Sounds right to me -- I remember how everyone was so upset when Bush turned record surpluses into record deficits in order to further enrich the rich.

Right?

People wants jobs and the deficit reduced, what's so hard to understand about that?
Later, in the same poll, respondents were asked to identify the "most important economic issue facing the country." Unemployment beat out the budget deficit by double digits.
Who cares? More poeple are worried about their job than the deficit (is that reaaly hard to believe) Expect the dems to get beaten to death by this.

There was a NYTimes poll with similar anomalous results reported on the front page today, too.

Never underestimate the abject stupidity of the average American.

You mean after decades of the media worshiping dead right wing economists, the U.S. public thinks those economists are correct.

Time for the Democrats to take a page straight from the George W. Bush Soundbite Book: We don't change our strategy based on the latest poll results.

Trillion-dollar deficits sound frightening. I don't think the average person appreciates just how large the U.S. economy has become.

This isn't mysterious. The question obviously made it sound like the economy would respond just as well, albeit a little more slowly, if the emphasis were on deficit reduction.

Had it been explained that the economy spirals sharply downward if we discontinue or reduce stimulus spending, they'd have gotten a different answer.

Most people still have jobs. Even if unemployment goes to 30% 70% will still have jobs. Most people know that they will not lose their jobs, but they do know that high unemployment will put pressure on wages. They are concerned about the hyper inflation that could come with hyper deficits. If they can't demand raises, how will they deal with hyper inflation. That is hard to understand? Why?

Simply throwing money at the economy might be help stanch the bleeding, but it isn't the real cure. The real cure is developing and implementing a deliberate industrial policy that moves financial services out of the center of the American economy and creates sustainable and productive new jobs.

There are several other questions that ask about budget deficit vs. job creation, and job creation wins out as more important every single time.

Except this question. It makes me wonder what cues the respondents were getting from the polltakers, on that one. I think shortstop's interpretation might be right.

People have heard for decades that deficits strangle growth. This is a reflection of that, they believe lowering the deficit equals faster recover from recession.

This same corporate , ge, rigged poll also showed the increase in the support for cheney .. up to 26 percent .... and obama's approval rating down to 56 percent... meanwhile every other poll has obama at 63 percent or higher ... never underestimate the corporations from manipulating the polls for their benefit ...

In other news, 58% of Americans have a less than passable understanding of basic economics.

"fromer" has just announced the unifying theory of everything U.S.

Maybe those responses are from people who believe that the inflating-bubble approach of the past 20 years isn't the way to manage the economy, and that some of the risk needs to be unwound, which will be a long and painful process (and should require real reform). Perhaps ramping up short-term economic indicators at the expense of long-term fiscal health is not the preferred solution?

The public in general wants it all - you only need to look at California to see how this works. They want the services - and will mandate via the ballot box that the government MUST provide them - but they will also mandate lower taxes for themselves and a pony if they get the chance.

Same thing here - they want the economy to turn around, but they want it in some magical way that won't cause pain and won't cause deficits in the short term. And they want it now. Feh.

One thing to note is that the question was whether "the President and the Congress should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger deficits now and in the future." So they were basically suggesting that we would be boosting the economy at the expense of a permanent increase in the debt. Which of course is not how Keynesian stimulus works; the boost in spending is temporary (and anyway, once the economy recovers the deficit shrinks naturally, because there's more income around to tax).

In short, shortstop is right; the question made it sound like it was temporary recovery vs. permanent deficit. It isn't.

Perhaps the American people have noticed that the stimulus package has accomplished nothing but saving or creating jobs for their esteemed public employees. I know we're thrilled about it here in NY State.

Perhaps the American people know in their bones that their government, even Mr. Obama's government bolstered with some magical realist rhetoric, cannot "create" one single private sector job; it's a fool's metric.

Breaking news: Poll shows that wife beating has risen to unprecedented levels among a sampling of Americans.

Q: "Have you stopped beating your wife?

Response: 50% No.
50% yes.

The never ending propaganda from the right is bound to have an effect sooner or later. Every 15 minutes they're outraged about something new and they'll milk it through however long the news cycle lasts.

Just look at the recent poll in which more people self-identified as conservative than liberal. Years of bashing the left worked -- people won't align themselves with liberalis even though they prefer liberal policies when they're presented without political or ideological affiliation.

This 'death by a thousand cuts' approach they're following worked during the Clinton years and if Dems aren't more forceful in refuting this garbage, it'll work against Obama.

And we trust a WSJ poll on the relative importance of deficits because?

This may just be a desire being voiced by people to be sensible.

If you can shorten the recovery time by a few months by doubling the deficit... not so great.

If you can cut it in half by increasing the deficit by 10%, hell yeah!

The public can rest assured. Unlike in years past, you now have a president who is capable of "using his head." I know it takes some getting used to after having governed from the gut.

doubtful: In other news, 58% of Americans have a less than passable understanding of basic economics.

Snark aside, this is most likely true and probably explains a lot of inconsistencies in peoples' answers to poll questions on economic policy.

Go and ask ten people you know to explain the difference between Keynesian fiscal policy and monetary policy. Or ask them to explain precisely how the government takes on debt in the first place. Heck fire, ask them to explain the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt.

These are often difficult issues to grasp and really understand. And, yeah, most people probably have not taken (or remember what they may have been exposed to in) a course in Econ 102, much less higher level econ courses, where they would have been exposed to more complicated issues.

It's the same with the health care debate.

At this point, I'd rather get something for my deficit spending rather than endless wars, missile defense programs, and the assurance that heiresses will get all of that richly-deserved inheritance

Via the poll itself, Questions 23 & 24 yield conflicting results.

We want low taxes, big spending and a balanced budget. AND WE WANT IT RIGHT NOW! WAAAAAH!!

"With that in mind, here's hoping policy makers ignore the poll, address economic recovery now, and tackle deficit reduction later."

The fastest way to reduce the deficit is to increase jobs and revenues. They're not mutually exclusive goals. The biggest failure of the media on this issue IMO is that they haven't talked about how much of the deficits they're reporting ad nauseum are due to the contraction in GDP we've experienced, and its still shrinking.

Oh yeah, we also want no inflation, high economic growth, big wage increases, full employment, low food prices, cheap gas, and big screen TVs. And free sex.

Amurican Peepul, Right On Bro. We want it too.

My kind answer, I think it's mostly that people do not understand how the economy works.

My unkind answer, I think most people do not give a darn about other people. and that this poll could reflect that. Remember telephone polls these days only reach people with land-lines which is mostly an older crowd. Additionally, people who are unemployed may have had their phones cut off and are also not represented in this poll.

Since when can the WSJ be trusted for factual poling and information? It lost ist's credibility when it was sold to Murdoch

Amurican Peepul: Oh yeah, we also want...free sex.

Can you define "free," please?

Hmm ... According to the actual survey, it seems we have a disproportionately non-hispanic (89%) / white (75%) / elderly-skewed (21% 55-64?!?) crowd who all use a cell phone only. It would seem a fairly small group to try to get ahold of, but I'd also bet that that particular combination of demographics also skews towards having a fairly stable job and savings, and conservative. I'd also bet they've been shoveling in right-wing propaganda from Rush and the other GOP leadership for months now.

So, it's not surprising that they favor echoing the GOP misinterpretations of reality over simple economic logic or understanding.

That having been said, the wording of the question without any bounds on what the marginal effects of the additional deficit are leaves the answers somewhat meaningless. I mean, I might rather have another day of "recession" than have to pay for an additional trillion dollars in deficit, especially if "recession" to me means nothing more tangible than hearing people talk about some other people don't have a job and cheaper staples at the grocery store. On the other hand, a $1 increase in the deficit to stop the recession NOW would obviously be an easy bargain, even if the recession has no direct impact on me whatsoever.

In other words, I think the answers say more about where people believe the trade-off is (how much more deficit we will have to take on to shave how much time off the recession) than anything else. They obviously believe that we are planning on spending big money and build up a huge deficit, and have little or no tangible effect on the recession itself.

Obviously as well, they do NOT understand that "doing nothing" (hence not adding to the deficit at all) means not just a LONGER recession but more likely a PERMANENT recession and the utter collapse of our economy.

Although, Rush might accept that kind of a trade so that he can blame it on Obama.

The message from Dems, in effect, has been, "We'll run deficit now to help spark a recovery." This poll suggests the proper response is, "We'd rather have a longer recession than high deficits."

The public might well believe that the long-term effect of the accumulated government deficit is worth more than the short-term effect of increased government spending.

There were two widespread criticisms of Bush's deficit spending: (1) that it benefitted the rich more than everybody else; (2) the long-term accumulated deficit was more costly than the short-term gain of the "stimulus" effect of the deficits.

About point 2, related to your post, I think that enough people believed it that it cost Republicans in the elections. Certainly, there have been lots of Democrats criticising Bush and the Republicans for turning a budget surplus into a deficit, even though the recession was beginning (or growth was slowing dramatically) when he took office. If that's the case, the poll results that you posted today are consistent with that voting.

Don't over-interpret this. Most Americans lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to even qualify as being 'economically illiterate'.

Polls on a subject like this mean nothing, and are worth nothing. It's like asking people how much thrust the space shuttle should use when taking off. There's no reason to ask, and who cares what a bunch of dumb-asses think about it?

Why should we trust polls if we can't trust the source? There's plenty of reasons to believe the motivation to change results may be bought by stakeholders.

MatthewRMarler, your point number 2 eloquently states the idea I was intending to convey, and stated so poorly. Thank you.

There were two widespread criticisms of Bush's deficit spending: (1) that it benefitted the rich more than everybody else; (2) the long-term accumulated deficit was more costly than the short-term gain of the "stimulus" effect of the deficits.

No, Marler, there were three: 3) that he tried to pay for his war of choice in Iraq with a tax cut.

And I call shenanigans on your implication that Bush's deficits, created by tax cuts, had any stimulative effect at all. Why else did Greenspan need to hold interest rates at record lows for record lengths of time -- kicking off the housing bubble in the process -- if not yet another bit of dishonesty designed to convince the American public that Bush's sweet, sweet tax cuts for the rich benefited them, even marginally?

No one's fooled by your recent pretense as an honest commentator, Marler, but it's a pleasure to see your usual bad faith emerge when the subject is tax cuts. Shame on you, Marler.

To be fair, and I would rather not, the poll could make sense if you compare it to what is happening in California. My state has, I believe, the closest thing to a direct democracy in the nation. Direct Democracy has taken away Rights, and given the California legislature the impossible paradoxical task of giving the people more public services AND reducing tax dollars.

I noticed this same behavior when I lived in Wisconsin. The Zoning Board had commissioned a study, and provided a subsequent hearing, regarding the people's preference on Zoning. Again, paradoxically, people were in favor of maintaining the rural feel of the region by keeping large swaths of land open and free from development. But when asked if they'd support regulation requiring minimum acreages in support of this ideal, nobody wanted the 'government' telling them how small their land lots could be.

You see the same thing happening with Health Care. We see polls that nearly 75% of the population support a public option. But polls also show that the population doesn't want to pay for it either.

Sometimes society makes me weep.

This represents the WSJ influence in the polling.
And I thought deficits don't matter. No wait that's what DICK says. Or GOP deficits don't matter.

Gregory: No, Marler, there were three: 3) that he tried to pay for his war of choice in Iraq with a tax cut.

Point taken. That's the best thing you have ever written about one of my posts.

I still think that point #2 was most germane to this thread.

Ben, it was nice of you to write that.

I think a lot of people have the mistaken idea that high deficits are slowing the recovery. Most people really don't get how the economy works, and they are confirmed in their ignorance by listening to the drumbeat from the moronic right wing.

Krugman on his blog points to this recent article by Christina Romer, in which she describes the pressures that FDR and Congress were under in 1937, when FDR caved to the deficit hawks and tried to rein in spending, sending the economy back down into the dumps, after several years of recovery:

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13856176

Then, in a somewhat surreal stroke, Krugman in the same post points to Gallup poll numbers from '35 and '36, in which the public was itching to reduce the deficits...i.e., perhaps the same sitch that we now find ourselves entering.

Commenters above have noted that most people really don't understand economics, while Krugman points out that even many macroeconomists don't understand macroeconomics, or at least macroeconomic history and "depression economics."

Will history repeat itself?

Economics in its present state is more harmful than not. Few economists had any understanding of risk before the present crisis, and afterwards the same ones are suddenly oracles of wisdom? I don't think so.

First, let's kill all the economists.

There were two widespread criticisms of Bush's deficit spending: (1) that it benefitted the rich more than everybody else; (2) the long-term accumulated deficit was more costly than the short-term gain of the "stimulus" effect of the deficits.

Oh, garbage. There were far more criticisms than that, including such things as: a) the tax cuts made no damn economic sense, b) a "tax cut to return a surplus" is definitely not the same thing as a "tax cut to stimulate the economy," which made the Bush administration tax cuts really, really stupid, c) since the business cycle was peaking during the time that Bush was in office, he should have been paying down the national debt rather than adding to it, d) his numbers never added up, not as a candidate and not as a President, e) he should have been dealing with the looming Medicare crisis, and on and on and on.

even though the recession was beginning (or growth was slowing dramatically) when he took office.

LOL.... Marler, are you trying to pretend that today's mess began at the time Bush took office??? Even for you, that's incredibly stupid. We had a fucking bubble for the past eight years. It should have been a piece of cake to balance the budget, even to run a surplus.

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.