered the most support; and none contained questions presuming that "tax cutting" was the favorable way to handle tax policy. A February 7-8 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll (with a margin of error of +/-3 percent) found that 43 percent of voters believe that Democrats "would do a better job" on the issue of "taxes," compared with 38 percent who think Republicans would do better. In a February 1-5 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 46 percent of respondents said the Democrats "can do a better job" on "taxes," compared with 35 percent who chose Republicans. The margin of error was +/-3 percent. And a January 22-25 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll with a +/-3-percent margin of error found that 43 percent of Americans believe Democrats would do "a better job of handling taxes" than the president, while 34 percent favored President Bush.
Further, contrary to Matthews's statement that "nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting," many Democrats have enacted or proposed tax cuts recently. For example, during his run for president, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) proposed making middle class tax cuts permanent, advocated for an education tax credit, a 5-percent reduction in corporate tax rates, and tax credits for health insurance, among others. Other recent examples, according to a February 20 Associated Press article, include Gov. Brad Henry's (D-OK) proposal to cut taxes on retirees, Gov. Bill Richardson's (D-NM) proposed income tax cuts, and Gov. Janet Napolitano's (D-AZ) proposal for $100 million in tax cuts for various programs. A 2003 tax plan proposed by Senate Democrats would have given middle-income taxpayers an average tax cut of $542. In 1996, former President Bill Clinton proposed a budget with "about $100 billion in tax cuts for the middle class" according to a March 20, 1996, New York Times article (subscription required). Clinton's budget included a tuition tax deduction of up to $5,000 per family. In 1997, Clinton also signed The Taxpayer Relief Act, a bill cutting taxes by $152 billion, including a $500-per-child tax credit, a cut in the capital gains tax, and additional tax incentives for education.
From the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, which included former Clinton administration Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan:
MATTHEWS: Why do you think the president, who has got a -- not a terrible economy, in fact, better than it was -- gets no credit for it in the polling? The Democrats -- do you know that the latest polling shows that people trust Democrats more on tax cutting?
SLATER: Oh, I know, I know.
MATTHEWS: And nobody has ever accused the Democrats of tax cutting.
BUCHANAN: They're going to be fooled on that one.
SLATER: Let me just say: We'll take that. Fiscal discipline. We'll take that.
MATTHEWS: Your party is getting credit for something it's not known to do too often, cut taxes.
"Three recent polls that have asked respondents which party they believe would "do a better job" handling taxes found that the Democrats garnered the most support; and none contained questions presuming that "tax cutting" was the favorable way to handle tax policy."
Yeah, Chris I am sorry that your idea of tax policy is only to cut taxes to the rich, like yourself, but most people know there is a little more to it than that. If it was just as simple as cutting taxes to the rich why do we have the biggest defecit in the history of our country?
you do know that we have record revenues far surpassing projections.
The problem is the spending.
That's why the deficit is up, although it has fallen and is projected to fall further thanks to the tax cuts which have proven to be brilliant in getting the economy stimulated again and job creation going in the right direction again.
If CBO’s new revenue estimate of $2.14 trillion proves correct, total revenues in 2005 will still be considerably lower than Congressional Budget Office and Office of Managemetn and Budget predicted in early 2002. If CBO’s 2005 revenue estimate is correct and revenues run $85 billion higher than CBO predicted this March, revenues this year will still be $89 billion lower than the level of 2005 revenues that CBO projected in January 2002. Not only have the tax cuts failed to pay for themselves, but revenues continue to come in well below prior expectations.
CBO and the Joint Tax Committee project that the tax cuts will generate little, if any, additional revenues through stronger economic growth and that the overall budgetary effect of the tax cuts thus will be one of large revenue losses.
more illumination here: [link to www.cbpp.org]
just lie and lie and lie.
Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?
Diogenes is on 'guy-patrol'!
But somebody has to do it.
I'm dedicating myself to stamping out stupidity here at MMfA.
Guy=Stupidity
Guy would argue with a signpost.
I've learned the hard way (and I'm not moralizing here)... but, directly attacking other posters throws you right under the microscope -- there's obviously history there I'm not aware of. It is a bit comical, none-the-less (keeps it interesting).
Peet-I just got tired of Guy screaming Troll or Con at anyone who didn't agree with him. He's even attacked his fellow libs if they deviated from whatever Guy determined should be the pat Democratic response. Ordinarily I'd find that hysterically funny, being a staunch Republican and all, but he's so damn unreasonable about it I even found it annoying. Guy rarely adds anything substantial to the debate, he seems to prefer hurling insults. So I figured I'd hurl a few back. All in good fun of course.
And since you don't like screaming, let me whisper that you're clearly a troll and clearly a con. I, too, find your postings humorous.
Why don't I quote Newsmax. The enemies of the tax cuts are getting kicked in the junk on a daily basis.
"The debate leading into the 2003 tax cut was dominated by how much revenue the government would “lose.” However, in each of the three fiscal years since the tax cut was implemented, revenue has exceeded the 2003 forecasts made by the Congressional Budget Office, and the difference is growing larger every year. CBO revenue forecasts are often cited by those seeking to undermine tax cuts. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that their predictions are unreliable." [link to www.atr.org]
The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year, from $412 billion in 2004, as a surge of unanticipated tax receipts pushes the red ink significantly below levels projected just five months ago, White House officials said yesterday.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
While the naysayers will continue to dispute the obvious, the taxcuts have increased growth and revenues increased beyond budget predictions despite the federal reserve's relentless assault on raising interest rates to slow the economy down.
Trickle Down Economics is a MYTH; Unless you are Ulta-Rich.
When Clinton reduced the Tax Cuts for the Rich after his Election io 2000, the following occured:
Low Unemployment with Good Paying Jobs, Record Budget Surplus along with a Record Stock Market, and a surplus in the Social Security Fund.
Since George W. took over, he reinstituted the Tax Cuts for the Rich, and noe there is a Record Budget deficit, not including the Costs of the Iraq War, Social Security is bankrupt, Wages for working people have declined, and the jobs increase after a recession is the worst since another "Great" Republican President, Herbert Hoover.
So much for trickle down Economics, another Righty Myth.
Should have read "after his Election in 1992"
also: Typo "now"
is the "Spending Going"? With all the reductions in the Neocon Economy, why is there a Record Deficit?
See: Corporate Welfare
that are increasing at twice the rate of inflation. There are a lot of places government could cut spending, starting with "earmarks" (fka "Pork"). I've got a mutli-page print out of possible cuts/revenue enhancements. Ask yourself the following questions to start as an example of possible inefficiencies, 1) "Why are there more employees in the Dept of Agriculture than there are farmers?" 2) "Why does the DOE have more vehicles than employees?" 3) "Why does the Government own almost 3/4 million vehicles outside of tactical (military) and USPS needs?" 4) "Why are we paying farm subsidies to farms grossing more than $1 million per year? The list of questions could be almost endless.
Why is the US Government paying Billions to Big Oil when their profits are greater than the total GNP of some World Countries?
Where's the nine billion we lost in Iraq?
Where's the nine billion we lost in Iraq? By lost, I mean just disappeared. You're pickin at nits, wit.
Reveal that, of course, everybody likes a tax cut.
They ALSO reveal that a majority of Americans understand that taxes are necessary, and don't mind paying taxes for specified GOALS.
Americans don't mind TAX HIKES if it will:
* Keep the deficit under control.
* Pay down national debt.
* Fund Social Security and Medicare.
* Pay for WAR.
* Be "FAIR", not favoring one quintile at the expense of all the others.
The notion that tax CUTS is the only valid policy to pursue is simply WRONG. It has no support, except in the abstract without any details.
Americans asked, Do you wish for a tax cut if it means cutting back on Medicare services? ... they answer a resounding NO.
The Rightwing "PLAN", of course, is to CUT TAXES, and simply curtail services, all the ones the American People say they are willing to be taxed to cover.
The one quintile that doesn't care about curtailed services, because they don't NEED them, is the top quintile, the rich. They want their tax cuts, and to HELL with the poor, the ill, the elderly, or anybody else. They don't even wish to support our SOLDIERS, preferring to get their tax cuts, and putting WAR expenses on the national credit card to be paid later by somebody else.
(surprised, Tex?), but as I have noted in times past, no matter the tax rates, no matter the revenues, with very few exceptions, government has always outspent revenues. Fiscal discipline does not exist in government presently and has not, (repeat, with very few exceptions) since the advent of the income tax.
maybe it is time for me to take a vacation, I also agree.
Even if the tax cuts I agree with are raising record revenues, the government will outspend it somehow.
Tax Cuts and Vacation; are you related to George W.?
left Office with a Record Budget Surplus, and a fair Tax system.
- Keep the deficit under control and pay down the national debt - tex
Very worthwhile goals but a little simplistic. It's like saying my goal this year is to lose weight...worthless unless you have a specific plan.
Fund social security and medicare - tex
Nothing new here. It's the law. We need reform and not hot air and cowardice from our elected officials to keep them solvent.
- Be "FAIR", not favoring one quintile at the expense of all the others. - tex
Looking at income taxes...the top 1% already pay over one third of the total. Yes, I realize that there are other tax consequences than income tax. What would accomplish your goal? Flat tax? VAT?
- The notion that tax CUTS is the only valid policy to pursue is simply WRONG - tex
Agreed. The other side of the coin is to control spending. Entitlement spending is out of control and needs reform. Discretionary spending has run amok.
In a general sense, I feel that controlling our spending is most critical today. I don't support higher taxes. Moderate cuts or no cuts would suit me just fine if we could get spending under control. We should sunset programs and review the results before automatically extending the spending.
I certainly am no economist...but many of them believe that we can make great strides in reducing the deficit by reducing the rate of growth specified in many programs...a little belt tightening...not draconian cuts.
While on the surface, I mostly agree with your post, I do think you need a few more potatoes in your thin soup to make it nutrional.
Looking at trying to have World Peace, and reducing the need for the MASSIVE USA Defense Budget? Kennedy was assisinated for threatening to pull out of Vietnam in 1965, and the rest is History.
...assassinated.....Wish I had taken Typing in High School........
Clinton ladeled the "soup" for eight years. He showed how it is done, with specifics galore.
I fear you still cling to the myth that "Democrats have no ideas". Once you recognize that history provides you with a wealth of "Democrat Ideas", you might abandon that weak and false talking point, and start trying to operate in your best interest instead of parroting the rightwing line of propaganda.
History is for lessons learned...today is for ideas and action. Anyone can blather about the good old days. Anyone can blather about their new goal of losing weight...but without a plan of action...the rhetoric is meaningless.
I would very much like to see a spirited debate between all parties about the here and now and the principles that guide each party...not a rehash of days gone by.
Sorry to have disturbed your pleasant reverie.
about the Past. Since the last 5 years have been a Disaster for the Republicans, let's just forget about it and start over. Get Real Righty!
The Bush Administration, of which you are a reliable defender, does not recognize history, or lessons learned.
IDEAS and ACTION is a plan that can be followed by an ameoba (Idea: Eat. Action: find food), or even a rapist. It's a great "catch line" for you, but does not help advance any discussion, it just SOUNDS sage.
Bush says 9/11 "changed everything". What this means is that he doesn't feel restrained by anything that has gone on before. He cannot be criticized on the basis of the lessons of history, because "everything" has changed. He is reduced to ameoba status (Idea: dominate and control. Action: WAR.)
Liberal Ideas and Action are so much part of American society, they are considered "old news" ... and thus the rightwing feel they can be discounted as of no importance. This is an error the American People will ultimately not tolerate.
For example:
Liberal Idea: CARE for the elderly. Liberal action: Social security.
Liberal Idea: CARE for those who need medical attention, even if they don't have enough cash. Liberal Action: Medicare, Medicaid.
Liberal Idea: Preserve Capitalism. Liberal Action: Anti-Trust Law.
Liberal Idea: End systemic discrimination against minorities, promote Equal Treatment under Law. Liberal Action: Affirmative Action.
There are HUNDREDS of such IDEA/ACTION connections IN OUR LAW TODAY. To suggest that Liberals have no ideas is to admit ignorance taken to an art form. Such a claim has ZERO credibility.
Let's say you are a cop. Let's say your Chief has set up a big BUST at a residence, and the Chief has insisted the team goes in HOT. The Chief says there are arms on the premises, and has connections to local gangs. You hit the residence, killing half the people in the house, only to find out there ARE no arms and no gang connections. The house was the WRONG house, there was NO threat.
The chief defensively turns to you, and asks, "What is YOUR idea to solve this problem?" The only idea that makes any sense is to own up to the mistakes, own up to WHO made the decisions and based on WHAT, and hold the responsible accountable.
Yet, the Rightwing reject this idea, as it applies to Bush and Iraq. "Don't dwell in the past", they say. "Don't look to BLAME, look to the future," they say. Bottom line: No future is possible until the errors of the past are owned up to and corrected by removing the offending parties.
In truth, our entire judicial system is based on retroactive response. If we followed the rightwing's advice here, and ONLY looked to the future, there would be no trials and no prisons. All wrongdoing would be excused. This is how foolish the clarion calls that we should just "move on".
Ideas? Return to sanity. Follow the LAW. Engage checks and balances. Adhere to the Constitution. INVESTIGATE when allegations have basis in known facts. Without employing THESE ideas ... and FIRST ... there is really no point in planning for a future for a free and democratic America. There won't BE one.
A Tax Policy like Clinton's in 1992 will bring America back to where it was in 2000.
tweety has become irrelevant. i bet his numbers continue to go down as keith's go up. the only time i watch tweety is when i tune msnbc just befire keith comes on. i love it when he introduces keith. otherwise he is just an asshole with a microphone.
I semi-agree with Mathews (GOP whore). The Dems do not have a very good record when it comes to lowering taxes... his last comment is basically true.
However, the undercurrent of this entire conversation above with Math, Buch, et al... is that they're talking to their base (rich folk). True... if dems are elected, the rich folks taxes will go up. No doubt. But, you know? Too bad. You play, you got to pay. Lord knows, the rest of us sure are... and with more than just money (jobs, lives, freedom, law). Come on.
Not to mention...if we're talking about 'credit' -- Mathews word -- the GOP is STILL getting 'credit' for fiscal responsibility -- a neocon lie -- but these guys keep riding it and riding it... and you hear people still using it as a retort many times.
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. And if the GOP keeps control of things we, except for the top 10%, will all be beggars and wishing for better days.
Why do they say that he's left wing, when he constantly twists things against those on the left of the political spectrum.
Oscar the Grouch:
"Fiscal discipline does not exist in government presently and has not, (repeat, with very few exceptions) since the advent of the income tax."
What were those exceptions, Oscar? Come on, you can say it: during the (gasp) Clinton administration. Why did fiscal discipline go out the window when your guys took power? I know, it's the War on Terra.
Leatherhelmet:
"Even if the tax cuts I agree with are raising record revenues, the government will outspend it somehow."
Somehow? This ain't rocket science or magic, Leatherhelmet. Your guys have gone on a spending spree that has (so far) cost every American (man, woman, and child) $30,000. This is what your bankrupt ideology has brought us.
Democrats may be "tax and spend," but Republicans are "borrow and spend." Read "The Crisis, Number One" by Thomas Paine, and realize how our Founding Fathers felt about those who would pass on our generation's responsibilities to the next.
The neocons are borrow and spend. In Norway, each child is born into a $45,000 per capita surplus. In America, each child is born into $32,000 per capita of debt.
Ok, I will say Clinton, although there were a couple of other instances in the LBJ years. As a percentage of GDP, national debt has gone up continually except for a couple of years following the accounting trick during the LBJ years of rolling SS funds into the general budget (in part to "hide" the cost of Vietnam) and during the second Clinton Administration. It would have been great if the economy could have continued to "fly" along as it did in the late 90's , but historically there have always been ups and downs, fortunately for us, none as great as the 30's (but it could happen again). There may be a couple of isolated cases besides, but that aside, government has spent and continues to spend more than it takes in, no matter who is in power, no matter tax revenues/rates, no matter world conditions. Government has expanded programs, goverment has added programs, elected officials have doled out federal $$ in order to stay in power. Take the cost of Iraq (as gross as it is) out of the equation, and the Federal budget is still not balanced. Increase all tax rates by 5 percentage points (including those now at 0), and the Federal budget is still not balanced. Unless spending limits enforced &/or programs cut (or eliminated), the next generation is in for a great shock, standard of living as we know it will be gone, economies will collapse (a collapse of the US economy would cause problems throughout the world).
Bush and Reagan are/were fiscally irresponsible.
Clinton ran a SURPLUS.
Bush and Reagan greatly increased SIZE of government.
Clinton made government smaller.
Bush accused Clinton of dismantling our armies.
Bush has fought two wars with those same armies, and they have performed brilliantly (although the war PLANNING was far from brilliant).
The conclusion that cannot be escaped: As far as "conservative principles", Clinton delievered, and Bush/Reagan were pitiful failures.
Still, these folks support and defend Bush while excoriating Clinton at every opportunity. What explains this tendency to "vote" against one's own best interests? Partisanship gone astray (and uninformed)? Or maybe masochism? I opt for stubborn self-destructive ideology as the answer.
Can you say, "surplus?" Good. I knew that you could.
Your reluctance to acknowledge that the Clinton administration--with the help of a Republican Congres--actually spent LESS than they took in, is very telling. That is the only way a surplus can be produced. You and other conservatives prefer to portray that surplus as some kind of dumb luck. Policies have consequences, good and bad.
I remember a few years ago, before the 1994 elections, there was a large billboard on the route I drove to work every day. It said something like, "The Democratic Congress has sold out our children's future!" I hated to admit it, but the billboard had a point. I didn't try to excuse the national debt by saying, "Well, if the economy just picked up, the debt would disappear."
Here we are, 12 years later. The surplus is gone, and our debt--really our children's debt--is larger than it's ever been. I hear conservatives every day talk about how well the economy has been doing for years. Are they lying? If so, how can you support that ideology? If not, why hasn't it brought down the debt?
I'm not so sure it's about ideology. I know some intelligent people--some in my own family--who continue to support Bush and the neocons. When I try to respectfully discuss issues with them, they get defensive and just seem to shut down their capacity for logic and reasoning.
I was talking to my brother a few months ago, and I brought up the fact that this is the first time that our government has cut taxes during a war. (I know the War on Terror is a misnomer, and the war in Iraq is an occupation, but supporters of the neocons believe they are genuine wars, so I was just making a point.) My brother just stared at me. I asked him if he thought that was okay, and he said, "Yes, I do."
I got the distinct feeeling that he knew it was wrong, but he felt that if he admitted it, it would be going against "his side." Ask conservatives to name one thing Bush has done wrong, and most of them won't. Ask liberals to name one thing Clinton did wrong, and most of them will name two or three. Is that difference explained by ideology, or psychology?
The rightwing now faces the backlash of their most successful tactic.
The rightwing employ a notion that is informed by our court system. If a witness is "impeached" ... either by word or character ... then they can be dismissed entirely.
Thus, for example, if the rightwing can make the case that Al Gore LIED about Love Canal, then Al Gore is not fit to be president. This is approached from a "scattershot" relentlessness, and everything imaginable is thrown at opponents, in hopes that a single instance will gain traction, and thus disqualify the person from public service.
This tactic has the advantage as being arguably SUCCESSFUL. It's fair to say that, without the Swift Boat Vets, John Kerry would have easily beaten GW Bush.
From this mindset comes a firm conviction: ADMIT NO ERROR, no matter how small. Since the rightwing has polluted the discourse into a "gotcha" attempt to find ONE instance which damns a person for all times, there is a horror that one instance will in turn sink THEIR guys.
Some would say this is "just politics". If there is truth in that statement, then it is also true that it has birthed a phenomena which is unsustainable: The PERFECT MAN. Bush seeks this qualification, by never admitting a mistake. If he were to admit fallibility, then, he believes, he is doomed.
The sad part is, there is no PERFECT MAN. And there doesn't need to be an admission for THE PEOPLE to see and understand that their leader is flawed, but DENIES it.
DENIAL would have worked for Bush, if he had served only one term. Goodwill for the new president, coupled with control of information, preserves the illusion that no mistakes have been made. A second term blows the timeline of avoiding accountability.
General Zinni has released his book, which has blown all Bush's claims to military "support" for his plans out of the water. The military will no longer be convenient scapegoats for Bush's bad decisions. He is done.
Watched General Zinni on Meet The Press. He was adamant that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and he strongly recommended that Rumsfeld be fired.