Rasmussen push-polling?
October 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm by Scott Henry in NewsOne of CL’s veteran ad reps, Andrew Cylar, got a call at home from a pollster at Rasmussen, a Republican-leaning polling firm, who asked what could be construed as a rather leading question. Several questions in, Andrew was asked how he felt about “spreading the wealth around.” As with the other questions, he was asked to assign a numerical value indicating his level of support for the subject.
The McCain campaign, of course, is making a last-ditch effort to turn voters against Obama by repeating the Democratic nominee’s poorly worded remark to Joe the Plumber: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
It just seems odd that a respected polling firm would ask voters what they thought of “spreading the wealth around,” without at least providing additional context. Pollsters, for instance, could have asked, “At a recent Ohio campaign stop, Sen. Obama said his tax plan was designed to spread the wealth around. Do you support that goal?”
Instead, the pollster simply repeated the phrase, much as the McCain camp is doing. Is it wacky for us to wonder in the back of our minds if Rasmussen didn’t ask this question partly out of a desire to help the GOP nominee?
October 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I am curious how the statement was “poorly worded” when that is exactly the effect and intent of the policies esposed by Obama?
October 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Its poorly written as is the blurb for this post since it takes the statement out of context.
Obama wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts that shifted some of the tax burden off the 5% or so of the wealthiest.
After a lenghty dialogue he tried to convince “joe the plumber” that though he would have to pay more on the amount over $250,000 had he had Obama’s tax plan he could have gotten to the over $250,000 point quickly.
Obama said he didn’t want to punish people, … but that he believed he should pay a little more if he is doing better and that if the economy is good for people from the bottom up its good for everyone, “I think if you spread the wealth around for everyone its good for everybody.”
Watch it Obama isn’t talking about socialism where everything is taken and everything is paid for by the government. He’s talking about what I used to think was a fundamental principle of the tax code. That those who do better will pay a little more on the high end of their income (not all of it). Heck its still that way now even with the Bush Tax cut for the rich, is that socialism?
Well maybe its a fair question – because yes he used the phrase. But to characterize the phrase as meaning Obama wants to institute socialism or bring about some radical change in economics in America is BS.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Sorry, I should clarify, the blurb for this post isn’t what’s poorly written.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I tend to believe what he says the first time, rather than his “Oh crap I messed up” nuanced explanation. Biden does this on steroids.
If the Bush rates are so beneficial to “the rich”, why do those very same people pay a grossly oversized portion of the taxes? Also, the “rich” pay a higher proportion of Federal taxes than the same group did under Carter.
Obama talks about making taxes fair. The only fair tax is a flat tax rate paid by all citizens. Whether you want it on income or consupmtion, it isn’t fair to charge one citizen a higher percentage than another. This is assuming that the tax code makes provisions for the basic necessities of life.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
The second phrasing of the question would have introduced the candidates name and brought in the voters bias, for or against, Obama.
A more accurate result is gained by leaving his name out.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Obama’s spread the wealth comment came at the end of his long intro, so it is what he said the first time. His whole explanation was clearly not socialist theories.
“the rich” may be paying a greater portion of the income tax than they did under Carter but I would argue that’s because they now command a greater portion of the national income (including cap gains that are now discounted).
My problem with the flat tax is it still has not been explained how they would deal with the home mortgage deduction and if interest charged on mortgages or credit card debt would be subject to the sales tax.
Removing the mortgage deduction would do a number on real estate values. But hey if they take that away from me then make sure they take away all the deductions for kids and exemptions for those over 65 simply because they vote in large numbers and i guess we could try to ride out the effects on real estate.
But I believe in a progressive tax system. Those who make more should pay more – not all or not even a majority of their income, just more. That’s not socialism, that’s been the tax code for generations.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Obama made the comment, and then verified it later, after a couple of decades of associations with Marxist’s who do espouse those principles. The progressive income tax was a major part of Karl Marx ideology and, although it has been adopted by a capitalist country, doesn’t make it fair, right or any less Socialist.
I do not think that Obama will be able to make our country Socialist. BTW, this is precisely why I opposed th e Bailout Bill, especially the provision allowing the US Government to own shares in private companies. the camels nose just pushed a little farther into the tent.
The Flat Tax, as porposed by Dick Armey, allows for mortgage interest and charitable giving deductions. The Fair Tax, created by others and made famous by Boortz, does not protect mortgage interest deductions, but proposes to lower the overall tax burden by making compliance much easier and taxing consumption. Neither proposal, nor our current plan, allows a credit card interest deduction.
Under the Fair Tax, sales tax applies to sales, not after sale interest fees.