Reuters Photojournalism
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
Sponsored Links
Factbox: Highlights of Reuters/Ipsos U.S. poll
Related Interactive
(Reuters) - Reuters conducted a poll of U.S. voters in mid-September on American political and economic issues, President Barack Obama's approval rating and November's congressional elections.
Here are the main findings:
LITTLE APPETITE FOR STIMULUS
* Even in the face of a sluggish economy and persistently high unemployment, the poll found little appetite for more deficit spending.
* Fifty-seven percent of those polled said the government should cut the deficit in order to balance the budget during hard economic times, while 39 percent said the government should run a deficit to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
* Sixty percent said reducing the deficit creates jobs but 50 percent said government spending creates jobs.
* Sixty-eight percent said cutting taxes creates jobs.
ECONOMY IS BROKEN
* Seventy-four percent of the respondents said the current unemployment rate indicates something is broken in the economy while only 22 percent said it reflects the natural ups and downs of the economy.
REPUBLICAN VOTERS MORE ENTHUSIASTIC
* Republican voters say they are more likely than Democratic voters to participate in the midterm elections.
* On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most likely to vote, Republican voters reported a mean of 8.8 while Democrats came in at 7.9.
* Seventy-four percent of Republicans said they are following news of the elections closely, compared to 61 percent of Democrats.
* When asked whether they will vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate for Congress, registered voters were split evenly. Among all respondents, Democrats held a 47 percent to 42 percent advantage over Republicans.
OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING TICKS UP
* Obama's approval rating ticked up slightly, although more Americans still disapprove of his performance as president.
* Forty-seven percent gave Obama a positive approval rating, up from 45 percent in August.
* Fifty percent said they disapproved, down from 52 percent in August.
* Overall, Obama's approval rating is down from 50 percent in January and 69 percent when he took office in January 2009. His approval rating has been below 50 percent since July.
MOST STILL THINK COUNTRY ON WRONG TRACK
* The poll found continued pessimism about the state of the country.
* Sixty-one percent said the country is on the wrong track, while 33 percent said it was headed in the right direction.
* Those figures have been steady since February.
METHODOLOGY
* Ipsos Public Affairs conducted the poll for Reuters between September 16 and September 19.
* The poll randomly surveyed 1,161 adults across the United States by telephone.
* The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for all adults, plus or minus 3.1 points for registered voters, plus or minus 4.2 points for Democrats and plus or minus 4.5 points for Republicans.
(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Bill Trott)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Considering the massive tax cut they got under Bush and the lack of jobs created afterward certainly suggests the opposite. Why is it that when we try something and it fails we think if we do it again there will be a different result? Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Add to that the fact that the wealthy are sitting on trillions of dollars that they could be investing in ways that would create jobs, but they’re just not doing it, except in other parts of the world.
Have we all forgotten economics 101, supply and demand? Unless more people have more money to spend, there is no sense in wealthy business owners expanding their businesses here in the US. If, for example, the owner of a tire business builds another manufacturing plant, will that cause more Americans to buy more tires? Not hardly. However, US corporations are building plants in China and other foreign countries. Let those wealthy people get their tax breaks from China. We can’t afford it here. Tax breaks for America’s wealthy will hurt 97% of the American people and benefit the 3% who need it the least. That’s the only dynamic that tax cuts for the wealthy will change here for America. And in conclusion, all of this leads to the obvious question: If cutting the deficit creates jobs, then why do people want the wealthiest Americans to get a tax cut since that will increase the deficit substantially? And since we know from the Bush years that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn’t create jobs and that the wealthy already have more money then they know what to do with, why do it? It will be the smallest percentage in taxes that they’ve had to pay at a time when we can afford it. It just sounds to me like the American public is confused. They don’t know what they want and it sure doesn’t help when their leaders are lying to them about everything from tax cuts for the wealthy creating jobs, to death panels in the new healthcare legislation, to Obama being a Muslim, to the specter of a nuclear mushroom cloud if we fail to invade Iraq. It just sounds to me like we’ve gotten too dumb and too corrupt to run an effective economy, and our politicians are taking full advantage of this. And does anyone really believe the likes of Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle will improve matters? Help me.
The only chance we have of bringing real positive change to our Federal Government is to ban lobbying and to implement publicly financed elections. Until then our government is owned by big money. Period.
I don’t want to sit here and type out everything I say because I shouldn’t be taking the time to this anyway, but I felt compelled to answer your questions from “the other side of the aisle.”
To start off, I would also like to see the deficit reduced. However, the argument isn’t that cutting deficits create jobs, it’s a notion that increasing government stimulus doesn’t create jobs.
If you refer to the 80’s and those economic numbers, you will find where the supply-side economics is derived and why it is sought after because the keynesian economics of stimulus money has not exactly brought us into a robust recovery. There wasn’t as massive a tax cut under Bush in contrast to tax cuts under Reagan. If you would like a full explanation of the economic facts and figures of the 80’s and 90’s, I will be more than happy to explain them to you at another time via email or something. To point out some quick facts: Following the tax cuts, government tax revenues increased 58%. So the moral of the story is tax rates and government revenues are inversely related. There was an extreme robust recovery felt by nearly every household in America. Even 85% of the poorest 5th of American households moved into a higher income bracket.
In regards to the definition of insanity, you are correct. However, I just explained why they believe it will work again. You are correct about people forgetting supply and demand. I wish people would think about that more often. You also provide an excellent example about the tires. However, you tend to deviate from your point when you mention how US corporations are buidling manufacturing plants elsewhere. They are not only doing it because of tax reasons, but because there is a market there for their business. Such as the example you brought up, they have demand in foreign countries. It is also noteworthy to point out that the US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world! Only 50 basis points behind Japan. China also has no capital gains tax either. Here it’s 15%, soon to be 20% or 25%(if i’m not mistaken).
I have a proposition. Instead of spending all this money or spending new money (that would just be printed from the Treasury anyway). Just think if we cut taxes to equate the amount that would have been spent, and then think about how that would affect the economy. Just throwing that out there.
In regards to you mentioning cutting taxes for the wealthy and how it correlates with increasing deficits substantially; I will put a quote here from the Wall Street Journal, it reads: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top tax rates of 35%, they pay more than double that share.” In economics, if you raise taxes in a recession, it shifts the supply curve to the left. Which hit business owners the hardest because they pay higher taxes, have to raise prices because of the taxes and shorter supply (or be forced to not raise prices and take a hit on their income), which in turn decreases demand overall. Therefore with a tax cut, the supply can increase or stay the same, business owners can reduce price (because they don’t have to make an extra buck to pay the tax; same with consumers) without sacrificing income and stimulate more demand because everything is cheaper overall. This is not deflation either. In conclusion, by reducing taxes to stimulate more demand by consumers, who make up 70% of the US economy, wouldn’t make sense to do a tax cut or at least extend the Bush tax cuts?
So our ‘leaders’ are not lying about tax cuts. It is in the historical data. Hell, look at when Kennedy cuts taxes and economic growth that followed after that. And there are death panels in the new healthcare legislation. I’ve read it myself. It’s just not called death panels. As far as Obama being Muslim, well I don’t know for sure, nor do I care to sit here and speculate. I do know that he doesn’t like capitalism and people having power versus a strong central government having the bulk of the power.
I also agree that most of our politicians are corrupt and dumb to help our economy. I have degrees in economics as well as finance and I would know because it shows in their policy and when they open their mouth to speak.
I have one more question for you. Why is it that everyone wants to ride on the backs of the wealthy? Why such contempt for the wealthy? Most of them got to that status by creating their own welath and now you want to take it away because of some sort of social justice mantra? WHy do people believe that the wealthy got wealthy by taking it from others or the poor? If they were poor, how could there be anything to take? Also if you think of the economy as a pie, and the rich having to give up a piece of the pie via taxation will somehow help everything. Well simply not in any way true because the pie is not finite, I don’t know why many people think it is. The wealthy got that way by creating more pie. The poor can do the same if they so choose. You cannot create wealth by dividing it.
I too think the American public is confused and a lot of people are being indoctrinated.
Also, I specifically was referring to the Bush tax cuts. You claim to explain why people think Bush’s tax cuts for the rich will work by pointing out a time in the distant past totally, and conveniently, ignoring recent history, which is a direct indication of how these same tax cuts will effect the economy in the near future, a better measure than tax cuts from the past. They did not help over the past 8 years and they won’t help now. We are talking about the exact same tax cuts, the same amounts going to the same people. The results will be the same, which you should believe unless you are insane.
The Bush tax cuts were originally enacted in 2001 and 2003. If these tax cuts were going to stimulate the economy, that would have happened. As you know, it didn’t. In fact, it helped turn a budget surplus into a budget deficit that continued to climb under Bush, breaking all previous deficit records, ending in the worst recession we’ve had since the Great Depression. And now you and other Republicans are arguing for more of the same? As I said, it fits the definition of insanity. If you slam your head into a brick wall busting your head wide open, would you be willing to slam your head a second time into that same brick wall because someone tells you that at another time in the past someone slammed their head into a different wall and it didn’t hurt? I would hope you would have learned your lesson and not take the dare. Likewise, we’ve learned our lesson the hard way and there’s no need to try it again.
The deficit is high, in part because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts for the wealthy will not help revive the economy, but they will continue to increase the deficit. It’s a matter of priorities. If our debt was not so high and the deficit was manageable, you might have an argument. But the debt is to the point where it is affecting our interest rates, where the US government has to pay more out on interest rates just to pay for our debt. That’s wasted money that we can’t afford. To summarize, the tax cuts for the wealthy do little to stimulate the economy but do add significantly to our budget deficit, which then increases interest rates and the amount we have to pay on our debt. That’s bad policy.
Increasing the amount of money for the wealthy only helps the economy if they invest it back into the economy and this is not happening. The Federal Reserve recently reported that non-financial companies in the US are sitting on $1.84 trillion, an increase of 26% in just one year, which incidentally is the steepest increase since records were first kept in 1952. This is WITH the Bush tax cuts. The bottom line is that the tax cuts only help the economy if they are going back into the economy. Tax cuts for the Middle Class are good because they turn around and spend that money, helping to stimulate the economy. But for the wealthy, it doesn’t increase their spending in the US economy. It only serves to increase the deficit, which increases the debt which increase the interest rates our government has to pay on our debt and, therefore, hurts the economy because much of that is money leaving the US economy, plus, it costs more for businesses to borrow money.
Republicans always fail to look at the big picture. Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency there’s been this tremendous transfer of wealth from the majority of Americans to a tiny minority, from the Middle Class to the top 3%. Capitalism is the best system because it can benefit the most people, but because of the abuse of that system, it’s failing to adequately serve the majority of our country in its present form. There are entities in the world, most recently Iran (a country greatly empowered by Bush’s foreign policy) who are trying to argue that capitalism is bad and destructive. If the Republicans have their way, they will prove our critics to be right, and over the long term that could have disastrous consequences.
Before I stop I have to take issue with two other statements you made. First, in typical Republican fashion, you are not telling the truth about death panels in the healthcare system recently passed by the Democrats. First of all, the part of the program that the Republicans were falsely claiming to lead to death panels was removed, therefore you did not read about any death panels in the new health care law. Oops! Did you forget that? However, what Republicans were calling death panels was nothing more than a requirement that insurance companies cover end-of-life consultations with a doctor IF REQUESTED BY THE PATIENT OR NEXT OF KIN. This is not a problem for the rich, but most people just aren’t sure what to do and need advice. This would have helped the average American, but it would have cost insurance companies a little more, which is why it was opposed by the Republicans. So once again the Middle Class is screwed so that the wealthiest can save a few more bucks.
Now here is what I really take issue with and why I shouldn’t have even responded to your post, except I hate to see Republican misinformation go unchallenged, and I’m referring to the following statement you made:
“As far as Obama being Muslim, well I don’t know for sure, nor do I care to sit here and speculate. I do know that he doesn’t like capitalism and people having power versus a strong central government having the bulk of the power.”
I am so sick and tired of this kind of nasty, dishonest, bigotry coming from the Right. The President of the United States stated that he is a Christian, and not a Muslim. Why isn’t this good enough for you? Did you question Bush’s religion? No. Obama is not a Muslim. He is not a foreigner. He is not a socialist. And he is not the anti-Christ. He is as American as you are, believes strongly in the good capitalism can do, and is doing all he can to give people back their power. If you want to complain about taking power away from the people, you should be raking the conservative Supreme Court judges over the coals for their recent ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections. Now THAT adversely affects the power of the people. Until we have publicly financed elections, the average American will have very little power indeed.
Republicans basic argument is this: what is good for the wealthiest is good for the rest. If you want to talk about historical precedent, history is littered with examples of how concentrations of wealth are bad for the majorities. What kind of power does the average person have when 97% of our nation’s wealth is controlled by 3% of the people? Are we to trust that 3% to only do what is in the best interest for the rest of us? If you answered that in the affirmative, then you don’t know your economic history. You must have skipped that class. What we now have is called a Plutocracy. Obama is not anti-Capitalist. He is anti-Plutocracy. Good day, sir.
Follow Reuters