Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Solve et Coagula

FOX NEWS Poll: 33% Bush at New Low/Gloomy Economic Views

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

FOX NEWS Poll: 33% Bush at New Low/Gloomy Economic Views

Thursday , April 20, 2006, By Dana Blanton

NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.

Opinions are sharply divided on whether Rumsfeld should resign as secretary of defense. In addition, views on the economy are glum; most Americans rate the current economy negatively, and twice as many say it feels like the economy is getting worse rather than better. These are just some of the findings of the latest FOX News national poll.

Continue to read:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,192468,00.html

PDF: Click here for full poll results.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX224_release_web.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AALIYAH1

salaam,

Well its kinda weird how the american public doesnt care much about the goverments foreign policy or wars . Yet when things start hitting home with them such as gas prices ,health care, job out sourcing they seem to form an opinion . Then when the elections come around they seem to forget all of that and they elect the same guy lol. I guess bush's intelligence is representive of some of the america public.

salaam

aaliyah

Edited by AALIYAH1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salaam,

Well its kinda weird how the american public doesnt care much about the goverments foreign policy or wars . Yet when things start hitting home with them such as gas prices ,health care, job out sourcing they seem to form an opinion . Then when the elections come around they seem to forget all of that and they elect the same guy lol. I guess bush's intelligence is representive of some of the america public.

salaam

aaliyah

greetings,

i would like to point out that much of america has never liked bush to begin with. i for one voted against him in his first election where i was also an electorial official, and it was the first time i was able to vote. i did the same in the second election. the problem that we have here that the rest of the world does not see is that we do not simply kill the president or overthrow the government or riot and burn down our own cities when we disagree. we have political process so that we can maintain the integrity of the country. now no matter how bad some of us want him gone, it would only allow for a follow up moron, first Richard cheney (scary) then so on and so forth to run a platform of right wing vengeance. TENS OF THOUSANDS of us oppose bush, many people in the army as well. do not think that we are ALL sheep here, many of us will grow to change things the best we can. i will not deny that far too many americans are awash in a world of cunsumerism and ignorance, but i have faith in those of us who remain strong to help our fellow countrymen see what years of corrosion to our TRUE american ideals have done. once we were a place for all people of all religions, and for a short time all races, indeed, america was a beacon of justice and hope. i hope the world knows some us remember this time and hope to bring it about in a more peaceful and lasting manner.

mehal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FOX NEWS Poll: 33% Bush at New Low/Gloomy Economic Views

Thursday , April 20, 2006, By Dana Blanton

NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.

Opinions are sharply divided on whether Rumsfeld should resign as secretary of defense. In addition, views on the economy are glum; most Americans rate the current economy negatively, and twice as many say it feels like the economy is getting worse rather than better. These are just some of the findings of the latest FOX News national poll.

Continue to read:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,192468,00.html

PDF: Click here for full poll results.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX224_release_web.pdf

It's funny. Americans rate the current economy negative when its in the best shape its been in decades... yet their support for Bush was above 70% when the economy was in the toilet after 9/11...

Too bad these people who were polled dont know much about the nature of the economy.

salaam,

Well its kinda weird how the american public doesnt care much about the goverments foreign policy or wars . Yet when things start hitting home with them such as gas prices ,health care, job out sourcing they seem to form an opinion . Then when the elections come around they seem to forget all of that and they elect the same guy lol. I guess bush's intelligence is representive of some of the america public.

salaam

aaliyah

Americans don't formulate their entire opinion on politics around thie fake issue of gas prices, the non-existent issue of healthcare, or job outsourcing.

Since gas prices going up are reflective of the market trend, and most Americans are supportive of a free market, they will not be compelled to vote for someone who promises to "make sure" that prices act a certain way. Americans never support politicians who run on the platform of forcing certain industry components to act certain ways.

Furthermore, healthcare is only an issue to democrats becuase the democrat leadership has made it an issue. It's really a self-repeating platform that isn't getting much support from voters.

And finally, job outsourcing is a joke since the American economy has experienced consecutive income per capita growth as well as unprecedented employment growth (The national job unemployment figure is around 3.7%, meaning that according to economic analysts the economy has reached full employment of all those willing and able to work).

Of course all of these good things can't be attributed to a republican in the eyes of the liberal news media, so they take things out of context. That's the nature of the American media, even Fox News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Bush isn't "getting the message out" about the robust economy. Probably because it's mainly helping the top 20% and spending is TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.

Statistically speaking, we are at full employment... and the Dow was at its highest since 2000, a couple of days ago.

However, I agree with your second point... wouldn't the irony be ever so exquisite if the democrats ran in '08 on the promise of reining in federal spending?

Wake up wisken... they would do no such thing. They will continue the spending but raise taxes to fill the deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistically speaking, we are at full employment... and the Dow was at its highest since 2000, a couple of days ago.

However, I agree with your second point... wouldn't the irony be ever so exquisite if the democrats ran in '08 on the promise of reining in federal spending?

Wake up wisken... they would do no such thing. They will continue the spending but raise taxes to fill the deficit.

The problem is that the average American doesn't really care what level the Dow or Nasdaq is at, at the end of the week.

They care about the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. They care about having an administration that can go 6 months without another scandal or indictment. They care about how many troops there are in Iraq, and how many of their kids are dying for a war that had no basis or justification. They care about how large their tax return is, and how they are taxed. They care about their schools that are being forced into a recipe for disaster by no child left behind. They care about the patriot act and their civil rights in sight of domestic spying.

No wonder Bush is at 33%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wisken- I never know what "democrats" you're talking about. Clinton spent way less than Bush. Do i need to get out my clinton stuff again? It's not even worth it. Republicans are TERRIFIED of Clinton's economic record. I've posted it a hundred times and never gotten a response. Despite your spin about the economy, the people in the survey think otherwise. so what good is it? none. and that's because people DO understand it and they know th jobs suck and the money is borrowed. Did you see how Bush groveled for hu jintao yesterday? disgusting.

aailyah- I believe you are correct, bush has lost a couple points in recent weeks and it is directly related to the gas prices. obviously it is a measure of something in peoples minds.

chris spencer-

Since gas prices going up are reflective of the market trend, and most Americans are supportive of a free market, they will not be compelled to vote for someone who promises to "make sure" that prices act a certain way. Americans never support politicians who run on the platform of forcing certain industry components to act certain ways.

Furthermore, healthcare is only an issue to democrats becuase the democrat leadership has made it an issue. It's really a self-repeating platform that isn't getting much support from voters.

are you trying out for scotty mclellans job or something. you sound like morton kondracke! the statistic in the topic title refutes your RNC damaged theories

Edited by Lester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wisken- I never know what "democrats" you're talking about. Clinton spent way less than Bush. Do i need to get out my clinton stuff again? It's not even worth it. Republicans are TERRIFIED of Clinton's economic record. I've posted it a hundred times and never gotten a response. Despite your spin about the economy, the people in the survey think otherwise. so what good is it? none. and that's because people DO understand it and they know th jobs suck and the money is borrowed. Did you see how Bush groveled for hu jintao yesterday? disgusting.

aailyah- I believe you are correct, bush has lost a couple points in recent weeks and it is directly related to the gas prices. obviously it is a measure of something in peoples minds.

chris spencer-

are you trying out for scotty mclellans job or something. you sound like morton kondracke! the statistic in the topic title refutes your RNC damaged theories

Numbers show otherwise. Our current job growth is positive for Americans, not only employment wise but with the constant growth of average income per American.

So more Americans are working, and American's average incomes are going up... if they're sitll unhappy with their jobs then its their own damn fault for working somewhere they don't like.

But what is your real response to my comments on healthcare and gas prices? You only say that I sound like Morton Kondrake and try to give the real content of my post the cold shoulder. How do you refute the points I've made?

In the polls, healthcare is not rating in the top for factors of judgment on politics. Economy, War, Terrorism, Borders, etc these all rate an average higher than the healthcare issue. So, if Healthcare really was such an issue why would all of these independently conducted polls not show it? Furthermore, gas prices are an important issue indeed: but most people understand that whether there's democrats or republicans in office there will still be gas price shortages.

Bush's energy deal is making it easier for cheaper, alternative fuels to enter the market. Today in the mainstream news for the first time I've been hearing stories of how entire areas are switching to provide bio-diesel as well as gasoline. Furthermore Bush's energy plan allows for the construction of more nuclear power plants and more oil refineries so that the average cost of conventional power is reduced too.

Gas prices cannot be changed by the U.S. government. Those prices are decided by market traders and then dictated to the oil companies. The people are not transferring their disapproval of the gas prices to the polls in large quantities, they are transferring their disapproval of the administration in general to the polls.

I predict that the polls will turn around though. With the new press secretary, new chief of staff, with Rove out of the white house, and with the treasury secretary replaced the public opinion will change. Liberals used Rove as a lightning rode for criticism against the Bush administration for so long... now that Rove is gone the swing voters will view the turnover as a normal presidency more focused on policy (Josh Bolton, new chief of staff, is a very policy-oriented man, opposed to rove who is a very politics oriented man). I predict forward motion on the polls before the '06 elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's how I refute your talking points

33% Bush at New Low/Gloomy Economic Views

bush at 33 percent. that's considered LOW. not HIGH. gloomy economic views means people are feeling gloomy in the their view of the economy.

Why are you still arguing this? It's RIGHT THERE^

Rove is one of many lightening rods. Cheney is at 18% approval. Rumsfeld has the nation, the weekly standard, and by some accounts 75% of the army on his ass to leave. and Rove still works for the president. No significant changes have taken place. then there's Bush himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's how I refute your talking points

bush at 33 percent. that's considered LOW. not HIGH. gloomy economic views means people are feeling gloomy in the their view of the economy.

Why are you still arguing this? It's RIGHT THERE^

Rove is one of many lightening rods. Cheney is at 18% approval. Rumsfeld has the nation, the weekly standard, and by some accounts 75% of the army on his ass to leave. and Rove still works for the president. No significant changes have taken place. then there's Bush himself.

I am arguing this becuase historically Presidents reach low opinion ratings in their second term. Americans get sick of the same people in charge over and over.

However, my more pertinent point is this: the way that you would portray this is that Americans are sick of the policies of Republicans and are manisfesting that through Bush. I beg to differ. From my view of the conservative movements of college students, the liberal destructurization of the Democratic party, and the continual growth of value voting on the side of Republicans I predict that both in '06 and '08 that Republicans will gain major victories.

What then is the purpose of these polls if not to predict the future political landscape using the present administration as a tool to do so? That is a good question. Furthermore, how legitimate are these polls? Only 1,000 poeple on average are polled and are asked questions which verbage that are not always consistent. There are many factors behind this, and of course I would agree that bush's opinion rating is generally low... but that does not mean that Americans hate Bush or hate the Republican party or even hate most of his policies.

Trying to define a public sentiment by these limited opinion polls is never an effective political tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wisken- I never know what "democrats" you're talking about. Clinton spent way less than Bush. Do i need to get out my clinton stuff again? It's not even worth it. Republicans are TERRIFIED of Clinton's economic record. I've posted it a hundred times and never gotten a response. Despite your spin about the economy, the people in the survey think otherwise. so what good is it? none. and that's because people DO understand it and they know th jobs suck and the money is borrowed. Did you see how Bush groveled for hu jintao yesterday? disgusting.

aailyah- I believe you are correct, bush has lost a couple points in recent weeks and it is directly related to the gas prices. obviously it is a measure of something in peoples minds.

are you trying out for scotty mclellans job or something. you sound like morton kondracke! the statistic in the topic title refutes your RNC damaged theories

Yeah, Lester old pal, get yer Bubba stuff out.... It was all Bubba's doing wasn't it? Newt and his gang had nothing to do with passing the tax cuts, such as the reduction in capital gains taxes that led to the stock market boom of the late nineties, or with welfare reform, or with any of the other measures taken?

Despite your thinking otherwise, we agree on a lot of things, Lester. Thats why I said, "statistically speaking" we are at full employment... the hollowness of this economic expansion is quite apparent and that is why people feel so gloomy.

Yet gas prices have little to do with Iraq. Even if Iraq had never happened, China and India with their 10% and 8% growth rates would have forced an increase one way or another. Libs don't want nuclear, don't want new refineries, don't want oil exploration in the ANWR, or off the coast of Florida.... all these things conspire to reduce the supply, when demand is so high.

And yet, we don't pay for gas what people elsewhere in the world pay... The transition to paying $3 or $5 for a gallon of gas is quite painful, and Bush pays for that pain. Yet even if we were to bring our troops home tomorrow, and make love to Iran, you can be sure that the days of $1.09 or even $1.59 gas are over.

And yes Bush's groveling was extremely disgusting. There is just no way to excuse it. He missed a golden opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wisken- there are even MORE republicans in the legistlature now then there were in 94. and many of them are the same people from back then: frist, mcain, hagel etc. Bush hasn't vetoed one bill dude.

as far as your "other people in the world pay more for gas" stuff, people have budgeted their lives around gas prices being a certian price. whatever they "should" be, is obviously of no importance to the 67% of the country who didn't voice their approval in this poll.

33%

33%

drilling in anwar would give us gas for like 6 months, and if we screw it up it could end up costing more than it helps. I'm for drilling there but it's not the answer.

the dude who retired from exxon mobil gets 144,000 a day pension or something. and we pay 3 dollars a gallon. that's anwar. that guy is a human anwar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wisken- there are even MORE republicans in the legistlature now then there were in 94. and many of them are the same people from back then: frist, mcain, hagel etc. Bush hasn't vetoed one bill dude.

as far as your "other people in the world pay more for gas" stuff, people have budgeted their lives around gas prices being a certian price. whatever they "should" be, is obviously of no importance to the 67% of the country who didn't voice their approval in this poll.

33%

33%

drilling in anwar would give us gas for like 6 months, and if we screw it up it could end up costing more than it helps. I'm for drilling there but it's not the answer.

the dude who retired from exxon mobil gets 144,000 a day pension or something. and we pay 3 dollars a gallon. that's anwar. that guy is a human anwar

There is nothing wrong with that man's pension. He signed a performance contract with Exxon Mobile that if he achieves a certain expectation over the 4 years he was employed, that he would recieve a certain amount of money.

When you consider all of the capital investment, wealth, holdings, and increased revenue that Exxon has had over the last 4 years thanks to his work he is only making 1/2 of 1% of the contributions he made to the company. So it is not unreasonable for him to be paid that much.

Furthermore, Exxon Mobile is not responsible for the gas prices. The Oil Traders and the Federal Taxes on gas are. Right now Federal taxes on gas account for over 36% of the sale price. We could be experiencing 2 dollar a gallon gas right now in this "fuel crisis" if it wasn't for the royalties, oil import taxes, 10% additional income taxes on the fuel companies, and the barrage of other taxes thrown against gas companies in the U.S.. That is exactly why gas costs so much in Europe, becuase Europe is a socialist establishment that revolves around taxes and tarrifs and energy is an industry in which the European governments have their sticky fingers dipped extensively in.

Now about ANWR. This idea that ANWR would only last us 6 months is first of all not right, it would last the entire United States oil needs for about a year and a half. However, how long do you think that Canada's oil supply would last the U.S.'s interest? If you guess more than 5 to 10 years you're insane. You have to realize that not ONE place in the world is being drilled so extensively that it supports an entire nation with fuel EXCLUSIVELY. We get oil from Canada, Russia, Mexico, THEN the middle east... Middle Eastern oil accounts for what, less than 1/4th of the fuel that we use in the U.S.?

The beauty of the ANWR drilling would be that it could contribute small amounts of fuel into the U.S. stockpile and drive down the pain that we pay at the pump. Prices would go down because there would be an additional supply of fuels coming in from a cheap location. Furthermore, using this strategy ANWR can be utilized for 10, maybe 20 years. Keeping prices at or under 2.00 a gallon even with the intrusive federal taxes; don't you think that's worth a shot for 10 or 20 years less economic burden? Furthermore, it gives the development of Bio-Diesel, Hydrogen, and Ethanol a better chance to develop as it has more time before it is fully depended upon by the fuel needs of the U.S.

Adding to my last comment about the 36% federal tax burden per gallon of gasoline. Let's take that into consideration for a second...

There were an estimated 6,356,000 cars in the United States in 2000. Assuming that the average tank of the cars holds 13 gallons of gas, each driver would be saving 13 dollars per fill up. Let's also assume that each driver fills up an average of 1 time per week.

13 dollars multiplied by the 6,356,000 cars equals 82,628,000 dollars a week wasted on federal taxes for gas. Now, in a year that would equal roughly 4,296,656,000... that's over 4.2 BILLION dollars. Imagine the economic boost the already prosperous economy would have if 4.2 billion extra dollars were invested into it on the consumer level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blah blah blah. tell i to someone who cares. that guy is rich and people are going broke. screw him

People are going broke?

Average incomes are rising in the United States and more people are employed than ever before. I wouldn't say people are going broke, I'd say people are getting jobs and making more money to account for this change in the cost of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sen.: U.S. Should Look at Tax on Oil Cos.

18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The government should consider a tax on oil companies if they make excessive profits amid rising gasoline prices, a leading Republican senator said Sunday.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a windfall profits tax, along with measures to stem concentration of market power among a few select oil companies, could offer eventual relief to consumers hurting at the gas pump.

"I believe that we have allowed too many companies to get together to reduce competition," Specter said.

"They get together, reduce the supply of oil, and that drives up prices," he said. "In the short run, it's hard to deal with it for tomorrow. But I think windfall profits, eliminating the antitrust exemption, considering the excessive concentration of power are all items we ought to be addressing."

(snip/...)

33%

Edited by Lester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33%

Arlen Specter is the most idiotic so called "republican" in the nation.

Windfall profits tax? This man does not understand that when a company is taxed, it passes those taxes onto the consumer by increasing the average cost per item that they sell. Gas will only get MORE expensive, then what will they do? Create a Government-Run gas company? This is getting ridiculous.

Plus, there's over 100 oil and gas companies that are actively involved in the gasoline and fuel development and sale to the United States of America. To say that 100 is "too few companies getting together" makes the present computer applications market look like a greedy monopoly.

:mad:

Moron politicians who don't understand economcs.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Edited by ChrisSpencer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how Bush's approval ratings mean anything now that he's already been re-elected and his approval ratings no longer matter.

Isn't this just whining?

Yep, thats the truth.

Bush can't run again becuase of term limits, so it doesn't matter who likes him and who doesn't.

furthermore, polls are showing that college students (one of the Democratic Party's biggest voting blocks) is shifting more and more conservative. That means that more College students will vote conservative in the '06 and '08 elections. Furthermore, across the board the views on social issues like abortion, drug control, and marriage have shifted more conservative.

Looks to me like the Liberal Main Stream Media is throwing these useless Bush opinion polls out there to try and take the attention away from the fact that the nation is becoming more conservative, meaning it is more likely to elect another Republican in '08, and more Republicans in '06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chris- just a question do you live way way in the middle of the country? also, what is "drug control"

mullah- don't you think a president shuld be interested in what his country thinks of him? it's a democracy after all. Also, his low polls are a HUGE worry to his party who are slated to lose big time in the elections this fall. dems ar polling at unprecedented majorities, like 55 versus 40 percent. republicans had about that when they took over in 94.

Edited by Lester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...