CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:36 am
 


$1:
Poll: Bush, Congress Approval Slumping

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush's standing with the public is slumping just three months into his final term, but Americans have an even lower regard for the job being done by Congress. Bush's job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by the Republican-controlled Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

Bush's job approval was at 49 percent in January, while Congress was at 41 percent.

"This is a pretty sour spring," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. "People are not very impressed by what Bush is doing or by what Congress is doing — Democrats or Republicans."

Record high gasoline prices, nervousness about the future of Social Security, the ongoing Iraq war and the Terri Schiavo case are all contributing, political analysts said.

Republicans in Congress and the president moved quickly during the Easter recess to approve legislation intended to prolong the life of Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after her feeding tube was disconnected.

The number supporting Bush's handling of some domestic issues dipped between March and April, to 42 percent for the economy and 38 percent for issues like education and health care, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Support for the president's approach to his top domestic priority, Social Security, remained at 36 percent, while 58 percent oppose it.

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said Bush faces an uphill battle with his plan to allow younger workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes in personal investment accounts.

"With the Social Security plan itself, they're fundamentally trying to sell a plan that isn't popular," Fabrizio said. "They're flying into the wind."

Young adults are supposed to benefit the most from Bush's Social Security proposal, but a majority of that group, 54 percent, opposes the president on that issue.

Ed Rollins, a Republican who was a top political adviser to President Reagan, said if Bush continues to push relentlessly for his Social Security plan he's taking a chance.

"If he wants to make Social Security his legacy," Rollins said, he faces the risk that "there will be no legacy."

Denise Brown, a 41-year-old Republican from Prattville, Ala., is among those Bush has yet to convince.

"I'm not sold on it," she said. "Maybe there haven't been any alternatives put out there. Something definitely needs to be done, but there are probably other ways to do it that may be better."

While Democrats firmly disapprove of Bush's job performance and independents lean toward disapproval, Republicans remain firmly behind him.

"I don't know that the exit strategy in Iraq is completely thought out. And I don't know that all the Social Security options have been explored," said Scott Lindsey, a Republican who lives around Memphis, Tenn. "But I think President Bush is doing a good job."

The president's poll standing has been in the mid-40s to low-50s for the past two years, said Matthew Dowd, who was a strategist and pollster for Bush in the 2004 presidential campaign.



"The president being at the lower end of his normal range has more to do with the price of gasoline and thus, economic confidence, than anything else," Dowd said.

During the first three months of the year, Congress has spent much of its time discussing the budget and Social Security and passing legislation toughening laws on bankruptcy. Congress interrupted its Easter break last month to pass the legislation on Schiavo.

Some think Congress has its priorities confused.

"I don't think Congress should have gotten involved in the Schiavo case," said Tiavia Fields, a nurse from Compton, Calif., who is a Democrat. "That was in Florida and it had nothing to do with us. Isn't that a state matter? They should have just let that poor woman's husband handle it."

Democrats are pondering how best to tap into public dissatisfaction with Bush and the GOP-led Congress.

"I think the Democrats have to be clearer about offering alternatives, not just the critique," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "People already know what the problems are, they want to know the solutions."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken April 4-6 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.



Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 353
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:17 am
 


Yeah, tough term for Bush. He put a lot on his plate...

On Social Security, I agree there's gotta be better options than totally privatizing it. I mean, that's supposed to be something you can count on if all else fails when you retire. Making it private is just too uncertain and I doubt that the majority of youngsters who oppose it are gonna change their minds anytime soon unless gov't find a way to make that private acct. immune to market changes or corporate corruption.

Iraq - Well, that's like beating a dead horse. The mess was created when we went in trying to fix a prior one. We very well can't leave now and tell the Iraqi's to clean it all up. Just gotta see it through to the end as well as we can and as quickly as we can.

Terri Schiavo- Surely they knew that going gov't on that one would have been unpopular :|


Democrats are not necessarily gonna benefit from the current dissaproval of Bush's job performance though unless we start talking about viable options on the stuff we oppose.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 90
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:40 pm
 


dknychic dknychic:
Yeah, tough term for Bush. He put a lot on his plate...

On Social Security, I agree there's gotta be better options than totally privatizing it. I mean, that's supposed to be something you can count on if all else fails when you retire. Making it private is just too uncertain and I doubt that the majority of youngsters who oppose it are gonna change their minds anytime soon unless gov't find a way to make that private acct. immune to market changes or corporate corruption.

Iraq - Well, that's like beating a dead horse. The mess was created when we went in trying to fix a prior one. We very well can't leave now and tell the Iraqi's to clean it all up. Just gotta see it through to the end as well as we can and as quickly as we can.

Terri Schiavo- Surely they knew that going gov't on that one would have been unpopular :|


Democrats are not necessarily gonna benefit from the current dissaproval of Bush's job performance though unless we start talking about viable options on the stuff we oppose.


Who’s going to privatize social security? Because it not going to be the this congress or Bush. Really it’s quite sad how the democrats and extreme left groups have been putting out so much falsehoods and propaganda about what Bush wants to do.
The truth is, Bush wants to fix social security, and one of the options is setting up Voluntary Private Accounts! Note emphasizes that their voluntary. Personal I’m with Rush on this, I say we do nothing and we let the system fall apart, and crash. Then we will finally be rid of this huge socialist burden on our system.
But I’m willing to support the president in fixing it, simply because I know when it does collapse its going to put a lot of people in bad straits. As it is social security is depended upon the government and ultimately US taxpayers dollars to fund that its current investment strategy is entirely based on buying up government bonds. The trouble is, when you do that you have to drive up a huge dept problem over the years that just gets worse and worse, as it relays on the prospect that the US federal government will make more money down the line, and that’s not always so. The idea of creating private accounts, in SS, is just that an idea bush is presenting. It is not privatization as that would entail taking it out of the government. And that’s not currently on anyone playbook.
In any event if we stay with SS as it is, the amount of money and income SS will actual be able to provided to retirees will continue to drop. So it really doesn’t matter as far as a fall back. While at the same time the cost to the government will continue to get much higher until the government simply can’t pay for it, and ultimately will be forced to either fully privities (unlikely, as there won’t be enough money left in the system by that point) or just drop the system. Or most likely try to do fully privatized the system and since there wont be enough money at that point the system just collapses anyway.

Good for hard core conservatives,(not any Republicans thou), as we will be finally rid of this Disaster, FDR created for us.
No option is good for American retirees if we wait till there isn’t enough money left in the system.
I agree with you the democrats wont benefit as they have yet to come up with any real alterative. The only real mistake bush made on this issue, was allowing the democrats and leftwing groups with huge cash cows like AARP, define what he wants for him for most Americans. Thou I admit it would have been hard to avoid that. When you got millions of dollar you can spend on anti bush Ad’s.
This is a very difficult area within politics. And to be quite frank with you I think Bush has the best chance of any president to really fix the problem.
Remember Bush’s plain is not, to privatization of Social security, its just to create Optional accounts, that American can chooses to divers some of their money into. In this way the government wont beadle to dip into the SS money, and it’s possible if Americans want to take that risk that mite actual get something meaningful out of the system, when they retire.
This was in fact part of Roosevelt’s and the Democrats in congress’s plain for social security over the long run to switch it over to private accounts, after the system had accumulated enough money to make it somewhat viable. The only reason it wasn’t done in later years was by future presidents and congress. Was because the system, made it nearly political impossible to even touch the system. Bush has a good chance to help finish what FDR and the democrats in congress had in mind for social security to make it economically viable. By allowing all younger generations to take there SS money and put it into private accounts, while the rest of us just uses up the remaining huge surplus. It should me mandatory but of course as we know that would be political impossible for even our President Bush to get congress to do. :( :cry:


Last edited by Monorprise on Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 90
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:40 pm
 


copy


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19056
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:03 pm
 


A quick question Mono. Do you ever question anything the Republican party says? Do you ever ask yourself "I wonder if they're telling me the whole truth about (insert issue here)?

I ask because I could have gone Here and read the same thing, except without the sliming of FDR.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 82
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:36 pm
 


One would really advocate to let social security die? Mono you wrote about letting the social security system crash, "Then we will finally be rid of this huge socialist burden on our system." Are you seriously going to want to kill it because, what, its socialist? Because it greatly benifits the elderly that you may not even encounter? Have you spoken with someone on social security right now, how they would like to live without it? So what if it is socialist? So is, oh I don't know, the United States Postal Service. The USPS is the best in the world, I have lived in four different nations and I am confident in glorifying that SOCIALIST AMERICAN institutionm USPS rocks. What else is a socialist institution (meaning, the democratically elected government runs operations and is owned by the gov/ public), let's see, our police force, our firemen and firewomen (remember 9/11), your local library, the school you or your friends graduated from, possibly your water or gas facility, and many of your prisons. Just because SS is a socialist institution, it doesn't mean it is bad.
Get over the label and actually converse with the elderly. "Personal" accounts is synonomous with "Private" accounts, everybody knows that it is just a matter of marketing.
Bush has been elected to represent the wishes of the people, and it is clear that a substantial majority of the American public is against private/ personal accounts, voluntary or otherwise. Investing in the stock market will only benifit Wall Street insiders and introduce an unneccessary risk to one's final sourse/ supplementary income.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:15 pm
 


Sooner or later, with people who think like Mono, we are going to have a government that takes our tax dollars, spends it mostly on military/war/aid to other countries like pakistan, and cuts all the funding to our infastructure and other benefits. It's our money! If they want to take our money and put it into something which actually benefits me for once, then I'll be glad. Our roads are barely passing, and our infastructure is falling apart, while our government gives away money to other countries, money which isn't theirs, yet they for some reason think they can give it to whoever. They don't fund our borders, which Americans want, they want to mess with Social Security which Americans don't want, and who knows where else our money goes.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 82
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:37 pm
 


Exactly. Everything you wrote is very true. Our money is being wasted on the aforementioned subjects, and is badly needed at home.

Something the media is not discussing enough is the dire situation of our public education. The last budget proposal by Bush slashed over thirty educational programs from technical school education, to alcoholism awaremess, to early grade supplemental education and tutoring.

As a teacher, I see how federal cuts to states force states to cut financial support to schools, screwing public education.

Many Americans forget the second worst terrorist attack in America- Oklahoma City, a white male did that.

We must take care of our own before we start telling the world how to take care of theirs.
Good post Johny


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:56 am
 


Anything to take money out of the Gov'ts control should be a bonus, SS is going to be a empty hole soon and the only way to pay out is to raise taxes to compensate. If you have the chance to put your own money in a private account and the Gov't can't use it for stupid programs, should be a no brainier.

Why do you think the Liberals don't want this?

Because if they ever get control (and that’s a big if) they won't have the piggy bank to fund they crap they think is good for all the seemore do less in the world.

If you put 10% of everything you make in a bank account with a modest 7-12% return you won't need the Gov't for anything when you retire. Too bad most people blow their pay cheque on useless stuff. (Ever been to a garage sale?)


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 266
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:12 am
 


hwacker hwacker:
Anything to take money out of the Gov'ts control should be a bonus, SS is going to be a empty hole soon and the only way to pay out is to raise taxes to compensate. If you have the chance to put your own money in a private account and the Gov't can't use it for stupid programs, should be a no brainier.

Why do you think the Liberals don't want this?

Because if they ever get control (and that’s a big if) they won't have the piggy bank to fund they crap they think is good for all the seemore do less in the world.

If you put 10% of everything you make in a bank account with a modest 7-12% return you won't need the Gov't for anything when you retire. Too bad most people blow their pay cheque on useless stuff. (Ever been to a garage sale?)



modest 7 - 12 %?? lmao !!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:21 am
 


thekafilkafish thekafilkafish:
hwacker hwacker:
Anything to take money out of the Gov'ts control should be a bonus, SS is going to be a empty hole soon and the only way to pay out is to raise taxes to compensate. If you have the chance to put your own money in a private account and the Gov't can't use it for stupid programs, should be a no brainier.

Why do you think the Liberals don't want this?

Because if they ever get control (and that’s a big if) they won't have the piggy bank to fund they crap they think is good for all the seemore do less in the world.

If you put 10% of everything you make in a bank account with a modest 7-12% return you won't need the Gov't for anything when you retire. Too bad most people blow their pay cheque on useless stuff. (Ever been to a garage sale?)





modest 7 - 12 %?? lmao !!



Man you must not make very much interest on you're money. suxs to be you.

Lowest % on rrsp in the last 5 years is 12% in my portfolio.

Better talk to your money guy cause looks like you'll be working till the day you die.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 887
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:58 am
 


I'm undecided on this issue. I don't like the risk involved with the stock market....but I also know that SS won't last forever as the system stands now.....I think that voluntary privatization might be the answer...definitely not mandatory. I don't feel I'm educated enough on the topic to make a solid argument for either side right now....how do IRA's play into this?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:07 am
 


here's another way to put some $$$ back into the pot

If you file more then 150k a year from 55 on you don't get SS. Ted Turner needs to collects SS. why ?


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 82
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:56 pm
 


usababe usababe:
I'm undecided on this issue. I don't like the risk involved with the stock market....but I also know that SS won't last forever as the system stands now.....I think that voluntary privatization might be the answer...definitely not mandatory. I don't feel I'm educated enough on the topic to make a solid argument for either side right now....how do IRA's play into this?


Privatization of Social Security is a sham, it is a method that Bush and company have devised to put more money into his buddies on Wall Street.

Putting money in stocks adds unnecessary risk to one's retirement.
Again, people posting here need to talk to people currenty receiving Social Security.

The thing of it is, we live in a democracy, supposedly. A clear majority of the American people have expressed their distaste for privatizing Social Security, even voluntarily. What does Bush do? Instead of being a responsible leader of the great democracy of the USA he schedules a continuous sixty day tour of America to convince people that his plan to privatize is a good one. That's not what democracy is about, that is Bush trying to manipulate the masses as opposed to listening to them. It sickens me.

Truth is that yes, Social Security will start having problems in forty some years. There are other possible solutions other than privatizing. But quite frankly, there is an oil crisis that will peak way before we run out of money in social security. Global warming will effect us dramatically in that time, and our sources of fresh water are diminishing at a rapid rate. Instead of spending sixty days shoving a bad idea down our throats, perhaps Bush should be working on more pressing matters.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28955
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:26 pm
 


Bush's Poll Position Is Worst on Record

Key points: Terri Schiavo, Social Security, the economy and this 'mandate' he has with the slimmist margin since the 1800's.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.