GREAT question, but drumpf/trump will not answer just like he NEVER released his tax returns....
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label income tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label income tax. Show all posts
11 November 2016
03 November 2015
America's Views Align Surprisingly Well With Those of "Socialist" Bernie Sanders & This Is Bernie Sanders' Plan to Beat Hillary Clinton 19MAI&26JUN15
SEN BERNIE SANDERS I VT has a lot in common with the American people, and has a lot to offer them to. He is a candidate dedicated to improving the lives of the 99% without fearing the reaction of the 1%. Throw off your fear of the word "Socialist", check out these two stories from earlier this year from +Mother Jones and check out Bernie on the issues at Bernie 2016
and remember, Democracy isn't a spectator sport, and if the 99% vote the 1% won't matter!
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, is an extremely long shot to defeat
Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Does
that mean his views on key political issues are too radical for
America's voters? Not necessarily. Here's how his policy positions
actually fare in the polls:
socialism
Sanders: Describes himself as a democratic socialist.
His fellow Americans: While only 31 percent of Americans react positively to the word "socialism," just 50 percent view "capitalism" in favorable terms, according to a recent Pew survey. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly half had a positive view of "socialism," while only 47 percent viewed "capitalism" favorably.
income Taxes
Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.
estate taxes
Sanders: Introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act last year. If passed, it would raise top estate tax rates and expand the tax to include estates worth more than $3.5 million. (It currently only applies to those worth more than $5.4 million, which covers only 0.2 percent of American estates.)
His fellow Americans: Results vary, but Kevin Drum notes that the estate tax (conservatives call it the "death tax") is generally unpopular.
Offshore tax havens
Sanders: Introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring American companies to pay the top corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.
His fellow Americans: Eighty-five percent of small business owners favor closing overseas tax loopholes entirely, while 68 percent of Americans believe "we should close tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore."
Campaign finance reform
Sanders: Advocates a constitutional amendment that would effectively prevent corporations from making political donations. Supports public funding of elections.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans believe that corporations should have at least some limited right to make political donations. Even so, in a 2013 Gallup poll, half of the respondents said they would personally vote for banning all political donations from individuals and private groups and shifting to a government-funded campaign finance system. Only 44 percent would oppose such a law.
Climate change
Sanders: Cosponsored the 2013 Climate Protection Act, which would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-four percent of Americans strongly or somewhat favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars, and requiring utilities to generate more power from low-carbon sources. However, only 34 percent of Americans support a carbon tax with a $500 rebate.
Health Care
Sanders: Advocates for a single-payer health care system.
His fellow Americans: A January 2015 poll found that just over 50 percent of likely voters support single-payer.
regulating wall street
Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."
His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."
Education
Sanders: Introduced legislation this month to make public college tuition free in the United States.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of likely voters support President Obama's proposal to offer qualifying students two free years of community college. No recent polls have tested support for offering free tuition at four-year colleges and universities.
trade
Sanders: Opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership and similar trade deals.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-two percent of voters oppose fast-track authority for the TPP trade deal, but fewer Americans oppose the agreement itself. A 2014 Pew poll put support for the TPP among Americans at 55 percent.
Pay equity for women
Sanders: Supports a federal law mandating equal pay for equal work.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans agree that women face pay discrimination, but only about one-third favor addressing the problem via legislation.
Wages
Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Unions
Sanders: Supports legislation allowing workers to form a union by signing pledge cards.
His fellow Americans: A Gallup poll conducted in 2009, when card check legislation was being debated in Congress, found that 53 percent of Americans "favor a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."
Social Services
Sanders: "Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs," Sanders writes on his website, "we should be expanding these programs."
His fellow Americans: Some polls have found that majorities of voters want to expand Social Security. A poll conducted last year showed that even voters in red states want to expand Medicaid.
Thumbs-Up icon by Nick Holroyd/The Noun Project
![]()
![]()
It's
fortunate for Hillary Clinton that Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent
socialist from Vermont who is challenging her for the Democratic
presidential nomination, despises and eschews negative advertising.
That's because the political consulting firm that Sanders has retained
to advise his campaign has a well-developed expertise in devising attack
ads. Earlier this year, this outfit, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, won
a Pollie award from the American Association of Political Consultants
for creating the best Democratic congressional ad of 2014. The spot
slammed Dave Trott, a Republican running for a congressional seat in
Michigan, for making millions of dollars by foreclosing on residents of
his state, and it focused on the harrowing eviction of a 101-year-old
Detroit woman. Trott survived this assault and handily won the seat in
the Republican district, but the Washington Post called the commercial "one of the most brutal attack ads you'll ever see."
The Sanders campaign has no plans to hurl these kinds of ads at Clinton. As Tad Devine, the veteran political operative who leads this firm and a longtime adviser to Sanders, notes, mudslinging is not part of the campaign strategy that Sanders and his advisers have crafted. There won't even be one speck of dust directly tossed at Clinton. But, Devine tells me, implicit negative messages aimed at Clinton will certainly be "embedded" in Sanders' advertising and social media messaging.
![]()
![]()
and remember, Democracy isn't a spectator sport, and if the 99% vote the 1% won't matter!
So what does that make us?
| Tue May 19, 2015 5:15 AM EDT
socialism 
Sanders: Describes himself as a democratic socialist.His fellow Americans: While only 31 percent of Americans react positively to the word "socialism," just 50 percent view "capitalism" in favorable terms, according to a recent Pew survey. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly half had a positive view of "socialism," while only 47 percent viewed "capitalism" favorably.
income Taxes
Sanders: Famously filibustered the 2010 extension of Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans.His fellow Americans: In a February poll, 68 percent of likely voters said wealthy households pay too little in federal taxes.
estate taxes
Sanders: Introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act last year. If passed, it would raise top estate tax rates and expand the tax to include estates worth more than $3.5 million. (It currently only applies to those worth more than $5.4 million, which covers only 0.2 percent of American estates.)
His fellow Americans: Results vary, but Kevin Drum notes that the estate tax (conservatives call it the "death tax") is generally unpopular.
Offshore tax havens
Sanders: Introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring American companies to pay the top corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.
His fellow Americans: Eighty-five percent of small business owners favor closing overseas tax loopholes entirely, while 68 percent of Americans believe "we should close tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore."
Campaign finance reform
Sanders: Advocates a constitutional amendment that would effectively prevent corporations from making political donations. Supports public funding of elections.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans believe that corporations should have at least some limited right to make political donations. Even so, in a 2013 Gallup poll, half of the respondents said they would personally vote for banning all political donations from individuals and private groups and shifting to a government-funded campaign finance system. Only 44 percent would oppose such a law.
Climate change
Sanders: Cosponsored the 2013 Climate Protection Act, which would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-four percent of Americans strongly or somewhat favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars, and requiring utilities to generate more power from low-carbon sources. However, only 34 percent of Americans support a carbon tax with a $500 rebate.
Health Care
Sanders: Advocates for a single-payer health care system.
His fellow Americans: A January 2015 poll found that just over 50 percent of likely voters support single-payer.
regulating wall street
Sanders: The big banks "are too powerful to be reformed," Sanders says on his website. "They must be broken up."
His fellow Americans: A recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute found that 58 percent of likely voters support "breaking up big banks like Citigroup."
Education
Sanders: Introduced legislation this month to make public college tuition free in the United States.His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of likely voters support President Obama's proposal to offer qualifying students two free years of community college. No recent polls have tested support for offering free tuition at four-year colleges and universities.
trade
Sanders: Opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership and similar trade deals.
His fellow Americans: Sixty-two percent of voters oppose fast-track authority for the TPP trade deal, but fewer Americans oppose the agreement itself. A 2014 Pew poll put support for the TPP among Americans at 55 percent.
Pay equity for women
Sanders: Supports a federal law mandating equal pay for equal work.
His fellow Americans: Most Americans agree that women face pay discrimination, but only about one-third favor addressing the problem via legislation.
Wages
Sanders: Supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour "over the next few years."
His fellow Americans: Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Unions
Sanders: Supports legislation allowing workers to form a union by signing pledge cards.
His fellow Americans: A Gallup poll conducted in 2009, when card check legislation was being debated in Congress, found that 53 percent of Americans "favor a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers."
Social Services
Sanders: "Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs," Sanders writes on his website, "we should be expanding these programs."
His fellow Americans: Some polls have found that majorities of voters want to expand Social Security. A poll conducted last year showed that even voters in red states want to expand Medicaid.
Thumbs-Up icon by Nick Holroyd/The Noun Project
And without any attack ads.
| Fri Jun. 26, 2015 5:00 AM EDT
The Sanders campaign has no plans to hurl these kinds of ads at Clinton. As Tad Devine, the veteran political operative who leads this firm and a longtime adviser to Sanders, notes, mudslinging is not part of the campaign strategy that Sanders and his advisers have crafted. There won't even be one speck of dust directly tossed at Clinton. But, Devine tells me, implicit negative messages aimed at Clinton will certainly be "embedded" in Sanders' advertising and social media messaging.
Sanders
does have an overall plan on how to beat Clinton. As Devine explains,
it goes something like this: Raise enough money to devote significant
resources to building a full operation and maintaining a media presence
in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Nevada and
South Carolina. At the same time, develop a basic foundation for
campaign organizations in other states, so if Sanders fares well in the
initial contests, these preliminary outfits can quickly be built out.
Devine and other Sanders advisers estimate they will need to raise
$40-$50 million by the Iowa caucuses to be in such a position, and they
claim Sanders is on track to hit that mark, mainly with thousands and
thousands of low-dollar contributions. (Sanders has drawn crowds of thousands
at recent campaign events.) "I don't know if we can outright beat her
in Iowa and New Hampshire," Devine says, "but we have a real shot at it
in both places."
If Sanders does score well in the early states, Devine insists, his campaign will have a delegate-accumulation strategy reminiscent of the one Barack Obama's 2008 campaign employed to focus as much on snagging delegates as winning caucuses and primaries. "Even if Clinton beats us in some states by 20 points, we can split the delegates with smart focusing," Devine says. And then Sanders will be in a position to make the case to the Democratic establishment that he can assemble an electorate in the general election that is favorable to Democrats (as Obama did in 2008). "We don't know yet what it will look like," Devine remarks. "We haven't done the strategic modeling yet. I've been trying to persuade Bernie we should do that." Instead, he says, Sanders at this point would rather concentrate on promoting his message: Inequality is killing the middle class, climate change must be addressed, big-money politics must be reformed, and new progressive policy ideas, such as free college tuition and expanded Social Security benefits, must be advanced. (Devine also gave Sanders a PowerPoint presentation on how the campaign can use Big Data methods: "He was impressed, but we're not sure we can scale up to that. We won't have $1 billion.")
And what about Clinton? How will Sanders take her on?
Sanders recently boasted that he has "never run a negative ad," noting that he "hates and detests these 30-second negative ads." Devine says this is part of Sanders' DNA. "You need to know Bernie's history with negative ads to get this," Devine says. In 1988, when Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he ran for an open congressional seat as an independent and lost a close race to Republican Peter Smith. Two years later, Sanders was back to challenge Smith. In that 1990 race, Smith aired tough ads assailing Sanders, and Sanders' aides advised him to hit back. Instead, Sanders bought airtime for a five-minute spot in which he talked straight to the camera and decried the attack ads. (It didn't hurt Sanders that the National Rifle Association was slamming Smith for having voted for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.) Sanders ended up winning that race by 16 points. "This was his formative experience," says Devine. "Negative ads have to be denounced and jiu-jitsued."
Ten years later, Sanders ran for the Senate, with Devine still advising him. His Republican opponent was a millionaire businessman named Rich Tarrant who dumped about $7 million into the race in a state where, Devine says, no candidate had ever spent more than $2 million on a campaign. "It was a vicious campaign against Bernie," Devine recalls. "He ran ads that accused Bernie of supporting child molesters and terrorists. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid were telling Bernie, 'You must respond.'" Sanders replied with an ad Devine had cut, in which Sanders noted he was being unfairly attacked and asked voters to visit his website to get the truth. Subsequent commercials by Sanders attempted to refute the stream of attack ads from Tarrant. The Sanders campaign also pushed an ad in which country singer Willie Nelson endorsed Sanders and cited his work for family farmers. Sanders beat Tarrant by more than a 2-1 margin.
So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack.
And when—or if—that happens, Devine figures, Sanders will have about a
million contributors already on his side, and this group will
enthusiastically kick in more money to replenish Sanders' coffers and
fund the continuation of Bernie-mentum. "I worked for Walter Mondale in
1984," Devine recalls, "but I saw what Gary Hart did." Hart, a former
senator who went up against Mondale in a bid for the Democratic
presidential nomination, placed a surprising second in Iowa and won New
Hampshire. "Things then moved fast. Some polls moved 50 points in seven
days," Devine says. (Mondale, though, did end up squelching the Hart
insurgency by exploiting the Democratic establishment in key states.)If Sanders does score well in the early states, Devine insists, his campaign will have a delegate-accumulation strategy reminiscent of the one Barack Obama's 2008 campaign employed to focus as much on snagging delegates as winning caucuses and primaries. "Even if Clinton beats us in some states by 20 points, we can split the delegates with smart focusing," Devine says. And then Sanders will be in a position to make the case to the Democratic establishment that he can assemble an electorate in the general election that is favorable to Democrats (as Obama did in 2008). "We don't know yet what it will look like," Devine remarks. "We haven't done the strategic modeling yet. I've been trying to persuade Bernie we should do that." Instead, he says, Sanders at this point would rather concentrate on promoting his message: Inequality is killing the middle class, climate change must be addressed, big-money politics must be reformed, and new progressive policy ideas, such as free college tuition and expanded Social Security benefits, must be advanced. (Devine also gave Sanders a PowerPoint presentation on how the campaign can use Big Data methods: "He was impressed, but we're not sure we can scale up to that. We won't have $1 billion.")
And what about Clinton? How will Sanders take her on?
Sanders recently boasted that he has "never run a negative ad," noting that he "hates and detests these 30-second negative ads." Devine says this is part of Sanders' DNA. "You need to know Bernie's history with negative ads to get this," Devine says. In 1988, when Sanders was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he ran for an open congressional seat as an independent and lost a close race to Republican Peter Smith. Two years later, Sanders was back to challenge Smith. In that 1990 race, Smith aired tough ads assailing Sanders, and Sanders' aides advised him to hit back. Instead, Sanders bought airtime for a five-minute spot in which he talked straight to the camera and decried the attack ads. (It didn't hurt Sanders that the National Rifle Association was slamming Smith for having voted for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.) Sanders ended up winning that race by 16 points. "This was his formative experience," says Devine. "Negative ads have to be denounced and jiu-jitsued."
"We have to present the differences in the
ads without him coming across as part of the political system," says Tad
Devine, Sanders' longtime strategist and ad man.
During his 1994 re-election race, Sanders had a close call. He won by
only three points. He responded by doing what he swore he would never
do: He hired a Washington consultant, Devine. But he told Devine he
would stick to his no-negative-ads stance. In the next election, Sanders
aired only positive spots and won by 22 points.Ten years later, Sanders ran for the Senate, with Devine still advising him. His Republican opponent was a millionaire businessman named Rich Tarrant who dumped about $7 million into the race in a state where, Devine says, no candidate had ever spent more than $2 million on a campaign. "It was a vicious campaign against Bernie," Devine recalls. "He ran ads that accused Bernie of supporting child molesters and terrorists. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid were telling Bernie, 'You must respond.'" Sanders replied with an ad Devine had cut, in which Sanders noted he was being unfairly attacked and asked voters to visit his website to get the truth. Subsequent commercials by Sanders attempted to refute the stream of attack ads from Tarrant. The Sanders campaign also pushed an ad in which country singer Willie Nelson endorsed Sanders and cited his work for family farmers. Sanders beat Tarrant by more than a 2-1 margin.
So Sanders has survived and thrived in politics by neutralizing negative ads and resisting the urge to attack. And part of his shtick is that he doesn't do conventional politics. So, Devine notes, he will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. "That won't help him," Devine says. "He rejects the status quo of politics." Sanders won't even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. "If we do that, we're done," Devine says. "If we do a classic comparative ad, it's over. We'll have to be smarter."
And Team Sanders does have what it considers to be a smarter way: implying a contrast. In previous campaigns, Devine says, "We have constantly embedded contrast in everything we do." One example: During the 2006 Senate race, Tarrant's residence became a political issue because he had claimed a Florida mansion as his home for tax purposes. Sanders ran a biographical ad in which he declared he worked in Washington and lived in Burlington—an indirect jab at Tarrant. In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."
That's how Sanders recently handled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. He opposes the measure as a sop to corporate America and billionaires. Asked about Clinton's view—she has referred positively to this trade deal in the past but more recently has avoided stating a firm position—Sanders didn't proclaim that she's in bed with the 1 percent; he called on her to take a clear stance. "It's not a question of watching this," he said. "You're going to have determine which side are you on." Devine points out that "this is not negative, but contrasting. When you offer voters a contrast on the issues, they don't take that as a negative." He adds that Sanders is "very good at this."
Contrast without attacking—that's the mantra. "As someone making the ads, it will be a difficult challenge," Devine says. "We have to present the differences in the ads without him coming across as part of the political system." Devine fears that if Sanders crosses that line, the Clinton campaign will fire back hard: "They have all the tonnage. We're dead."
29 April 2011
Gimme Shelter UNHCR VIDEO
ANOTHER video for the UNHCR, this one more sobering, showing the work done by the agency in the DRC...think about this the next time you whine about wanting something you don't need, or complain about the taxes you pay going to foreign aid. I paid a total of $10,700 U.S. in federal income taxes in 2010, 1.7%, less than $200 U.S., went to foreign aid.
17 December 2010
Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study 17DEZ10 & Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information 9DEZ10
BIG SURPRISE HERE, fox faux "news" is nothing more than the national enquirer on TV. I think a majority of people who watch fox do so to validate their own ignorance and prejudice, after all fox didn't create the tea party movement but it certainly jumped on the bad wagon and maneuvered to take control through their propaganda campaigns and manipulate the tea-baggers to throw their support behind certain candidates. Click the header to go to the actual study from the University of Maryland.
Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.
The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:
Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)
Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.
(Image Credit)
Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.
Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.
• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).
Other key points of misinformation among voters were:
• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush
Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and
misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation."
The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%)
On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).
In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.
WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.
The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:
--Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) --Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories.
--The economy is getting worse (26 points)
--Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
--The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
--Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
--The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
--When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
--And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information
December 9, 2010Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key IssuesFull report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)
Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks. (Image Credit)
Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.
Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).
Other key points of misinformation among voters were:
• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush
Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and
misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation." The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%)
On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).
In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.
WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
30 October 2010
Poll: Americans Don't Know Economy Expanded With Tax Cuts from BLOOMBERG 29OKT10
I have heard and read so many reports that includes statements from voters that they are tired of being treated as being stupid by election campaigns, yet we are on the verge of turning the House over to the republicans because these voters are stupid enough to be manipulated by and believe the hate filled, prejudiced propaganda from the tea-baggers and gop, ignoring the facts on the economy, fiscal policy and government programs. From Bloomberg, be sure to check out the full poll results and the chart, click the links.
The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks and has overseen an economy that has grown for the past five quarters.
Most voters don’t believe it.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered.
“The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change.”
The Obama administration has cut taxes -- largely for the middle class -- by $240 billion since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009. A program aimed at families earning less than $150,000 that was contained in the stimulus package lowered the burden for 95 percent of working Americans by $116 billion, or about $400 per year for individuals and $800 for married couples. Other measures include breaks for college education, moderate- income families and the unemployed and incentives to promote renewable energy.
Not Getting Through
Still, the poll shows the message hasn’t gotten through to Americans, especially middle-income voters. By 52 percent to 19 percent, likely voters say federal income taxes have gone up for the middle class in the past two years.
“He’s all about raising taxes,” says poll respondent Jeanette Bagley, 74, a retired home health aide in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota. “He’s all about big government and big spending.”
The view that taxes have gone up is shared by a majority of almost all demographic groups, including 50 percent of independent voters, among the linchpins of Obama’s victory in the 2008 election.
Even a plurality of Democrats, 43 percent, holds this misperception. Overall, 63 percent of those who earn $25,000 to $49,999 say taxes have gone up, compared with 45 percent of those who earn $100,000 or more.
Republican Advantage
The poll demonstrates the tough odds for Democrats heading into the midterms. Republicans are poised to retake the U.S. House next week with a 47 percent to 44 percent edge among likely voters. Independents are driving the Republican advantage.
The heart of Obama’s voting base and the group he’s tailored most of his policies to, middle-income earners -- or those who make $25,000 to $49,999 -- feel more pinched by taxes, are gloomier about economic growth and more pessimistic the tax dollars lent to Wall Street banks will ever be repaid than their higher-income-earning counterparts.
In an October report to Congress, released as TARP turned two years old, the Treasury said it had recovered most of the $245 billion spent on the Wall Street bank part of the rescue, and expects to turn a $16 billion profit. In the Bloomberg poll, 60 percent of respondents say they believe most of the TARP money to the banks is lost and only 33 percent say most of the funds will be recovered.
“Anything that ever needs to be paid back it’s ‘let’s go after the middle class,’” says poll respondent Judith Ann Micone, a 55-year-old cosmetologist and Republican from Kalispell, Montana.
Women More Skeptical
Women are slightly more skeptical than men that the funds will be recovered. Independents and Republicans are overwhelmingly skeptical. Even Democrats are mostly doubtful, with 48 percent saying the money will be lost, compared with 41 percent who say it will be recovered.
Separate from the aid for the Wall Street banks, the Treasury says the payouts for insurers such as New York-based American International Group Inc. will end with a small loss on investment, as will the bailout for automakers. Only the assistance to mortgage lenders, projected to reach about $45 billion, will never be repaid, Treasury says.
The perceptions of voters about the performance of the economy are also at odds with official data. The recession that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009, making the 18-month stretch the longest since the Great Depression.
Economy Grows Again
Today, the Commerce Department reported the economy grew at a 2 percent annual rate in the third quarter as consumer spending climbed the most in almost four years, a sign the expansion is developing staying power. In the past year, the economy has grown 3.1 percent.
The third-quarter growth matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and followed a 1.7 percent gain the prior three months. Household purchases, about 70 percent of the economy, rose at a 2.6 percent pace, the best quarter of the recovery that began in June 2009.
Voters aren’t seeing the better climate: 61 percent of poll respondents say the economy is shrinking this year, compared with 33 percent who say it is growing.
Charlene Miller, a 58-year-old unemployed nursery worker from Waterview, Maryland, said her impression is shaped by the state of jobs and wages and the fact that she’s been unemployed for two years.
Jobs Going Overseas
“We’re sending too many jobs overseas and not paying Americans for their work,” says Miller, an independent who voted for Obama.
Older voters are more likely to view the economy negatively, with 69 percent of those age 55 and older saying it is shrinking, compared with 48 percent of voters under 35 who say so. For those 65 and older, it’s 71 percent. Those who earn less than $50,000 are more likely to view the economy negatively than those who earn more.
The Bloomberg National Poll, which included interviews with 1,000 likely voters in the November 2010 general election, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The impressions of these voters also are dissonant with other signs of economic improvement.
A year and a half after U.S. stocks hit their post- financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen 75 percent, and it’s up 15 percent for this year.
Jobless Rate Dominates
The unemployment rate that’s hovered at or above 9.5 percent for 14 months is crowding out any positive news, said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
“It spreads a dark cloud across anything else that you’re doing,” Oppenheimer said. “This won’t be a good election for Democrats.”
The poll reveals the failure of the Democrats to communicate their achievements even within their own party and the opposition’s triumph in painting the Obama administration as a failure, particularly on economic issues.
“The administration has said for a long time that the best politics was doing the right thing,” says Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist. “It requires a lot more. These numbers show that the best politics is selling what you’re doing.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net; John McCormick in Washington at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva in Washington at msilva34@bloomberg.net.
U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to promote a plan to let companies take immediate tax deductions for the full cost of new equipment today in Maryland. Photographer: Brendan Hoffman/Bloomberg
Most voters don’t believe it.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered.
“The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change.”
The Obama administration has cut taxes -- largely for the middle class -- by $240 billion since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009. A program aimed at families earning less than $150,000 that was contained in the stimulus package lowered the burden for 95 percent of working Americans by $116 billion, or about $400 per year for individuals and $800 for married couples. Other measures include breaks for college education, moderate- income families and the unemployed and incentives to promote renewable energy.
Not Getting Through
Still, the poll shows the message hasn’t gotten through to Americans, especially middle-income voters. By 52 percent to 19 percent, likely voters say federal income taxes have gone up for the middle class in the past two years.
“He’s all about raising taxes,” says poll respondent Jeanette Bagley, 74, a retired home health aide in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota. “He’s all about big government and big spending.”
The view that taxes have gone up is shared by a majority of almost all demographic groups, including 50 percent of independent voters, among the linchpins of Obama’s victory in the 2008 election.
Even a plurality of Democrats, 43 percent, holds this misperception. Overall, 63 percent of those who earn $25,000 to $49,999 say taxes have gone up, compared with 45 percent of those who earn $100,000 or more.
Republican Advantage
The poll demonstrates the tough odds for Democrats heading into the midterms. Republicans are poised to retake the U.S. House next week with a 47 percent to 44 percent edge among likely voters. Independents are driving the Republican advantage.
The heart of Obama’s voting base and the group he’s tailored most of his policies to, middle-income earners -- or those who make $25,000 to $49,999 -- feel more pinched by taxes, are gloomier about economic growth and more pessimistic the tax dollars lent to Wall Street banks will ever be repaid than their higher-income-earning counterparts.
In an October report to Congress, released as TARP turned two years old, the Treasury said it had recovered most of the $245 billion spent on the Wall Street bank part of the rescue, and expects to turn a $16 billion profit. In the Bloomberg poll, 60 percent of respondents say they believe most of the TARP money to the banks is lost and only 33 percent say most of the funds will be recovered.
“Anything that ever needs to be paid back it’s ‘let’s go after the middle class,’” says poll respondent Judith Ann Micone, a 55-year-old cosmetologist and Republican from Kalispell, Montana.
Women More Skeptical
Women are slightly more skeptical than men that the funds will be recovered. Independents and Republicans are overwhelmingly skeptical. Even Democrats are mostly doubtful, with 48 percent saying the money will be lost, compared with 41 percent who say it will be recovered.
Separate from the aid for the Wall Street banks, the Treasury says the payouts for insurers such as New York-based American International Group Inc. will end with a small loss on investment, as will the bailout for automakers. Only the assistance to mortgage lenders, projected to reach about $45 billion, will never be repaid, Treasury says.
The perceptions of voters about the performance of the economy are also at odds with official data. The recession that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009, making the 18-month stretch the longest since the Great Depression.
Economy Grows Again
Today, the Commerce Department reported the economy grew at a 2 percent annual rate in the third quarter as consumer spending climbed the most in almost four years, a sign the expansion is developing staying power. In the past year, the economy has grown 3.1 percent.
The third-quarter growth matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and followed a 1.7 percent gain the prior three months. Household purchases, about 70 percent of the economy, rose at a 2.6 percent pace, the best quarter of the recovery that began in June 2009.
Voters aren’t seeing the better climate: 61 percent of poll respondents say the economy is shrinking this year, compared with 33 percent who say it is growing.
Charlene Miller, a 58-year-old unemployed nursery worker from Waterview, Maryland, said her impression is shaped by the state of jobs and wages and the fact that she’s been unemployed for two years.
Jobs Going Overseas
“We’re sending too many jobs overseas and not paying Americans for their work,” says Miller, an independent who voted for Obama.
Older voters are more likely to view the economy negatively, with 69 percent of those age 55 and older saying it is shrinking, compared with 48 percent of voters under 35 who say so. For those 65 and older, it’s 71 percent. Those who earn less than $50,000 are more likely to view the economy negatively than those who earn more.
The Bloomberg National Poll, which included interviews with 1,000 likely voters in the November 2010 general election, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
The impressions of these voters also are dissonant with other signs of economic improvement.
A year and a half after U.S. stocks hit their post- financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen 75 percent, and it’s up 15 percent for this year.
Jobless Rate Dominates
The unemployment rate that’s hovered at or above 9.5 percent for 14 months is crowding out any positive news, said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
“It spreads a dark cloud across anything else that you’re doing,” Oppenheimer said. “This won’t be a good election for Democrats.”
The poll reveals the failure of the Democrats to communicate their achievements even within their own party and the opposition’s triumph in painting the Obama administration as a failure, particularly on economic issues.
“The administration has said for a long time that the best politics was doing the right thing,” says Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist. “It requires a lot more. These numbers show that the best politics is selling what you’re doing.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net; John McCormick in Washington at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva in Washington at msilva34@bloomberg.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)