Juan Williams on public telling pollsters it favors Democrats on taxes: "[T]o me, that's crazy"
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio's Juan Williams acknowledged that "most people are telling pollsters that they trust the Democrats more on taxes than they do the Republicans," but then said, "To me, that's crazy." On The Chris Matthews Show, Chris Matthews again falsely suggested that the issue of taxes favors Republicans, even though recent polling shows otherwise.
On the November 5 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams acknowledged that "most people are telling pollsters that they trust the Democrats more on taxes than they do the Republicans," but then said, "To me, that's crazy," adding: "I'm sort of surprised." On the November 5 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews once again falsely suggested that the issue of taxes favors Republicans, saying that it "is still a great firewall" for the party in its attempts to retain control of Congress on November 7.
As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), polls show that Americans have trusted Democrats more than Republicans on taxes for some time, a finding that is reaffirmed in the most recent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll on the subject, which showed a 46-to-35 percent Democratic advantage on taxes in February and a Democratic advantage of 45-to-30 percent in September.
Williams characterized as "crazy" the fact that "most people are telling pollsters that they trust the Democrats more on taxes than they do the Republicans." As Media Matters noted when Williams and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson previously opined on Fox News programs, then-NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin admonished NPR reporters for going on programs "that are looking to appear fair and balanced" and expressing their opinions rather than simply recounting what their reporting shows. Dvorkin stated that "NPR reporters have an obligation to stay reportorial."
Despite the Democrats' advantage on taxes in polls taken as far back as February, Matthews has repeatedly claimed that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats on taxes, including on the October 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, when he falsely claimed that "Republicans know from the polls they got two strengths right now" -- "terrorism" and "[t]axes" -- "whether the current polls back that up or not." As Media Matters documented, recent polling is mixed on which party respondents prefer to handle the issue of terrorism.
From the November 5 edition of NBC's The Chris Matthews Show:
DAVID GREGORY (NBC News chief White House correspondent): You know the White House is worried about values voters down the stretch here -- that's what the president is talking about. Judges: If you want judges like the ones we've got on the court right now, you've got to stick with Republicans.
MATTHEWS: I know these are powerful messages but, for some reason, an angry public doesn't want to hear that kind of reasoning. They want to know what you're going to do now about your problem areas. I think the war --
GREGORY: Well, we'll see.
KATTY KAY (BBC News Washington correspondent): Which is why even though the economy is doing well, they're still not using that as an issue.
MATTHEWS: We are going to see. I think taxes is still a great firewall.
From the November 5 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WILLIAMS: The last couple weeks, we've seen the Republicans push the tax issue as a potential, you know, saying, "Oh, [House Democratic Leader Nancy] Pelosi [CA], [Rep.] Charlie Rangel [D-NY] -- these people are going to raise your taxes." But look at what the polls show here again. At the moment, most people are telling pollsters that they trust the Democrats more on taxes than they do the Republicans. To me, that's crazy. You know, I mean, I'm sort of surprised. But that's the kind of landscape that we're dealing with at this moment.
* Taxing those who work for a living heavily while cutting the taxes of those whose income comes solely from an interest producing source (ex: Tom Kean, Jr. who pays a whopping 4% on his $200,000/year income).
* Cutting taxes while there is a war. At least those in the Democratic party are now calling for fiscal responcibility while Republicans call Democrats tax and spend, while they continue to do that themselves and run up the deficit.
* Cutting funds from social programs because money needs to be cut somewhere, yet throwing out billions of dollars to the big corporations, especially the oil conglomerates.
* Getting us into an illegal war that is costing us even more money. Then closing down the only person who is acting to at least have some oversight over the spending of contractors gone wild in Iraq.
Anyone want to add more to that? People don't like taxes, but in the long run, the common citizen is smart enough to accept the need for fiscal responisibility over the want for tax cuts. At some point we have to start paying for the Republican spending spree.
I got a call on my answering machine yesterday, reminding me to thank Tom Kean Jr. for cutting my taxes. Last week I got another call on my machine reminding me to call and thank MY REPUBLICAN congressman and senator for all they've done to protect Social Security ( All I can say is WTF). I got a local pamphlet from the town's Republican party saying it's time for a change, vote Republican.
Well, every office holder in town is and has been a Republican for several years now, and my US Congressman and both Senators are members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
The Republicans are playing to what they perceive as a stupid electorate. I happen to remember that the Republicans are ruining my town. I remember that the Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security. And why the hell are they asking me to thank them?
These are indeed scary times.
Yeah, raise taxes in a recession and 9/11.
Put us in a depression.
Good god, that's the dumbest idea I have heard yet.
Taxes shouldn't have been raised, but they shouldn't have been cut for the rich. Clinton found a good balance between revenue generation and economy stimulus. Also, by balancing the budget, he freed up tons of capital that people could use to invest in the economy. Bush squandered all that because his handlers are opposed to taxing the wealthy as a principle. The trickle-down BS he came up to rationalize it was only the public justification.
You have posted many ideas a whole lot dumber than that.
Increasing the debt from $4 trilli0n to $8.5 trillion in 5.5 years. Spending $330 billion on a war whose objectives change with the capriciousness of the wind (obliterating Saddam's WMD/spreading democracy/fighting terror...which is it, Mr. Bush? Pick an objective and stick to it. Stop FLIP FLOPPING.) Capital gains and dividend tax breaks, which in one study were shown to provide just 9 CENTS of economic stimulus per foregone tax dollar, whereas what little stimulus packages were given to state governments provided $1.24 per foregone tax dollar. Not investigating how the Bush administration used intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War (something the electorate should be VERY interested in, and will be once it's made public that OIL - Operation Iraqi Liberation - was based solely on cooked/cherry picked intel).
And the number one dumbest idea: listening to the feeble susurrations of a Republican ideologue who can't see the forest for the trees.
That said, the Republicans will still control everything come Nov. 8, for it is not those who vote that hold the power but those who count the votes, and Diebold, last I checked, is a fully owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Just check their donation patterns.
* Taxing those who work for a living heavily while cutting the taxes of those whose income comes solely from an interest producing source (ex: Tom Kean, Jr. who pays a whopping 4% on his $200,000/year income).
Oh, you mean how Kerry and his wife only paid 12% on her $5.1/year income in 2003???
* Cutting taxes while there is a war. At least those in the Democratic party are now calling for fiscal responcibility while Republicans call Democrats tax and spend, while they continue to do that themselves and run up the deficit.
Last I check the deficit was decreasing and had gone from $412.7 billion to $248 billion. Maybe you meant the debt.
* Getting us into an illegal war that is costing us even more money. Then closing down the only person who is acting to at least have some oversight over the spending of contractors gone wild in Iraq.
The war wasn't illegal. Lying under oath (perjury) is.
have been way up during the reagan and the two bush administrations. where have you been?
the way that they are calculating the debt. For instance borrowing done this year that is not paid on until next year can be considered revenue by their way of thinking. Slippery, huh? Also, it is nice to be able to refuse to speak under oath and therefore be able to lie freely, isn't it?
Taxes, like any other issue ... or any fiscal issue ... spring from certain mindsets, principles, and priorities.
To "TRUST" someone with taxes, the reasoning goes far beyond just a promise of "lower" taxes, EVEN IF THAT IS THE GOAL YOU SEEK.
A great many Americans realize that a certain level of taxes is necessary to live in a nation that they prefer. They realize from a SELFISH point of view, this nation is far better with safety nets for those in need, for example. These people do not resent being taxed, because they are paying for a better nation.
The Republicans take the gutless approach. They claim to be "cutting" taxes, because that is popular (they believe). Then they lavish windfalls on the already very wealthy, and enable wealthy folks and large corporations to consolidate their wealth exponentially. Of course, the price of necessary GOODS ... like gas and health care and defense contracts ... to skyrocket, which BOTH lessens average American's quality of life/takehome pay, and balloons the DEBT of all America.
So, is it CRAZY to believe Democrats may have a better idea? Can we, for instance, live within our means AND have a higher tax rate for our wealthy, like we had when Clinton was in office? Sure we can. Do we HAVE to follow the greedy (and homicidal) formulas of the Republicans? No.
The way Republicans approach tax issues is as an opportunity to loot, a scam, and IRRESPONSIBLY. To support GOP tax plans is CRAZY, nuts, and insane. They have even adopted the behavior of the greasy guy who hangs around schoolyards offering candy to little children; their pitch and their ultimate desire is identical, and transparent.
I agree with you on every point, but to me the big thing is that they're also happy to gut taxes because they literally cannot see the bigger picture.
Because they have enough money to buy what they need through the private sector, they can't see that less fiscally well-off segments of the population might band together -- in, oh, what shall we call it? Let's say, "government" -- to do collectively what they cannot do individually.
They can't see that their taxes pay for streets, police and fire protection, food and water inspection, highway infrastructure, pollution controls, international diplomacy, production standards to make merchandise safer, parking, etc., etc., etc.
They cannot see that their own personal bottom-line profit is a lousy way to judge the success of the rest of society, or even of their own endeavors.
They can't see that giving a little of their money to the common good might make everyone a little better off -- which, besides making the world a more pleasant place to live, also makes for a better customer base more able and inclined to buy their stuff.
They can't see the ultimate big picture, being hastened by big polluters in numerous industries, including the largest: Eventually, being rich or poor, liberal or conservative, white or black or whatever, none of it's going to matter five days after you run out of potable water or five minutes after you run out of breathable air.
They can't see that we're all in this together. And that taxes are the membership fee for civilization.
Repubs have suckered a lot of people into the same "I'm independent" and "I don't need no Government taking care of me" mindset, never mind the fact that the most conservative areas of the country take in more than their share of taxes.
One of my favorite party games is to challenge my conservative co-workers and friends ( working people) to dig up their tax records from 1999 and last year. Then I ask them to compare rates, and to compare their savings and debt from these years.
Pretty cute to see them reconcile their ideas of the huge Dem taxes and the GOP tax slashing.
Repubs have done a pretty good job of creating this image of taxes as some unnecessary theft of income (which it can become, for example, when hundreds of billions are funneled to defense contractors), and getting the average American to forget that we're on a big team, where just about everybody is benefitting from tax-funded programs at one time or another.
I've gotten into a Republican email loop at work, and one of my favorites was a breakdown of the estimated New Orleans/ Katrina reconstruction costs. The email (suposedly from an economics professor at a small college--wink, nudge)divided the total cost into a per-household dollar amount, to the outrage of my co-worker.
I asked him if he would take that amount in exchange for his home being trashed by a natural disaster, and he said, more or less, "Hell yeah".
That was the emotional reaction. I had him take out pen and paper, and as we added up his share of streets, sewers, utilities, schools, police , fire dept., new home, temporary housing... well, he quit and told me I was a commie, basically.
He's still a Republican, but he's quieter.
Apparently Juan doesn't understand the tax game the Republicans are playing. They offer a few nuggets of tax cuts to middle and lower class people in order to entice them to vote for bigger tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Meanwhile tha Republicans cut or hold flat funding for social programs like education and people have to pay more money out of their own pockets to make up for the tax cuts. All the while, the irresponsible tax cuts have increased the national debt and debt burden for every American. Republicans act like the effects of the tax cuts will never have to be repaid through increased taxes later on. Now, Juan, explain to me why you believe the Republicans should be trusted on taxes.
the BUSH ADMINISTRATION posting detailed plans for a NUCLEAR WEAPON on the "INTERNETS".
Saddam didn't have a weapons program.
Media Matters told me so.
Reality should have told you so. That is, if you turned off Fox News for a second and got informed.
No one anywhere said Saddam NEVER in history had a nuclear weapons program. What was relevant was what did he have in 2003 and he didnt have one then. EVERYONE including the people WE sent to find out have told you that. Of course reality has gotten in the way of what you want to beleive why should it now?
This is what passes for presenting the 'liberal' point of view in the corporate media... some perplexed-looking doofus who sides with the Pugs more often than the Dems. Its the corporate dodge for providing any sort of balance on the issues. The conservatives rage, fume, & smear those who resist, while the 'liberals' humbly concede the correctness of the right wing position.
Of course, its a con game.
Williams... like most regulars on the corporate 'pundit' circuit... is well compensated for his nearly ubiquitous appearances. He's a regular on NPR & Faux, as well as a familiar face on nearly all of the other cable propoganda shows. He is likely pulling down well in excess of $1,000,000 a year, placing him comfortably in the rarified air of the top 2 or 3 percent of income earners. The Republican tax policies REWARD him with far more in personal tax SAVINGS than most American's even EARN in a year. Why WOULDN'T he shill for them?
The neocons accuse anyone who points out such fundimental unfairness as 'practicing class warfare', while they wontonly go about ENGAGING in it. Their corporate stranglehold on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES gives them a near MONOPOLY on any such public discussions, allowing them to spew all sorts of counter-intuitive bullsh*t. In the absense of any countering voices from the left, enough of the public can be duped into accepting this crap as a givin. Williams is merely one of their high-priced whores, who cravenly attepts to convince the electorate that they should vote against their own self interests.
Man... if we didn't have the internet, we wouldn't have sh*t.
...appears to violate the NPR Code of Ethics and Pratices. [link to www.npr.org] When will NPR terminate him?
I don't have figures at hand, but I believe polling over the years has consistently shown that most Americans would rather reduce the deficits than pay less in taxes.
I think most people understand that a certain amount of taxation is required, that taxes are not historically high, that we pay less in taxes than most industrialized countries, and that it's essential that we pay our own bills. Borrowing all the time is not a legitimate option.
What I don't see mentioned enough is the amount of interest we pay annually on the national debt. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year, much of it (most?) going to investors overseas (China, India). Why don't people understand that if we raised taxes enough to balance the budget - as we did under Clinton - and subsequently reduce or eliminate the debt, we would then have those hundreds of billions of dollars a year to spend on domestic affairs (health care, schools, bridges) or, perhaps, be able to cut taxes in a responsible manner.
As it is, the tax cuts under Reagan and Bush are merely pushing our expenses on to our children and grandchildren. In other words, we're stealing from people who have not yet been born.
What could be more immoral than that?
"What could be more immoral than that?"
Don't you know that by definition the Republicans are now the "moral values" and pro-family party? How dare you point out that virtually all their actual policies and actions are the most anti-family sentiments in the entire industrialized world, and their "moral values" are nothing more than religious oppression?
Are you some kind of pinko commie bastard?
it doesn't work that way.
You run deficits to jump start an economy.
Reagan inherited a crap economy from Carter and W inherited a burst bubble recession economy from Clinton. Clinton's balanced budget equalled a recession.
W's tax cuts now bring in record revenues, a shrinking deficit and 4.4 percent unemployment. Read 'em and weap, the tax cuts worked.
"shrinking deficit"
Could you type that with a straight face? The deficit is sky high.
The recession wasn't Clinton's it was Bushes. Bush bashed the economy all through the 2000 election cycle. When he was elected, the stock market started to believe him and tanked. A terrible example of self-fulfilling prophecy.
"The recession wasn't Clinton's it was Bushes."
I mean honestly. How can you say that and really believe it to be true? This is case in point that liberals are complete morons. The recession started in March 2001 after Bush had been in office for 2 months..Yea, in those 2 months, he just drove the economy straight into the ground. The guy didn't even submit his first budget until Fall 2001. Yet, he was able to cause a recession in only 2 months. Not the Fed interest rate levels which went from 4.6% to 6.5% during the last 2 years of the Clinton presidency. Not the tech bubble bursting. But all those fiscal policies which Bush was enable to act in his first 60 days in office.
no matter who is in, and it's likely even if gore had won that there would have been an economic slowdown. but the fact is that bush's rate of economic growth and job creation, taken as a whole, has been poor over the last six years. and it was all the geniuses in the gop who said that clinton's tax increases on the wealthy in 1994 were going to bring about a recession, even depression. the opposite happened, one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth in our history. and he did it without putting it on the credit card. it's easy to claim something when you're putting it on someone else's tab, in this case future generations.
As you usually are. You have been corrected on this before. Recessions are specific things with official beggining dates. Bush's recession begain in April of 2001 so he did NOT inherit a recession.
Then Bush was the right choice - was he ever involved in a business venture that didn't have a deficit?
I agree that sometimes you need to run a deficit, to pay for things that will reap a benefit later on. But there is NOTHING in the current cause for the deficit that will yield incomes later on that will be enough to get back to a surplus. Nothing. This deficit is all because Bush and his cronies wanted more than anything to 1) enrich themselves and their pals and 2) stay in power so they could keep doing it.
try to compare the deficits of bush to the [private] debt ran up to build the railroads in the 19th century. the difference being, in the end they had railroads, and we have.....a mountain of debt, a lot of it owned by foreigners.
...were you serious or are those comments just a satire of false right wing talking points regurgitated by the ignorant people who believe them?
WOW
Juan Williams has become a hack; he's part of the reason I stopped listening to NPR. Along with Cokie, Laura Niason, and steve what-his-name in the morning. Maybe the Dems will do something about the Republican gutting of what was once the best news programming in the country.