Jump to content

How low can he go? (and not limbo)


Fishfan79
 Share

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Only 29 percent of Americans now believe President George W. Bush is doing a good job, according recent poll.

The poll, conducted by the Wall Street Journal, is the latest to indicate a slump in public support for the US leader as his Republican party heads into the campaign for mid-term elections in November.

 

In the poll, released in the newspaper's online edition, Bush has lost six percentage points in a month.

 

Iraq remains the main concern. Twenty-eight percent of Americans say it is one of the two most important topics, up from 23 percent in April, followed by immigration (16 percent) and the price of petrol (gasoline) (14 percent).

 

Only 24 percent of the 1,003 people asked between May 3-8 said they believed the United States was "heading in the right direction". According to the Journal, 69 percent said "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track".

 

Bush is closing in on the unpopularity level of President Richard Nixon (24 percent) at the moment of his resignation in 1974 over the Watergate scandal.

 

http://www.mediafax.ro/english/articole-fr...l-489075-9.html

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northam...l_at_29_percent

http://www.cbs47.tv/news/national/story.as...44-D106F132F3EC

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....S-BUSH-POLL.xml

 

 

a few links to articles for it.

 

Can he limbo the way down to 23% and beat Nixon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If these immigration legislations pass, it'll start going up again. A lot of people are impressed that he's actually pushing a controversial bill in order to help the less fortunate.

no way brah

 

His immigration stance is the primary reason why his approval rating his been plummetting. Any drop in approval rating below 40-45% comes overwhelmingly from conservatives.

 

Do you have any idea what a huge proportion of everyday conservatives and republican voters are vehemently opposed to amnesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these immigration legislations pass, it'll start going up again. A lot of people are impressed that he's actually pushing a controversial bill in order to help the less fortunate.

no way brah

 

His immigration stance is the primary reason why his approval rating his been plummetting. Any drop in approval rating below 40-45% comes overwhelmingly from conservatives.

 

Do you have any idea what a huge proportion of everyday conservatives and republican voters are vehemently opposed to amnesty?

 

Which is why he said he was opposed to amnesty in the last election, even while spouting about his "guest worker visa". If you know anything about Bush, you know that he is definitely pro-immigration. He was when he was governor here.

 

The conservatives that are favoring it are pushing it as not being an amnesty because illegals would have to pay fines before they could take advantage of the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they paid fines I think a lot more people would be in favor of it.

 

 

That's what the Senate version of the bill required (don't know about the compromise). Unspecified fines, and only available for long termers. Short timers had to go back to country of origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these immigration legislations pass, it'll start going up again. A lot of people are impressed that he's actually pushing a controversial bill in order to help the less fortunate.

no way brah

 

His immigration stance is the primary reason why his approval rating his been plummetting. Any drop in approval rating below 40-45% comes overwhelmingly from conservatives.

 

Do you have any idea what a huge proportion of everyday conservatives and republican voters are vehemently opposed to amnesty?

yes way brah.

 

If the immigration bill passes, guarantee the approval rating goes higher. guar.an.teed.

 

You can save this post if you want to.

 

By the way, fyatuk, is it safe to say that any bill would include a path to citizenship for aliens here longer than 5 years?

 

Sounds like that is the only thing everyone would agree on, the rest of the bill being the most controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are rumors rove has informed bush and others he will be indicted in the next week. a lot of blogs have picked up on this and chris mathews touched on the matter earlier saying it is a matter of hours before he is indicted.

 

there are also rumors that the whistle blower in the NSA that disclosed the domestic spying back in dec. that the NSA was listening and wiretapping is going to speak infront of a committee this week and is going to disclose more of what he characterizes as "illegal" operations which included, but not limited to, the use of spy sats. domestically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously want to meet one of the 29 percent who still approves of Bush. Bet they're either total morons or wingnuts. They'd have to be after everything that's transpired (Bush-supporters: transpired = happened)

 

I bet that a bunch of those people don't pay attention to the news, or don't have TV. Maybe it's also possible that they don't have a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, fyatuk, is it safe to say that any bill would include a path to citizenship for aliens here longer than 5 years?

 

Sounds like that is the only thing everyone would agree on, the rest of the bill being the most controversial.

 

 

It had better. Only the most hardcore anti-immigration people would oppose a path to citizenship for the people who have been here that long. Under 5 years is debateable, but over 5 years and they are pretty much accepted as part of society.

 

I'm hoping the compromise contains that, and then some of the harder portions of the House bill for those here less. I think most people would accept that.

 

I seriously want to meet one of the 29 percent who still approves of Bush.

 

Honestly, I approve of Bush more than Congress. And I couldn't even say Bush has done even an average job. He's allowed too much to start falling apart. But I definitely don't have as low opinion of him as the vast majority of people, and I think he would have a MUCH higher approval rating if he had just avoided Iraq. People look for the bad in him now because of Iraq, so all his ratings take a hit. People just don't see the good he's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People just don't see the good he's done.

 

 

they said the same about stalin.

 

seriously, what good has he done?

 

he's:

 

1) squandered a tax surplus and created the greatest deficit in our country (and not just because of Iraq)

2) failed to provide adequate border security

3) destroyed the CIA and harmed our ability to stop future terrorist threats

4) further polarized the country

5) lowered the standard of living for all but the wealthiest 1% of Americans

6) eroded our constitutional rights more than any other president in history

 

i could go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Festa

I seriously want to meet one of the 29 percent who still approves of Bush. Bet they're either total morons or wingnuts. They'd have to be after everything that's transpired (Bush-supporters: transpired = happened)

 

I bet that a bunch of those people don't pay attention to the news, or don't have TV. Maybe it's also possible that they don't have a brain.

 

Just like the idiots who sign up to go to war.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously want to meet one of the 29 percent who still approves of Bush. Bet they're either total morons or wingnuts. They'd have to be after everything that's transpired (Bush-supporters: transpired = happened)

 

 

 

 

People just don't see the good he's done.

 

 

they said the same about stalin.

 

seriously, what good has he done?

 

he's:

 

1) squandered a tax surplus and created the greatest deficit in our country (and not just because of Iraq)

2) failed to provide adequate border security

3) destroyed the CIA and harmed our ability to stop future terrorist threats

4) further polarized the country

5) lowered the standard of living for all but the wealthiest 1% of Americans

6) eroded our constitutional rights more than any other president in history

 

i could go on.

 

I've been meaning to find a way to word all that for sometime now.. :notworthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously, what good has he done?

 

he's:

 

1) squandered a tax surplus and created the greatest deficit in our country (and not just because of Iraq)

2) failed to provide adequate border security

3) destroyed the CIA and harmed our ability to stop future terrorist threats

4) further polarized the country

5) lowered the standard of living for all but the wealthiest 1% of Americans

6) eroded our constitutional rights more than any other president in history

 

i could go on.

 

 

1) The tax surplus was gone as soon as 9-11 hit. He's made it worse then it could have been with the ill-timed invasion of Iraq and failure to re-instate the top 2 tax brackets, but he didn't "squander a tax surplus".

 

2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better.

 

3) Clinton did much more harm to the intelligence community than Bush did. Bush actually undid some of the harm from the Clinton administration.

 

4) no argument there

 

5) BS. I'm hardly top 1% and I live MUCH easier now. Same is true for most people I know.

 

6) BS. Several presidents have done worse, and really the only thing even remotely involving constitutional rights is the wire tapping thing, and MOST presidents have done their fair share of that (yes without warrants).

 

But you don't mention he has greatly improved funding for unconventional energy research. He cut in half the taxes paid by the bottom 10% of tax payers. He's immensely increased federal spending on Education.

 

Or are those bad things? There's plenty more to that, whether you choose to see it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better.

 

3) Clinton did much more harm to the intelligence community than Bush did. Bush actually undid some of the harm from the Clinton administration.

 

2- why is there a problem at the border? because we have companies this side of the border offering to hire and pay illegals. clinton came down hard on companies who hired these illegals trying to cut down on the reason and oppurtunities for illegals. if no one hired illegals or paid them then they wouldn't come. under bush we have seen a STEEP decline in arrests and charges against these companies.

 

the report went from 1999-2004

 

# of fines:

 

1999: 417

2000:178

---------------

bush takes over

---------------

2001 100

2002 53

2003 162

2004 3

 

 

# of arrests:

 

1999: 2,849

2000: 953

---------------

bush takes over

---------------

2001 795

2002 495

2003 445

2004 n/a

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05822t.pdf

 

3- bush has turned the agencies against eachother and most of them against the government. the cia hated having goss at its helm and they also are not happy with hayden at all. but it is bush's way to give them the middle finger a good thing you want to do i guess

 

he doesnt care that the doj is not being allowed to investigate the nsa

 

bush hasn't shown he can understand intelligence let alone reprimand those in his administration who lie to him about it see iraq war and condi rice and powell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 5:33 PM) 1147299[/snapback]

 

2- why is there a problem at the border? because we have companies this side of the border offering to hire and pay illegals. clinton came down hard on companies who hired these illegals trying to cut down on the reason and oppurtunities for illegals. if no one hired illegals or paid them then they wouldn't come. under bush we have seen a STEEP decline in arrests and charges against these companies.

 

the report went from 1999-2004

 

# of fines:

 

1999: 417

2000:178

---------------

bush takes over

---------------

2001 100

2002 53

2003 162

2004 3

 

 

# of arrests:

 

1999: 2,849

2000: 953

---------------

bush takes over

---------------

2001 795

2002 495

2003 445

2004 n/a

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05822t.pdf

 

3- bush has turned the agencies against eachother and most of them against the government. the cia hated having goss at its helm and they also are not happy with hayden at all. but it is bush's way to give them the middle finger a good thing you want to do i guess

 

he doesnt care that the doj is not being allowed to investigate the nsa

 

bush hasn't shown he can understand intelligence let alone reprimand those in his administration who lie to him about it see iraq war and condi rice and powell.

 

*not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate. When you make massive arrests you weed out the careless, leaving the harder to prove situations. And less overall. There is always a steep decline followed by a stagnation period when law enforcement in emphasized on a specific thing. Same thing happened with meth labs in TX. A huge number initially, followed a steep decline in busts and a period of stagnation. Declining numbers does not prove a lack of effort. Show me a reduction in manpower/manhours involved in the investigations and I'll buy it.

 

While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those.

 

As for #3, Clinton is the one that started pitting them against each other. He's the one that oversaw putting in restrictions on how the different agencies communicate with each other, leading to much duplicate work, not taking advantage of strengths, and a more direct conflict for funding. I don't have access to any inside information about the CIA, so I really couldn't tell you what they think about Goss or Hayden (though it does seem that Goss was a very bad choice).

 

But the intelligence communities work together much better now, so even though he pissed them off, they are much more capable then when he took over.

 

I've never heard about Condi lying to Bush, or Powell lying to anyone but the UN under pressure from the rest of the Bush administration. Wasn't Powell's problem that he vocally disagreed with Bush and refused to lie. But you are right in that Bush doesn't know the proper ways to handle information. And he certainly has turned at least a good chunk of the intelligence community against him, as evidenced by the delay in releasing information he requested declassified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate.

 

man you need some help. are there more or less illegals in the us now versus the clinton administration?

 

more illegals are coming and finding jobs.

 

the more illegals there are here the more illegals have jobs. which means there should be more arrests and fines. if the intelligence agency is working better now, by your own word, then we should be finding more and more of these businesses.

 

but i fail to see how going from fining 417 employers to 3 employers in a 5 year span seems appropriate in this climate.

 

its called an education i suggest you get one. :thumbup

 

republicans need to realize it is no longer about clinton because at this point he will not make this country better or worse. just like nixon, reagan, carter, kennedy, eisenhower, bush sr, etc can not change where this country is heading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 7:13 PM) 1147391[/snapback]

 

man you need some help. are there more or less illegals in the us now versus the clinton administration?

 

more illegals are coming and finding jobs.

 

the more illegals there are here the more illegals have jobs. which means there should be more arrests and fines. if the intelligence agency is working better now, by your own word, then we should be finding more and more of these businesses.

 

but i fail to see how going from fining 417 employers to 3 employers in a 5 year span seems appropriate in this climate.

 

its called an education i suggest you get one. :thumbup

 

republicans need to realize it is no longer about clinton because at this point he will not make this country better or worse. just like nixon, reagan, carter, kennedy, eisenhower, bush sr, etc can not change where this country is heading.

 

Meh. Last numbers I saw said over 11 million illegals in Clinton's last year compared to a bit over 12 million now (well, also seen numbers saying as low as 9.5 for Clinton and 11 for this year). So yeah, number of illegals has increased by somewhere around a million over what, 6 years now. Bet more illegals came into the country during Clinton's presidency.

 

Like I said, the first few years you crack down, you catch the obvious, easy to track infractions. Yes, fining 3 employers is definitely off, but considering the previous year was 162... There's not even a trend on the fines, just a lot of up and down, so saying it dropped to 3 over a 5 year period is misleading at best. Like I said, show me a manpower/hour drop and I'll buy it.

 

And I am well educated thank you. It does do wonders. Lets me keep an open mind and not be pigeon-holed into thinking what others want me to think.

 

And not that I'm a republican, but of course none of the past presidents can change where the country is headed. That doesn't mean they didn't play a role. Clinton played a role in a lot of negatives and get's thought of highly because he happened to be lucky enough to preside of a technology boom. FDR helped bring the country back from the brink of bankruptcy and protect the world from Hitler, BUT he's also the root cause of many of the financial problems we have today. Bush has done a lot of good things, but he will be remembered for the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, fining 3 employers is definitely off

 

 

*not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate.

 

 

 

 

but considering the previous year was 162... There's not even a trend on the fines, just a lot of up and down

 

let's look at some vocabulary

 

trend: "The general drift or tendency in a set of data." www.riverdeep.net/students/glossaries/algebra/Glossary.jhtml

 

do you not understand the idea behind a trend? not every single data point has to be going down but a trend is that the average over time is going downwards. much like the downwards trend in the number of fines. 2003 would be what one would call an outlier.

 

so saying it dropped to 3 over a 5 year period is misleading at best.

would you rather me point out:

 

-clinton fined 277 more companies in his last 2 years than bush did in his entire first term?

-or that bush fined 46% less companies for hiring illegals in 2 less years?

 

Like I said, show me a manpower/hour drop and I'll buy it.

 

what difference is it? if i showed you they used more man power and more hours would that make it better? hell if they did that or even used the same then i think americans have been robbed of money. it is common sense really:

 

-only more illegals are showing up

-only more illegals have more jobs

-only more businesses are hiring illegals

-illegals are making up more of the work force

-all this in the face of a "better intelligence agency"

 

and there are less and less arrests and fines? that is sounding like lazy work to me.

 

here in america we celebrate results trying is nothing. and right now bush is not getting results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 9:27 PM) 1147528[/snapback]

 

what difference is it? if i showed you they used more man power and more hours would that make it better? hell if they did that or even used the same then i think americans have been robbed of money. it is common sense really:

 

-only more illegals are showing up

-only more illegals have more jobs

-only more businesses are hiring illegals

-illegals are making up more of the work force

-all this in the face of a "better intelligence agency"

 

and there are less and less arrests and fines? that is sounding like lazy work to me.

 

here in america we celebrate results trying is nothing. and right now bush is not getting results.

 

The trend argument is BS. I've already stated there is a natural downward trend for the first couple years, so really you have 3 years of valid data (down-up-down) for real trend, and it shows nothing. And sorry about the "waffle" thought that said 30 at first glance, not three. Blame the glasses or just not proofreading. That one number is suspisciously low, the number before suspiciously high.

 

Yes more illegals are here now then before. That's not saying much as the way things are with the porous borders (that Bush has actually improved over the last couple years once Congress passed the legislation he wanted), unless an amnesty is declared and they are given legal status, that WON'T go down, period.

 

Show me statistics saying more illegals have jobs, or that there are more businesses hiring them. The fact is you can make more money begging in the streets than you can working full time in Mexico. Heck, a lot of beggars make more money than me. So how do you know more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them? How does anyone since MOST illegals are working day to day on cash basis jobs.

 

I'm suprised you haven't quoted the arrest numbers: 1.7 million arrested crossing the border in 2000. 1.1 million in 2005 (low point in 2003). That's more of an argument than nebulously claiming that more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you raise an interesting point at the end there:

 

 

I'm suprised you haven't quoted the arrest numbers: 1.7 million arrested crossing the border in 2000. 1.1 million in 2005 (low point in 2003). That's more of an argument than nebulously claiming that more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them.

 

 

While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those.

 

 

# of arrests by border patrol

1996: 1,549,876

1997:1,412,953

1998:1,555,776

1999:1,579,010

2000:1,676,438

------------------

bush

------------------

2001:1,266,214

2002:955,310

2003:931,557

2004: n/a

2005:~1,100,000

 

 

you are right clinton was so bad that not only was he harder on those that hired illegals he got better results at the border himself. the bush results are a lot lower than the clinton results. funny thing is bush spent a lot more than clinton and didn't get nearly as much in the way of results:

 

 

 

 

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Featur...play.cfm?id=370

 

so i guess you are right bush is trying, he just can't get results. yaaay for trying!

 

but remember:

 

While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those.

 

 

oops?

 

 

 

 

Show me statistics saying more illegals have jobs, or that there are more businesses hiring them. The fact is you can make more money begging in the streets than you can working full time in Mexico. Heck, a lot of beggars make more money than me. So how do you know more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them? How does anyone since MOST illegals are working day to day on cash basis jobs.

 

 

as shocking as this is illegals won't disclose their illegality and business won't openly admit they hire illegals. but it is common sense. illegals come here for money and farmers and resturant owners, sanitation companies, know where they can find their cheap miracle workers and the illegals know how to find people who are willing to pay them. if there was no more money to be had the illegals would stop coming but they dont and they keep making money to send back home, someone is paying them.

 

 

2) failed to provide adequate border security

 

2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better.

so care to tell me how you came to that conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 14 2006, 10:11 PM) 1147561[/snapback]

 

you raise an interesting point at the end there:

oops?

 

as shocking as this is illegals won't disclose their illegality and business won't openly admit they hire illegals. but it is common sense. illegals come here for money and farmers and resturant owners, sanitation companies, know where they can find their cheap miracle workers and the illegals know how to find people who are willing to pay them. if there was no more money to be had the illegals would stop coming but they dont and they keep making money to send back home, someone is paying them.

 

so care to tell me how you came to that conclusion?

 

Yup, you're right. In the process of discussion, it has been proven that Clinton did improve the border. I concede that point. But it still points a smile on my face that I got to tell you how to prove it. Although I could go on to claim the commonly accepted principal of for every 1 caught, 2 get across that's been around since the 80's :p Of course if that were true there should be like 30-40 million here or something like that.

 

As for the jobs/businesses. You're not realizing that begging in the US can make more than working in Mexico. Working 1 day in the US can make as much as a week in Mexico as well. It's possible for more to be working without more businesses using them. Especially since many of the businesses that are considered prime industries for offending have grown dramatically, the same companies could just be using more of them as well. You're just claiming something that just does not necessarily logically follow.

 

What, that Bush has increased border security? Significantly increasing bordper patrol personnel to protect the gaps (granted, the total training level has gone down because he rushed them into the field), ordering more searches of crossing and border region vehicle searches, providing nice biometric technology for official border crossings that makes sure everybody who crosses there is properly identified. There's also the greatly increased airport security and better port container controls if you want to count those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.   Restore formatting

  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.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...