Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low
- Thread starter barry2952
- Start date
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Haha! Always a day late and a dollar short, eh Barry.
Conti94
Dedicated LVC Member
Six pages on Bushes approval rating. WOW Half On how low it is, Half on how it's not so low. Are both sides so narrow minded that they just blindly point fingers??? Or blindly follow what other fellow repugs/dems say??
Truth be told I think Bush approval ratings are very low, I have to agree with the Dems On this one. It may not be lower than some other presidents, but the fact still stands it is very very low. Do you guys really have to turn it into 6 pages of statistics??
Half On how low it is, Half on how it's not so low. Are both sides so narrow minded that they just blindly point fingers??? Or blindly follow what other fellow repugs/dems say??Truth be told I think Bush approval ratings are very low, I have to agree with the Dems On this one. It may not be lower than some other presidents, but the fact still stands it is very very low. Do you guys really have to turn it into 6 pages of statistics??
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
And using your logic....
22% Strongly approve
21% Somewhat approve
15% Somewhat disapprove
58% Would approve if the media would just shut up!
What about the last 42% you ask. They are the haters. The firmly entrenched - I will always be a Democrat because my daddy and his daddy were Democrats hater.
Maybe those 15% don't like the way Bush combed his hair this morning.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
It's low not because of what Bush has done, but rather because Bush has had to endure 5-1/2 years of lies and distortions because the liberal media and Democrats will do and say anything to get back into power. Call it politics. Call it whatever you want. I call it the truth. This guy has had to endure a daily barrage on every single meaningless detail. What does that say about the future? I know I am waiting my turn for a Dem to hit the office. Can't wait to bitch and moan and belittle on a daily basis. What fun that is going to be.Conti94 said:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Conti94 said:Six pages on Bushes approval rating. WOW
Truth be told I think Bush approval ratings are very low, I have to agree with the Dems On this one. It may not be lower than some other presidents, but the fact still stands it is very very low. Do you guys really have to turn it into 6 pages of statistics??
Don't look now Conti, but you're not recognizing who's making this 6 pages. Do a post count if you're not lazy and you'll see that you should be addressing barry.
What's your problem anyway? You've been bashing these threads like you have a problem with people posting or something.
Conti94
Dedicated LVC Member
Truth be told I want to see the responses I can get with these posts, I am trying to understand the logic the libs have for continually bashing bush, and the logic behind the Repugs seemingly supporting everything Bush does. I want to know why. Every detail. I try to read as much as I can in here, and frankly i see good threads constantly turned into arguments about bush from both sides which I don't understand why. When these seemingly good political threads are not about push. The subjects I am referrring to are threads that have to do with the question "what would you do about the impending problem" Whether it be oil shortages, taxes, immigration. It all suddenly leads to Bush this or Bush that. and it does seem that the more Democrat favoring posters start it, but Fossten, insulting them for bashing Bush just drags the subject, why can't they just be ignored. If it is irrelevant don't say it, if the irrelvancy is stated, ignore it. Hope this clears things up a bit.
Sorry if my posts seem bashing. If I have insulted anyone I apologize. I just figured I would start posting questions, and my views to better understand all this "stuff".
Sorry if my posts seem bashing. If I have insulted anyone I apologize. I just figured I would start posting questions, and my views to better understand all this "stuff".
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Conti94 said:
Unfortunately, we don't spend enough time actually debating issues here. The liberals on this site don't tend to have ideas of their own, which has been documented, so they tend to go along with the talking points of the day, which tend to follow the Bash-Bush action line.
Conservatives tend to defend Bush, but I don't do it 100% of the time, because I'm intellectually honest about what I believe. The liberals are still stinging over losing the election and are itching for a way, any way, to get him out of office besides winning an election, which they can't do, so they are resorting to the tactics of hoping for an impeachment.
They are lowball, bush-league (pardon pun) tactics and as such will be drilled by me and anybody else on this forum who thinks like I do.
We've tried to have some discussions in the past but everybody eventually descends into Bush-bashing at some point.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:Is somebody actually supposed to be able to draw a conclusion from that graph? If they can, I hope somebody fills me in. Looks like a cluster-f to me.
Hey, it's just the data that YOU pointed to. I'm not going to waste alot of time cleaning it up and annotating it for you, the basic info you need is right there in black and white (and blue and pink and yellow). If you can't "digest" the information being conveyed in such a graph, maybe you should re-think using that data to support your arguments.
MonsterMark said:
I never stated that "tax cuts lead to less revenue and deficits". My issue started with your boast about how the economy is so fantastic, all I implied was that the "good feelilng" you have now about the economy is all false and is on the backs of our children and grandchildren in the form of exploding national debt. David took a run at me and I smacked him down. He claimed that "deficit shrinking can be accomplished by massive tax increases, which WERE during Clinton's term ". Well gee, how can that be true while at the same time he and the GOP contengency here claim that BuSh's tax CUTS also INCREASE tax revenue? If the latter is true, then the former must be false. In fact, looking at the data in the graph above, tax revenue took a dive after BuSh took office. I know you are going to blame that on the post-internet-bubble-burst recession. But the data in the graph goes back to '80 and there have been a handful of recessions since then. Do YOU see any sudden downturns in tax revinues that resulted from THOSE recessions (blue data points) other than the downturn when Bush took office? NO. Therefore, any claim that the said downturn in tax revenues is a result of the internet bubble burst recession is unfounded, there MUST be some other cause. I'll give you two guesses what it was.
MonsterMark said:
Again, blaming the internet bubble burst is lame and unfounded. The industries hit hardest by 9/11 was the airlines and automotobile manufacturers (as a result of all the incentives THEY provided to the public to help keep the economy going...... those incentives didn't come out of the pocket of the taxpayers via the US government). No doubt the wars and the huricanes are costing us big $$, however I don't see any significant positive-going blips in the pink data in the graph above (outlays) that would support your claim that these are outstanding or extraordinary expenditures. All the hard data shows is the rate of spending growth under BuSh has increased unchecked. At a minimum, BuSh's tax cuts have initially set us back 5+ years and only now has the supposed "tax revenue growth that results from tax cuts" made up that ground. It'll be at least another 20 years before any such growth will offset the damage already done.
MonsterMark said:
What amazes me is how you sleep at night knowing your children and grandchildren will be enslaved to paying off the huge national debt left behind from years of GOP mismanagment by tax cuts during a time of war.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Conti94 said:I would really like to see some real debates in here again.
:I Unfortunately, as you have already observed, debating with *certain people* only results in getting insulted or attacked if your own opinion doesn't match theirs.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
I would love to see the actual Clinton budget surpluses that were saving the country.
Please post them and the link for the site you culled them from.
Not projected numbers please, actual numbers will be required to support your argument.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
That is a personal attack.
By the way, while we're on the subject, why aren't you more upset about Congress not cutting spending? Tax cuts are a great thing, and the economy is booming as a result. This is not debatable; this is fact. The issue is that the government never takes a pay cut. You are anti-tax cuts but why aren't you anti-government spending increases?
Take our gas price issue, for example. You have your Dem leaders in Congress yanking the Exxon execs into Washington to grill them about their salaries and price gouging. What about Washington's price gouging? Why don't they give temporary tax relief for a change? What about a suspension of all taxes on gas for, say, 6 months, until this situation has stabilized? I bet you never thought of that.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Do you think anybody on the Left will ever post the ACTUAL budget surpluses we experienced under the infallible leadership of President Clinton or did all our friends drink the kook-aid that revealed the 'projected' budget surpluses as reality? Maybe I should try some of that kook-aid. The hallucinogenic effects must be a wonderful experience.
No statistical noise. Just down 2 points.
Saturday April 22, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.
Saturday April 22, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
Unless you provided false data, it would be my pleasure..........
*owned*
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Generally, I'd agree that tax cuts are a great thing, but in this case, with 9/11, two wars and hurricane relief driving up expendatures (or so goes the claim), BuSh's tax cuts are coming at a huge price, that being the exploding national debt that will get passed onto the next generation. Eventually those tax cuts may stimulate the economy enough to turn around the situation, but by then significant damage will already have been done. Any perceived "boom" in the current economy is FALSE because it is built on the backs of our children and grandchildren. WHY can you not acknowledge that FACT??
fossten said:
I'm all for keeping spending in check, don't mistake that. However the GOP has been in a better position than the Dems in Congress to control that, and they haven't been doing a very good job, now have they? As far as suspending gas taxes, in case you didn't know, Indiana actually DID suspend some of the fuel taxes a couple summers ago when the price of gas first shot up. It took a democratic governor to do it though.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
A surplus would be indicated by a (-) sign as shown in this table.Take a close look at the bottom. The last is called the total line.
That is where you add up all the numbers in a column to arrive at a figure.
When one does that exercise, they will find that the Clinton administration operated under a Deficit averaged over their whole administration.
What the media did was to use Clinton's 'PROJECTIONS' that there were going to be budget surpluses rolling forward because all the good times were going to continued unabated. Biggest bunch of B.S. ever hoisted on the American people. The recessional economy and the growing deficits were already in place before Clinton left office.
Period Receipts Outlays Deficit/Surplus (-)
Jan-93 112,716 82,899 -29,817
Feb-93 65,979 114,477 48,498
Mar-93 83,288 127,263 43,974
Apr-93 132,017 124,200 -7,817
May-93 70,642 107,605 36,963
Jun-93 128,570 117,471 -11,099
Jul-93 80,630 120,207 39,577
Aug-93 86,737 109,815 23,078
Sep-93 127,504 118,987 -8,517
Oct-93 78,662 124,085 45,422
Nov-93 83,102 121,483 38,381
Dec-93 125,403 133,108 7,705
Jan-94 122,961 107,713 -15,248
Feb-94 73,186 114,752 41,566
Mar-94 93,107 125,422 32,315
Apr-94 141,321 123,867 -17,454
May-94 83,541 115,597 32,057
Jun-94 138,119 123,269 -14,850
Jul-94 84,822 118,020 33,198
Aug-94 97,333 121,608 24,275
Sep-94 135,894 131,628 -4,266
Oct-94 89,098 120,441 31,343
Nov-94 87,673 125,131 37,458
Dec-94 130,886 135,689 4,803
Jan-95 131,877 116,243 -15,634
Feb-95 82,620 120,977 38,357
Mar-95 92,608 143,152 50,544
Apr-95 165,472 115,751 -49,722
May-95 90,481 130,035 39,555
Jun-95 147,945 135,131 -12,813
Jul-95 92,823 106,406 13,582
Aug-95 96,640 130,489 33,849
Sep-95 143,298 136,107 -7,191
Oct-95 95,593 118,352 22,758
Nov-95 90,086 128,538 38,452
Dec-95 138,347 133,064 -5,283
Jan-96 142,999 123,543 -19,456
Feb-96 89,428 133,775 44,346
Mar-96 89,087 136,158 47,071
Apr-96 203,468 131,064 -72,404
May-96 90,122 143,173 53,051
Jun-96 151,995 117,655 -34,340
Jul-96 103,893 130,749 26,856
Aug-96 99,996 141,828 41,831
Sep-96 157,670 122,412 -35,257
Oct-96 99,656 139,461 39,805
Nov-96 97,850 135,728 37,878
Dec-96 148,488 129,999 -18,490
Jan-97 150,718 137,354 -13,364
Feb-97 90,293 134,303 44,010
Mar-97 108,074 129,397 21,323
Apr-97 228,588 134,649 -93,939
May-97 94,493 142,988 48,494
Jun-97 173,361 118,726 -54,635
Jul-97 109,178 134,802 25,624
Aug-97 103,483 138,672 35,189
Sep-97 174,772 124,839 -49,934
Oct-97 114,898 150,486 35,588
Nov-97 103,481 120,830 17,349
Dec-97 167,998 154,359 -13,639
Jan-98 162,610 137,231 -25,379
Feb-98 97,952 139,701 41,750
Mar-98 117,930 131,743 13,813
Apr-98 261,002 136,400 -124,603
May-98 95,278 134,057 38,779
Jun-98 187,860 136,754 -51,106
Jul-98 119,723 143,807 24,084
Aug-98 111,741 122,907 11,166
Sep-98 180,947 142,725 -38,222
Oct-98 119,974 152,436 32,462
Nov-98 113,978 131,095 17,117
Dec-98 178,646 184,056 5,410
Jan-99 171,722 101,386 -70,336
Feb-99 99,414 142,281 42,867
Mar-99 130,292 152,707 22,415
Apr-99 266,142 152,683 -113,459
May-99 98,587 122,556 23,969
Jun-99 199,479 145,911 -53,568
Jul-99 121,905 147,068 25,164
Aug-99 126,314 128,827 2,513
Sep-99 200,396 143,966 -56,430
Oct-99 121,035 147,701 26,667
Nov-99 121,375 149,011 27,635
Dec-99 201,196 168,114 -33,081
Jan-00 189,478 127,326 -62,152
Feb-00 108,675 150,409 41,734
Mar-00 135,582 170,962 35,380
Apr-00 295,148 135,651 -159,497
May-00 146,002 149,612 3,611
Jun-00 214,875 158,598 -56,277
Jul-00 134,074 129,317 -4,757
Aug-00 138,128 148,555 10,427
Sep-00 219,471 153,649 -65,822
Oct-00 135,111 146,431 11,321
Nov-00 125,666 149,356 23,690
Dec-00 200,489 167,823 -32,666
.......12,563,167/12,768,744/205,575
Clinton RECEIPTS
$ 12,563,167,000,000
Clinton SPENDING
$ 12,768,744,000,000
Clinton DEFICIT
$205,575,000,000
Ya. That would be 205 with a 'B', as in Billion.
Talk about *owned*. What is crazy is how you kook-aid drinkers keep on gulping it down, cup after cup. :Bang
Sunday April 23, 2006--Forty percent (40%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove.
Perhaps more significant is that just 18% Strongly Approve of the President's performance while 41% Strongly Disapprove.
Perhaps more significant is that just 18% Strongly Approve of the President's performance while 41% Strongly Disapprove.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Look who's talking out of both sides of his mouth. First you say tax cuts are bad when the deficit is high, but then you say you are for keeping spending in check? Helloooooo! Get spending in check and tax cuts will be a non-issue! I'm not happy with the GOP's spending, either, but at least they've cut spending recently. Remember the last time a Dem Congress did that? Neither can anybody else!
And the part of your quote in bold is nothing but talking points/rhetoric and is nothing but a prediction, NOT a FACT. If the FairTax gets passed and the IRS is done away with, your argument is moot.
The future isn't a fact yet, johnny. Or should I call you H.G. Wells?
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:A surplus would be indicated by a (-) sign as shown in this table.
Take a close look at the bottom. The last is called the total line.
That is where you add up all the numbers in a column to arrive at a figure.
When one does that exercise, they will find that the Clinton administration operated under a Deficit averaged over their whole administration.
What the media did was to use Clinton's 'PROJECTIONS' that there were going to be budget surpluses rolling forward because all the good times were going to continued unabated. Biggest bunch of B.S. ever hoisted on the American people. The recessional economy and the growing deficits were already in place before Clinton left office.
Period Receipts Outlays Deficit/Surplus (-)
Jan-93 112,716 82,899 -29,817
Feb-93 65,979 114,477 48,498
(snip)
Nov-00 125,666 149,356 23,690
Dec-00 200,489 167,823 -32,666
.......12,563,167/12,768,744/205,575
Clinton RECEIPTS
$ 12,563,167,000,000
Clinton SPENDING
$ 12,768,744,000,000
Clinton DEFICIT
$205,575,000,000
Ya. That would be 205 with a 'B', as in Billion.
Talk about
You know Brian, you really should quit while you are ahead. To continue down this path will only expose your inherent bias and inability to comprehend the data you, yourself supplied.
True, taken as a whole, from the month Clinton took office (Jan '93) to the month he left (Jan '01), the US treasury had a net budget deficit of $205B. You try to make that look outragious and atrocious by any standard. So lets compare that number to other presidents, past and present, using the same measuring stick:
Total Deficit during time in office ($M, Jan-Dec)
1,190,424.......Reagan
985,151.........Bush Sr.
205,575.........Clinton
1,437,659.......Bush Jr.
That $205B looks pretty small compared to the republican presidents. But a fair-minded person must ask themselves, is it really "fair" to credit (or discredit) a given president for the US treasury receipts for those few months shortly after he took office when those tax receipts are a function of the prior (or subsequent) administrations?? For example, is it fair to credit Clinton for tax receipts in Arpil '93 (3 months after he took office) when in reality, those receipts are from the '92 tax season, for which Bush Sr. was in charge? Not really. Therefore a more "fair" way at looking at your raw data is to re-assess the above numbers by shifting the "window" for which we derive the "totals" a few months to account for this "delay". When that is done, we arrive with the following numbers:
Total Deficit during time in office ($M, May-Apr)
1,190,424.......Reagan
1,019,785.......Bush Sr.
-16,608.........Clinton
1,605,004.......Bush Jr.
And what do we find here? A mere 4-month shift in the math (which is founded on a "fair" and unbiased principle) results in numbers that dispute your claim of Clinton never residing over a net budget surplus. While I haven't run the numbers, I predict that further shifting of this window (in case you don't feel 4-months is enough to "flush the prior administration's influence") will only result in the Clinton SURPLUS to grow to an even larger number. I'll leave that exercise to the class (you can use a spreadsheet, can't you?).
ADDITIONALLY, your claim about the "media" using Clinton's "projections" to predict a budget surplus is totally unfounded. The hard data that YOU supplied (and I'm taking it on good faith that it is "truth") is HISTORICAL FACT. There are no "projections" involved here. The only claim I have EVER made here is that Clinton resided over a budget surplus when he left office. To support that assertion, I submit the following breakdown of YEARLY US treasury cash flow:
Total Deficit By Yr in Office (Tax Year: May-Apr)
72,142..........Reagan-1 TY: '81
180,976.........Reagan-2 TY: '82
42,958..........Reagan-3 TY: '83 Data missing May-Dec '83
187,695.........Reagan-4 TY: '84
218,333.........Reagan-5 TY: '85
179,197.........Reagan-6 TY: '86
171,069.........Reagan-7 TY: '87
138,054.........Reagan-8 TY: '88
173,189.........Bush Sr. -1 TY: '89
233,641.........Bush Sr. -2 TY: '90
332,082.........Bush Sr. -3 TY: '91
280,873.........Bush Sr. -4 TY: '92
212,689.........Clinton-1 TY: '93
167,563.........Clinton-2 TY: '94
122,466.........Clinton-3 TY: '95
69,364..........Clinton-4 TY: '96
-50,383.........Clinton-5 TY: '97
-78,823.........Clinton-6 TY: '98
-181,666........Clinton-7 TY: '99
-277,818........Clinton-8 TY: '00
104,620.........Bush Jr. -1 TY: '01
295,374.........Bush Jr. -2 TY: '02
455,485.........Bush Jr. -3 TY: '03
366,674.........Bush Jr. -4 TY: '04
382,851.........Bush Jr. -5 TY: '05 April '06 data not in yet
On a yearly basis, the US treasury was running a budget SURPLUS for the last 4 years Clinton was in office. That is FACT. For you to sit there and imply that any "surplus" during the Clinton years is BS is PURE IGNORANCE. And I've already dispensed of your argument about blaming the internet recession for BuSh's fiscal ailments in an earlier post.
YOU sir, are the one that is *owned* Who's been drinking the RED kool-aid now??
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Gee, Johnny, who decides if your numbers are "fair?" You? Don't make me laugh. Everybody knows it takes between 18 months to 2 years for a new Presidency to adjust from the previous administration. Convenient shift of numbers. If we want to play that game, then why not include CIA intel and 9/11 prevention in that same formula? Bet you don't want to do that.
OH, and your term "budget surplus" is an insult, since it represents the FACT that Clinton's LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY resulted in OVERTAXING beyond even the current spending budget. And you're one of the first ones to cry foul when Bush wants to give Americans back some of their OWN MONEY that Clinton CONFISCATED.
What a liberal.
What a joke.
OH, and your term "budget surplus" is an insult, since it represents the FACT that Clinton's LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY resulted in OVERTAXING beyond even the current spending budget. And you're one of the first ones to cry foul when Bush wants to give Americans back some of their OWN MONEY that Clinton CONFISCATED.
What a liberal.
What a joke.
nobodyspecial
Active LVC Member
fossten said:
Well, aside from it being easier to cast blame than to come up with real, workable solutions to the complex problems the Country faces, it is apparent to me and other people who actually take a look beyond the media's quick and often incorrect (as the media would rather be first than spend time checking sources and the like) 'facts' and headlines, that the media continues its very biased slant against the Republicans.
These polls are meaningless, for anyone who is truly interested, go to the library and do some research on the tricks that pollsters can and do use.
I have read of studies where the 'researchers' were trying to get the data to fit their theory and the way the questions are asked, the working itself and the progression of the questions can cause huge variances in the results.
A few years back I read a study on study's, and I must apologize as I do not remember the exact details, but they picked a fairly hot-button topic and gave two polls (seperate groups of people, of course) and, in one, the results were something along the lines of 65% against and 30% for (5% apparently don't know their something from a hole in the ground), and the second, written using opposite leading questions was almost exactly the opposite (still 5% in la-la-land). While not exacly the opposite, it was within the margin of error in the poll.
Even the so called independant poll companies, they know what their customer wants to hear and they will happily provide it to ensure future business.
Bottom line is that I trust polls about as far as I can throw them.
I have a general distrust of politicians anyway, why would anyone spend 10 times (or more) the money than the job earns to get it?
I trust the media even less. Quite honestly, no matter what political leanings you have, would you trust a media person asking you questions to be fair and balanced, or would you assume that they were trying to trick you into saying something that could be twisted into whatever personal agenda (or company agenda) that they wanted?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
So what did happen to Bill Clinton's 5 trillion dollar surplus? Did big bad Bushy eat it?
Here is what you have convinced me Johnny.
Take a new world changing technology, the INTERNET, ride the boom in both job creation and stock growth, have people pay taxes into the treasury for their stock gains and increase payroll taxes paid because people were getting paid $100,000/yr. for a $30,000 job. Gut the military at the same time. Pass a huge tax increase that leads to a recession, and have the good fortune to have the bubble you blew burst the day after you leave office.
Enjoy all that good luck and your name turns out to be Bill Clinton. That is all you have proven. Over Clinton's eight years, he had a deficit. Liberals and Democrats destroy and then Republicans have to come in a put it all back together again. In the meantime, the media lies about what actually happened and the sheeple bring in the wrong guy and the process repeats itself.
That is what I learned.