Polls Show Americans' Confused View of Stimulus, Taxes, Deficit

July 26, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (12)

In recent weeks, a growing number of academic and market economists have been urging the government to defer budget cutting measures and instead provide additional stimulus to a still fragile economy. A recent survey, however, portrays the public as, at best, dubious about this prescription.

The latest Pew Research Center/National Journal Congressional Connection poll finds an overwhelming proportion of Americans united in the belief that the antirecessionary policies thus far pursued by the government have mostly benefited big banks and financial institutions as well as big business and wealthy individuals. Getting the short end of the economic stick: the middle class and the poor.

[Check out a roundup of editorial cartoons on the economy.]

Unusual in the current hyper-partisan era is that some of these impressions are shared across party lines: 77 percent of Independents, 75 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of Democrats say government policies have helped large banks and financial institutions. No more than one third in each group says government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor. Are the U.S. masses poised to man the barricades, threatening the plutocrats who have grown rich at their expense?

Not likely. When it comes to questions of class divisions, the American people are steadfastly of two minds. Indeed, one can find evidence of this deep-seated ambivalence elsewhere in the findings from the same poll.

For example, far from demanding that the government reinforce its efforts so as to help neglected middle and lower-income groups, a majority of the public views cutting the federal budget deficit as more important than stimulating the economy. This despite findings, in two other recent Pew Research polls, that more than half of adults have suffered job-related losses during the recession and even more have had to cut back on expenses, and that jobs are an even higher priority among the public than deficit reduction. And then there are those other recent polls showing consumers share the economists’ worries about a second economic dip.

Moreover, fully 4 in 10 rate further tax cuts an even higher priority than reducing the federal deficit, an especially interesting priority given that the overwhelming proportion of taxes, other than Social Security and Medicare payroll tax deductions, are paid by the same upper-income classes who, in the judgment of most Americans, have benefited most from the economic policies the government has implemented since the start of the recession in 2008 and that a Pew poll last year found a 61 percent majority supported raising taxes on those with incomes above $200,000.

These seemingly warring preferences are a persistent strain in the nation’s thought. True, the number of Americans seeing the nation as divided between “haves” and “have-nots” rose over recent decades. It reached a high in 2007, with the public splitting an even 48-48 percent between those seeing and not seeing such a divide and 34 percent classifying themselves as among the have-nots. (In 1988, 26 percent saw a have/have-not divide, and only 17 percent saw themselves as being on the negative side of the economic balance.) But both these perceptions receded over the following two years despite the economic decline: By late 2008, 44 percent saw an economic split and that percentage declined sharply in the first months of the Obama administration to 35 percent in April 2009.

This aversion to the notion of an enduring economic divide is in line with a belief, routinely expressed by Americans, in the potential for upward mobility in American society as well as strong admiration for those who have climbed the heights of the economic ladder. The 2009 Pew Research Political Values survey, for example, found that--in the depths of the economic downturn--fully 76 percent agreed that “the strength of this country today is mostly based on the success of American business.” Moreover, 9 in 10 agreed--as they have in surveys since the question was first asked in 1992--that they “admire people who get rich by working hard.” (Although 6 in 10 worried that “many people today think they can get ahead without working hard and making sacrifices.”) And by a 64-to-32 percent margin, Americans reject the idea that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control.”

But wait—the political values survey itself might seem to call into question some of these opinions. Business may be the backbone of the nation, but the great majority of Americans (77 percent) still say that “there is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies.” Moreover, a 62 percent majority says businesses make too much profit; only 37 percent say businesses “generally strike a fair balance between profits and the public interest.” 

By a 2-1 margin (62-to-29 percent) the public also agrees that “the free market needs regulation to best serve the public interest”--never mind that, in the opinion of a 54 percent majority, “government regulation of business does more harm than good.” Or that 57 percent say that things run by the government are usually wasteful and inefficient--though, of course, that doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t take care of people who can’t take care of themselves (63 percent say it should).

Confused? Join the crowd.

Tags:
recession,
Wall Street,
social security,
deficit and national debt,
economy,
taxes,
economic stimulus,
Medicare

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

steve and only steve gets it . He does have an MA after all , he must be right .One day I hope to be a smart a-- steve .

Hunter of WI 10:30PM July 27, 2010

Bill, How you blame Clinton is beyond absurd. The recession began in March 2001, two months after he left office. Bush had the slowest GDP growth rate on record as well as the slowest labor market recovery which took four years for unemployment rates to return to their pre-recession levels. This should tell you something about his policies. The 18 year long bull market you're talking about experienced the vast majority of its growth between 1993 and 2000. During this time the value of the DOW quadrupled in value. The amazing thing is that this was immediately after Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy by a significant amount. The stock market wasn't responding to tax cuts. There were none. They were responding to GDP growth, income growth and job growth like it always does. Companies make money when the economy grows, not just when they are given more money to invest whether there are profitable places to invest that money or not. That is why the market responds to unemployment by going down and rising output and income growth and employment by rising.

True, Bush's tax cuts gave the rich more money to put in the stock market; this could account for why the market took off after 2004. But the market bubble burst in the fourth quarter of 2007. Corporate profitability was largely connected to profits and earnings made overseas and in global markets, not necessarily in the US. It was in 2007, when the world economy began to contract that the stock market declined. The US economy was slow growing on average since 2001 and has remained so. The modest domestic surge in GDP growth beginning in late 2003 was insufficient to send the DOW over 14,000; it was global markets in which US corporations were increasingly active through trade and investment. In retrospect, Bush's tax cuts did nothing for the US economy. They probably even caused significant harm.

This also returns to the argument regarding JFK's tax cuts. The US economy didn't begin to see growth until about 1965. The growth spurt continued until 1969 when a mild recession began. The four high growth years, averaging over 4.5% GDP growth annually, were due to the fact that LBJ increased BOTH Vietnam War spending and social spending for the War on Poverty at the same time. Deficits grew and the US economy was at near full capacity. The tax cut came at a time when growth due to deficit spending was occurring anyway. Sure, the tax cuts added to growth but only because there was already long standing growth momentum when the tax cuts took effect. Tax cuts only help an already fast growing economy; they will never kick start an economy in the midst of a deep recession. For this, fiscal stimulus in the form of deficit spending is needed. This is the real lesson of JFK's tax cuts. You also neglected to explain how such high growth took place in the 1960s when top margin was still 70% compared to much lower growth in the 1980s and after when top margin averaged well below 40%. I'll wait for your reply.

steve of IL 5:46PM July 27, 2010

Not very knowlegeable on Longest Bull Market I see.

I invested in that market. Lost nothing from Tech bubble which had little to do with the long Bull market. 1982-2000. Yes early 2000 Clinton recession began the beginning of closing down the Bull market.

.........

As much as we have discussed the far outs in obama’s administration and in Congress. You boil down their actions, especially to personal level, are they CONSERVATIVE at home, in the pocket book ? Or willing payers of these high taxes they pass for us to pay.

Focus on John Kerry for a moment. Maybe never saw a bad tax in his political life. So what does he do but park his costly yacht outside of MA. Just to save $400,000 !!!

http://www.ihatethemedia......ode-island

Rest assured John has a perfectly good logical reason for his actions. Don’t we all have perfectly good reasons ? But for his high principles he should not deny MA the tax. Plus RI has similar immigration law as Arizona for years. Should he not be boycotting RI for years ?

My mistake it is not a yacht as clearly corrected by a liberal on the Hannity show last night. Is a “76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage.”. Least I should exaggerate or mislead.

“Words may show a man’s wit but actions his meaning“.

Benjamin Franklin

If I remember right, was 19 week wait to find job under Bush, 35 weeks under OUR SAVIOR obama.

“Harmful Spending & Complexity”

“Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.”

http://www.heritage.org/R.....-Tax-Rates

“Heritage Budget Expert Debunks Bush Tax Cuts-Deficit Myth”

This is a short article and well worth the read. Liberal I have seen live by certain assertions and this short article gives the ammunition to shut their months.

http://www.libertycentral.....th-2010-07

Bill Hedges of MO 10:01PM July 26, 2010

Jodie Allen

Jodie Allen

Jodie Allen is senior editor at the Pew Research Center. She joined the Pew Center from U.S. News & World Report where she was a managing editor and the business editor and also wrote a bi-weekly column on the political economy. She came to U.S. News from Slate Magazine, where she was the Washington bureau chief. Before joining Slate she was the editor of Outlook, the Sunday commentary section of the Washington Post. She has also been an editorial writer and business columnist with the Post.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

advertisement