Matthews can't believe that public favors Dems on fiscal issues
On the August 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, referring to the results of a July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found that a higher percentage of respondents thought the Democratic Party "would do a better job" than the Republican Party on the issues of "reducing the federal deficit," "controlling government spending," and "dealing with taxes," host Chris Matthews said: "I don't think it's fair, but it is public opinion right now. The people now think the Democrats are better at balancing the budget. The Democrats are better at reducing government spending. The Democrats are better at lowering taxes. Give me a break."
Matthews has long claimed that the Republicans have an advantage over Democrats on fiscal policy issues, even as polling showed that he was wrong. With this latest poll, he conceded that the public does not in fact favor Republicans over Democrats on issues of fiscal policy, but took the position that the public is simply wrong. Matthews provided no support for the position that Republicans are in fact "better at balancing the budget" and "reducing government spending," and recent history belies it -- the federal government ran a surplus in fiscal years 1998-2001 under budgets signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton but a deficit during fiscal years 2002-2006 under President George W. Bush, as Media Matters for America has noted. (On July 11, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated a $205 billion deficit for fiscal year 2007.) Moreover, Matthews misrepresented the poll question -- respondents were not asked about "lowering taxes" but, rather, about "dealing with taxes."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Matthews has repeatedly asserted that Americans trust the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party on taxes, even though contemporaneous polling contradicted him:
- On the March 13, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed that "people trust Republicans more than Democrats" to handle taxes, but as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) noted: "[I]f you look at even your own data and your own polling, they don't."
- On the March 28, 2006, 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."
- During coverage of an October 11, 2006, press conference by President Bush, Matthews asserted that the "Democrats cannot match" Bush on taxes, as Media Matters noted. Two days later on Hardball, Matthews again asserted that "terror and taxes are the Republican strong points."
- On the October 19, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews claimed that "Republicans know from the polls they got two strengths right now" -- "terrorism" and "taxes" because "Republicans are good at cutting taxes" -- and then added: "whether the current polls back that up or not."
On August 6, Matthews also said: "I have been watching these polls for years. And I have never seen numbers like this." Yet the current NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll itself shows that he is wrong on recent polling history. In the previous three polls in which the question was asked (November 2005, January 2004, and December 2003), the Democratic Party had advantages of 19, 11, and 13 percentage points, respectively, over Republicans on the issue of which party would "do a better job" on "reducing the federal deficit." Democrats also had a 12-percentage-point advantage in the last poll in which the question was asked (November 2005) on the issue of "controlling government spending," as well as advantages of nine and 10 percentage points, respectively, in the previous two polls in which the question was asked (March 2006 and November 2005) on the issue of "dealing with taxes."
CNBC host Jim Cramer agreed with Matthews' objections to the poll -- "It is nuts" -- adding, "[F]rankly, the Democrats can't be trusted any more than the Republicans on" balancing the budget. Cramer also asked: "[A]nybody who bought a home in the last three years, Chris, is liable to be evicted. Do you hear either side talking about that?" Matthews responded, "No." Major Democratic presidential candidates, however, have been talking about housing issues. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) gave a July 18 speech in which he said, "We'll also do more to protect homeowners from mortgage fraud and subprime lending by passing my plan to provide counseling to tenants, homeowners, and other consumers so they get the advice and guidance they need before buying a house and support if they get in to trouble down the road." As Media Matters noted, former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) website has a page on "Protecting Homeowners And Fighting Predatory Mortgages." On March 15, a Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) issued a press release outlining "a plan to break down barriers to owning a home and build up protections against unfair and unscrupulous lending practices."
The blog Crooks and Liars noted Matthews' August 6 comments about the poll results.
From the August 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about politics. I just looked at that Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. And I have been watching these polls for years, and I've never seen numbers like this. And I don't think it's fair, but it is public opinion right now. The people now think the Democrats are better at balancing the budget. The Democrats are better at reducing government spending. The Democrats are better at lowering taxes. Give me a break.
I mean, you know, the best Democrat could be sitting right here now and he'd say, "What we've got to do is get back some of that revenue from the rich people so we can have some decent social programs in health, for example, and education." They'll admit they want to spend more money, the best of the Democrats. And yet the public is so down on this war and the Republicans, they're willing to give the Democrats advantages politically they wouldn't even claim themselves.
CRAMER: It is nuts. And of course, if it were not for the war -- and you can't asterisk a war, but we would have a balanced budget. We'd be able to spend more on social programs. But, you know, frankly, the Democrats can't be trusted any more than the Republicans on this.
What I think does -- I think we think that both Congress and the president are very out of touch with what's going on across the board. And look, anybody who bought a home in the last three years, Chris, is liable to be evicted. Do you hear either side talking about that?
MATTHEWS: No.
Polls represent public opinion, but are polls always right? Matthews doesn't agree with the polls but I read many on here as well that ignore polls they don't agree with. Is it forbidden to challenge a poll result these days?
Polls have nothing to do with truth, but the public is luckily on the right side this time. The truth is obvious with a cursory glance at fiscal policy for the last 30 years.
It depends. We can challenge any poll we want, however, we don't have a news program. We're not "journalists" whose porpose is to relay news, not opinionate.
Imagine a reporter saying; "A Minnesota bridge collapsed. But I don't think so." Or if a sportscaster said; "Reports are that the Red Sox won 7 to 5, but I just don't believe it."
Matthews is allowed to opine, he's not a newscaster. On the other Edwards thread, plenty over there are convinced Edwards will be the Democratic nomine espite his current polling.
And Democrats have certainly run deficits in the past, Clinton was an exception.
If my memory of history serves me correctly, the last democratic president to run unrestrained deficits was Johnsoin, at the end of his " carreer. the next guy to run unfettered deficits was Reagan with the Star wars fiasco. And now we are stuck with Bush's bottomless money pit that noone has the balls to explain truthfully how this country is going to pay for.
One more thing, after rereading Matthews' quote. Matthews didn't disagree with the poll or the data, he disagreed with public opinion.
He said; "I don't think it's fair, but it is public opinion right now."
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
“Give me a break!” This is the same skeptisism that was peddled by the same Matthews when doubts about the Iraqi War, Domestic Surviellance, and this President’s sincerity as a whole!
Mr. Matthews has discredited himself professing his love for the President in a campaign season on his nationally televised show, he has made himself a partisan, and thus little more than a propagandist; more subtle that Sean Hannity, or Bill O’Reilley maybe, but a Republican propagandist with more effect!
Truth and Fantasies of the Neo-Con fiscal responsibility:
a) Nixon-Ford kicked the can to Carter when the bills began to come due for Vietnam!
b) Reagan inherited a $ 16 billion dollar deficit that he flogged as his first priority in his first SOU to pronounce that the deficit if stacked in one dollar bills would reach 6 miles into the atmosphere! When he left office that stack would be 24 miles into the atmosphere as his deficit was a record that was greater than all the prior presidents deficit put together, $ 64 billion dollars!!
c) It took Bill Clinton and a devided Congress that was yet tainted by the Neo-Con / Grover Norquist influence to balance the budget, and turn a $ 220 billion dollar surplus!
d) George Bush and a Republican Congress in complete control of government with little or no Democratic incumberance, took a record surplus and turned it into a astonomical deficit of $ 600 to $ 400 billion dollar deficits that don’t even count the emergency military appropriations since the war began, while giving record low tax cuts to corporations, and the richest individuals amoung us!
Matthews is obviously unimpressed with the facts!! Why debate the truth when the lie suits your philosophies so much better!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Is it forbidden to challenge a poll result these days?
You are welcome to object to a poll's methods, questions or procedures. If it is done correctly by an respected non-partisan group it is foolish to object to the results. It makes you look stupid, like Mathews.
I am very thankful that we have public opinion polls. Without them the government and pundits could claim with impunity that they are doing what we want, and that we are happy with their efforts.
Public opinion polls serve to defend democracy during the 2-year periods when we don't have any.
Chris Matthews is welcome to disagree with a poll, and Media Matters is welcome to question why Matthews would disagree with a poll saying that Democrats are better at balancing the budget.
Bush destroyed Clinton's budget surplus.
Media Matters is also correct to point out that Matthews is misrepresenting part of the poll. People said they prefer the Democrats on taxes, and Matthews summarized that as people saying the Democrats would lower taxes.
All the Dems are talking about foreclosures, Cramer. We're talking about cracking down on predatory lenders and shifting the economy to favor working people, not hedge fund managers.
Reality is cracking though the shell. I hope it gives Mathews a splitting headache.
He's denieing the reality even as it appears before him. Its going to be an uphill battle for reality.
Is anybody watching the Dem candidates right now on MSNBC?
It's a beautiful thing and Chris wonders why these guys are more trusted than Repubs. The guy is numb.
Roundhouse, I watched the debate. I thought it was quite good. Keith and the union people asked good questions. It was a lively crowd. I was impressed by all of the candidates in their own way. Dennis Kucinich rocked especially, imo. Ya know Joe Biden doesn't get much play in the media, but I really like him. Bill Richardson too. Heck, it was just nice to watch intelligent questions being asked/answered.
They are all impressive candidates, in their own ways, I agree. The Democrats really have a great crop this year.
Bill Richardson really impressed me and I always love to hear Kucinich, "working man's White House," I love the ring of that.
Just wish I could warm-up to Hillary.
The audience was spectacular, involved, concerned, fierce, just beautiful
I liked the debate, but I thought that the guy wearing the yellow shirt sitting behind Olberman, who insisted on jumping up and waving whenever Olberman was asking a question, should have been escorted out. This wasnt a baseball game and he wasnt standing behind home plate with a f--king cell phone. I hated that the audience kept hooting and applauding every time a candidate raised his or her voice, or booed when they heard something they didnt particularly like. Next time, I think only grown-up should be allowed in to watch the debate, and they should be reminded that they are there learn, not to be heard.
I'm glad people were booing and cheering. If a candidate has a particularly stupid or a particularly great opinion about something, the candidate must hear about it.
Yeah, I agree. It goes to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the people. They're not afraid to hear responses to their words.
If I want to watch people who sit down, shut-up and do as they're told I'll watch the Republicans debate.
I do not know any reason why the Public would not favor the Democratic Party on this matter. Look what the Republicans have done , they spend more than a drunken sailor.
Nah, man. Republicans spend like drunken Republicans. Even drunken sailors have more common sense than to spend money they don't have.
The federal government was in debt for many years until the last 3 1/2 years of Bill Clinton's presidency. It was a great thing indeed that he accomplished with Congress back then.
I think what happened during Bush's presidency was that this was the 1st time in years that the presidency and Congress were controlled by the same party. So obviously, whatever one person in the Republican party or anything that a bipartisan group wanted to spend money on passed for the most part. If Congress stays the same (or if Democrats gain MORE control, hopefully) when/if a Democrat is elected president, we'll see how they do on spending issues. Now, a government in debt doesn't always necessarily mean that the economy is bad, but I would much rather go into debt spending money on universal health care and college than a wasteful "war on terror" and an unnecessary regime changes.
And I don't mean "don't go after terrorists." I mean, actually fight real terrorists, not a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
The stuff transcribed above in the item, as babbled and sputtered by chris matthews and his friend, is worthless for the broad strokes it's painted in... it's an exercise in listening to someone blather on about 'what they used to think' and 'what they formally believed' and 'how they were under a different impression'...
Being wrong or stupid or gullible, is nothing to prattle on about; most folks just live and learn, and then move on... chris is the type though, who bends your ear about 'what he used to think' etc.
Who cares.
But it is of interest, this real shift in Public Opinion, from thinking the funds of our Treasury more wisely and efficiently spent by Republicans, to thinking those funds better spent now, by Democrats.
Which it is true, and has also a seldom mentioned reason, why many of us think this now:
You have noticed how so much of the scandal that has plagued Congress these past several years, has been Republican scandal?
Of course you have.
And you do know what it is behind these many Republican ethics violations, and crimes even?
Of course you do: MONEY.
randall "duke" cunningham and bob ney are in jail; and while you know it was MONEY that landed them there, you do know that the MONEY they took, was no more than their price, for steering funds out of our Treasury, to those who gave them that MONEY...
Millions and millions and billions of dollars even, steered out of the U.S. Treasury by randy and bob and many other Republicans, named and/or anonymous, and all for a price.
It is what has presently destroyed the Republican Party's former reputation as "fiscally conservative": The current reputation of Congressional Republicans as TREASURY THIEVES.
That is what is at the root, as a cause, of our having shifted our preference and trust, in the spending of the funds from our Treasury, from Republicans to Democrats: REPUBLICAN THIEVES such as randall "duke" cunningham and bob ney and a host of others, indicted or not, detected or undetected.
But to get away from that ugly truth, and to leave on a positive note:
Do you know of the U.S. Representative from Arizona, his name is Jeff Flake?
He's the real deal... he's a true "fiscal conservative"... he's a Republican cut in the old and true mold, of a man we can trust with the expenditure of Public Monies... he's not a thief.
True.
And when Congressional Republicans wake up and smell the bonfire of their vanities, and wish to reclaim for their Grand Old Party it's former reputation of being "fiscally conservative" (as opposed to the current reputation of TREASURY THIEVES)...
When they want to return to being "fiscally conservative", they'll get behind Mr. Flake of Arizona, because as I said, he's the real thing, cut in the old mold...
...and he's a lot of fun to watch, for the Amendments that he introduces; all designed to save us money (and not to steal it).
I'd trust him any day, with the Power of the Purse.
Your comment does not make sense. Every single Democratic candidate has vowed to raise taxes. They have so many new and innovative programs they would like to start, but don't you people realize that these programs cost money? That is why every one of them has said he/she will raise taxes. The economy is better off today than it was during the Clinton years. Unemployment is at an all time low, and the stock market has flourished. And of course this administration has spent more than any other. A number of reasons why that happens: 1) Inflation....it's very simple that each president spends a little more than the last, 2) When Congress votes to pass a bill that allows the President to go to war, you will spend billions of dollars in that effort. Whether you think Bush mishandled the war is irrelevant with this issue if most Reps AND Dems voted to go in the first place. 3) When you have disasters such as Katrina and the Tsunami in southern Asia, you will spend more money than anticipated. Yet, though all of this, Bush's administration has done very well with economic issues.
Raising taxes on the ones who should be ashamed they haven't been kickin' down more contributions to the commons is the adult thing to do. Deal with it.
The economy is good? Just because the roads look nice on Wall St. doesn't mean Main St is gettin' their potholes filled. Truth is under Republicans poverty has surged, the middle class has shrunken and the uberwealthy have sopped up even greater amounts of personal riches and consolidated greater influence in Washington.
You're really going to give Bush and his 109th Congressional Republican accomplices a pass for screwing the pooch in Iraq just because a majority voted to authorize the use of force? That's pathological and I'm putting that gently.
And if I were you, I wouldn't even utter the name Katrina, it only raises the ghosts of deadly Republican unconcerned incompetence.
I agree that the "adult" thing for those who have been blessed with money in the country is to be generous and give back. But we live in a free country, where men and women are free to pursue their dreams and be successful....but once they are successful, you are upset with them because they don't use THEIR money as YOU think they should. The money that they worked hard for is theirs. Not yours, not mine, not the governments, but theirs. Sure, they have to pay their percentage, which translates into a lot more money than you or I give simply by percentage. But let's not penalize those who are successful because we think we know how to better use their money. They have earned it people! You're right though, if it were me, I would be generous, and I try to even with the limited amount of money my wife and I have, but who's to tell them how to spend it? Also, Katrina is a disaster, and the money, although slightly late, was appropriated. But don't let how poorly NO has used the money give you reason enough to jump on the Bush hate bandwagon. I don't agree with everything he has done, but he's not responsible for what has happened down there.
Ah, yes. The myth of the self made entrpreneur. Nobody makes it alone.
The American taxpayer has supplied a huge infrastructure and makes enormous payments that enable entrepreneurs to prosper. This is not a free market, taxpayers give stupendous advantages to entrepreneurs, through tax breaks and development subsidies to name just two. It's only fair that people who have earned wealth and leisure are reminded of their moral obligation to support those who support them: the taxpaing laborer in the American economy.
The wealthy owe alot, the market is tilted in their favor and away from everyday working people.
The economy is better today than under Clinton IF you own an oil company or nobid Halliburton for the man in the street not so much. The median income has been stagnant since Bush took office it rose dramatically under Clinton. During the Clinton years all levels of income benifitted under Bush only the very wealthy are doing better. What every Democratic candidate has vowed to do is roll back Bush's tax cuts that vastly benifitted the wealthy. Do you KNOW how much in debt we are? If we keep going like this the US will be a wholly owned subisiary of China Inc.
and big congratulations to probably the best columnist in the country. that would be paul krugman, who accurately predicted the housing market fizzle. [and krugman is one of the only columnists i've ever read who has noted that bush keeps lying by saying we had to invade because saddam would not let the u.n. inspectors in.]
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2005/08/krugman-housing-bubble-will-burst.html
Yeah, I agree with that! The ONLY columnist in my opinion who has the guts to call them as he sees them. My first read on Monday and Friday Mornings.
Also, the only reason to read the Times anymore (except for Sports). What in Gods name has happened to them. What a letdown they've become.
Chris, a hint, DEFICIT. Also, Chris, your brother ran for Lt. Governor in Pa. with Lynn Swann...they were the future of the Republican party which turned out to be true and in line with the polls..they got 30% of the vote.
I love how dealing with taxes turned into "lowering taxes". The only government policy Matthews cares anything about is the top marginal tax rate.
And Bush now gets a mulligan on his historic deficits because of the war that he said would pay for itself? Never mind that the surplus died before 9/11. I think it had a little something to do with huge tax cuts for the rich.
Ever since the invention of voodoo economics, no republican has ever been sane with money. Can we try liberalism ONCE before we try tax cuts for the rich a twentieth time?
Absolutely Steeve. CM seems to be under the impression that everyone accepts tax cuts as the ultimate life’s blessing, like some posters here seem to . It may be that we have learned that all the best things in life aren’t free and that we are willing to pool our funds to achieve more bang for our buck. I believe that might be what’s driving this. I know conservatives hate the European societies wide array of social programs like assistance with health care, child-care, education but I’ve heard that statistics show that even though European’s pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than we do that they actually expend less of their personal finances-resources since these big three needs are paid for through the pooling of citizenry resources and that actually we end up spending more of our income on these things. I’ll have to research this of course. The free-market has made a situation that just to pay for quality child care one parent sometimes has to take a part-time job. Now don’t get me wrong I am strongly committed to regulated capitalism, but the most important functions of society should to remain free of the for profit world, IMHO. The bottom line shouldn’t be the end all in health care provision and educating and caring for our children.
Matthews is a very sad person, he loves to hear himself talk.
Me thinks Mathews is the real obtuse one !
We don't agree with the Dems on spending...or the Republicans. Both blow our money on war and corporate rip-offs. We get nothing for our tax dollar but dead soldiers and the rich thumbing their noses at us. No more crooks in Congress, vote Green or Libertarian.
I'd suggest that those working within the Democratic party push the party towards progressive policies and elect progressive democrats to office;
that the Greens work to elect local candidates esp at the state level and push run-off voting on the national level if they are serious about having a positive impact on elections;
Libertarians push for deficit reduction; highlight the raiding of the social security fund; since social security taxes were raised under the Reagan administration as a "temporary" solution to all the upcoming baby boomer retirements.
Dems, Greens and Libertarians all push for an end to military empire and the plundering of our treasury by the war profiteers.
(free advice to parties about some of the issues :)
Dems are war profiteers, they been playing the game the longest, since the 1780s. War and Empire is in their blood. Conquering the indians, taking from the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Hawaiians, the Cubans, Central Americans, Filipinos, Chinese....America is and always has been an imperial monster, gobbling up land and resources. And the Democrats were in there plugging for war the entire time.
No more War Parties. No more Dems or Repubs. Peace Party only. The nation needs a breather from this constant non-stop war-making. Isreal is stomping hard for Iran and so is Cheney, all front-runners are war hawks and the official party plans are war, more war, and lots more war. This is only getting worse. Unless we vote Peace. Very simple.
you are persistent red...I agree we need peace. This is the direction we're moving in; glacially for us, but somewhat forced upon humanity by a number of factors.
It just isn't one party or the other. Some of the most violent people I met in the 60's were "peace activists!" You cannot bring about peace by demonizing people who vote (and think) differently than you.
A vote for the Dems and Repubs is a vote for more War. Period. There is nothing more fundamental than this fact. It's a Yes or No question...will you vote for more War or for Peace?
I don't agree with your framing. If voting green brought about the result of peace, I'd vote green.
Ofcourse Matthews can't believe it. Matthews IS the public. Matthews IS the country. Matthews IS the state. (l'Etat, c'est moi - look it up, Frenchie) Matthews can't even think for himself, let alone understand what the public thinks and feels.
Let's all remember to bring up this comment by Matthews the next time we get told he's a Democrat.
Matthews' political affiliation is irrelevant, he is free to offer his opinion, that is his job.
And by the way, I know it's strictly forbidden here, but there are Democrats out there who do criticize Democrats and their policies. They are not a monolithic group that rubberstamps every single leftist idea, unlike yourself.
What planet is Chris Matthews from? A Democratic president balanced the budget in the 1990s. A Democratic president initiated one of the biggest tax cuts in history in the 1960s. A Democratic President slashed the size of government in the 1990s.
Republican presidents initiated tax increases in the 1980s. The size of the government has exploded in the last six years, as has the budget deficit, all under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Matthews simply refuses to abandon the old myths.
This is simply not true. Reagan cut taxes dramatically in the 80s, which is why that administration received record revenues.
The comment that the public's view was not "fair" is what is misleading. the last 50 years it has usually been republicans who run up deficits. So how is that unfair? He is suggesting the public's opinion is inconsistent with the facts by that comment.
Apparently Chris has bought into the myths that Republicans are stronger on fiscal responsibility and on defense. Where did these myths come from? Republican propaganda... where else? There is no hard evidence that Republicans are any better than Democrats on either issue, yet the myths persist, due to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on building and maintaining the Conservative propaganda machine. It is, in fact, the one thing they've done better than Democrats.
Thanks so much for catching this!! I haven't watched his piece of crap show in a year and so the other night I decided to give it another try and see what Matthews has been saying these days. I caught it right at the moment of this exchange and at the end of those couple of minutes I was disgusted and shut the damn tv off. What an idiot this guy is. It's not that he's challenging the polls, it's that he's saying the public is foolish to prefer Dems over Republicans on these issues. And even more arrogantly he surmises that the only reason the public feels this way is because they hate the war. As if the public is too simple to separate their feelings about the war from issues of fiscal managment. If only we all had great minds like Chris Matthews. The guy can't even get his basic facts right and yet he brings home the big bucks. I suppose he's just cranky b/c the Dems will roll back W's tax cuts for the richest.