Since the election, Bush has emphasized a policy agenda that includes making his first-term income tax cuts permanent and changing Social Security to give workers the right to invest some of their withholding, both of which are priorities for conservatives. The poll found, however, that a 2-to-1 majority wants Bush to pursue "programs that both parties support" rather than a Republican agenda.
If you don't want your tax cut, you can easily give it back when you fill out your 1040.
If you don't want any of your social security taxes put into your own private account, then don't allocate any $$ if/when the program is implemented.
Finally, I'd like to ask: What programs do both liberals and conservatives want to pursue? Tell me any part of the Bush agenda that you personally support before you berate him for pursuing specific agenda items. Otherwise, this whole discussion is mute because you wouldn't be happy with anything he did.
usanow said this in post #2 : If you don't want your tax cut, you can easily give it back when you fill out your 1040.
If you don't want any of your social security taxes put into your own private account, then don't allocate any $$ if/when the program is implemented.
Finally, I'd like to ask: What programs do both liberals and conservatives want to pursue? Tell me any part of the Bush agenda that you personally support before you berate him for pursuing specific agenda items. Otherwise, this whole discussion is mute because you wouldn't be happy with anything he did.
that's quite easy. there's a middle road to almost everything. i prefer kerry's platform on just about every issue, but since he wasn't elected, i'm for some sort of middle ground that congress would have to work out.
tax cuts? yeah, i'll return my tax cut gladly if everyone else in the country returns theirs as well. the real solution? don't extend the current cuts. let them expire, as scheduled. second best? reduce the extent of the cuts.
social security? i don't know enough about it yet, but i oppose anything that resembles a mandatory privatization of a portion of it. if not mandatory, i would want complete assurance that the trust funds that i paid into for so many years would not be impaired for my children's retirement. that might mean raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes, or both, and if that's what it takes, we'll all have to bite the bullet. but i don't want my money invested in bush's billionaire boys' corporations either by the government or by individuals using funds that would otherwise go into the general social security trust fund.
you suggest by implication that i am a loose cannon objecting to anything bush wants to do. well, it would seem that 2/3 of the country now wants plans that entail cooperation from both political parties. what YOU apparently want is your 'mandate' to allow bush to go screw up anything and everythig he chooses to do, on a 'my way or the highway' basis.
Assessments of Bush improved: 55% approve of the job he is doing as president, up from a 48% pre-election score. His personal favorability rating hit 60%, up from 51% in late October.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
mystic said this in post #5 : Oh...I forgot to ask....
How many people participated in this poll?
100, 1000, 10,000???
How many and exactly who is speaking for the rest of America in this poll?
you STILL have a problem with polls, mystic? GOOD GRIEF! i guess gallup's been making a living doing questionable scientific polling for decades. billion dollar companies hire them to do market research to receive unreliable results? please give me a break. if you know anything about statistical sampling, the size of the sample depends on the tolerable margin of error and the size of the population. sometimes a sample size of 100 is more than enough. other times, a sample of 10,000 might not be enough. rest assured, though, that when gallup takes a poll, since they make their living doing things properly, the sample size is sufficient to achieve the desired result, subject only to the margin of error. they have an enviable track record. trust me on that.
quote:
Assessments of Bush improved: 55% approve of the job he is doing as president, up from a 48% pre-election score. His personal favorability rating hit 60%, up from 51% in late October
as for bush's increase in job approval satisfaction, i think you ought to know darn well that it's all but automatic that it would rise shortly after the election. the people who voted for him certainly won't change their opinion that quickly, and it's expected that some nominal percentage of those that voted against him would resign themselves, accept him as president, and give him a positive vote. (I note that you accept that bit of polling data all right.)
when you look at it, what has bush done in the last three weeks to rate a higher acceptance? not much of anything that you can attribute to him, unless you want to factor in the staff and cabinet resignations. having said that, i believe those polling results, because i believe in the science of polling, provided they are carried out by skilled organizations who abide by the professional standards of statistical sampling. i just don't place all that much importance on the slight rise in job approval. convince me of what he has actually accomplished (other than talk) in the last three weeks and maybe you can change my mind.
it would appear, however, that you don't accept ANY polling results if it's not what you want to hear.
you STILL have a problem with polls, mystic? GOOD GRIEF! i guess gallup's been making a living doing questionable scientific polling for decades. billion dollar companies hire them to do market research to receive unreliable results? please give me a break. if you know anything about statistical sampling, the size of the sample depends on the tolerable margin of error and the size of the population. sometimes a sample size of 100 is more than enough. other times, a sample of 10,000 might not be enough. rest assured, though, that when gallup takes a poll, since they make their living doing things properly, the sample size is sufficient to achieve the desired result, subject only to the margin of error. they have an enviable track record. trust me on that.
I was just asking how many people...I dont see an issue with that. I think thats a perfectly reasonable question.
as for bush's increase in job approval satisfaction, i think you ought to know darn well that it's all but automatic that it would rise shortly after the election. the people who voted for him certainly won't change their opinion that quickly, and it's expected that some nominal percentage of those that voted against him would resign themselves, accept him as president, and give him a positive vote. (I note that you accept that bit of polling data all right.)
I actually dont and thats the reason I posted that part of it because since YOU do accept it, I would have to think that YOU SHOULD accept that.
when you look at it, what has bush done in the last three weeks to rate a higher acceptance?
Thats not really the point though...you obviously wholehearteldly believe in polls, so you should accept that rating..correct?
not much of anything that you can attribute to him, unless you want to factor in the staff and cabinet resignations. having said that, i believe those polling results, because i believe in the science of polling, provided they are carried out by skilled organizations who abide by the professional standards of statistical sampling. i just don't place all that much importance on the slight rise in job approval.
Okay...but thats what your polling people think..so I think you should find it important..they obviously do.
convince me of what he has actually accomplished (other than talk) in the last three weeks and maybe you can change my mind.
Im not here to convince you of anything..the polling people are doing that for you..arent they??
it would appear, however, that you don't accept ANY polling results if it's not what you want to hear.
Actually I dont believe much in any polling at all regardless of what they say...and certainly I think I made my point about that even when the polls said Bush was leading the polls....maybe you forgot to read those though huh?
I believe in stats in most cases...just not polls such as this...regardless of who does them....
And again..Why is it a problem to ask who they polled and how many? Dont you think that this is a big variable in polling stats? I would think so!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
mystic said this in post #7 : you STILL have a problem with polls, mystic? GOOD GRIEF! i guess gallup's been making a living doing questionable scientific polling for decades. billion dollar companies hire them to do market research to receive unreliable results? please give me a break. if you know anything about statistical sampling, the size of the sample depends on the tolerable margin of error and the size of the population. sometimes a sample size of 100 is more than enough. other times, a sample of 10,000 might not be enough. rest assured, though, that when gallup takes a poll, since they make their living doing things properly, the sample size is sufficient to achieve the desired result, subject only to the margin of error. they have an enviable track record. trust me on that.
I was just asking how many people...I dont see an issue with that. I think thats a perfectly reasonable question.
as for bush's increase in job approval satisfaction, i think you ought to know darn well that it's all but automatic that it would rise shortly after the election. the people who voted for him certainly won't change their opinion that quickly, and it's expected that some nominal percentage of those that voted against him would resign themselves, accept him as president, and give him a positive vote. (I note that you accept that bit of polling data all right.)
I actually dont and thats the reason I posted that part of it because since YOU do accept it, I would have to think that YOU SHOULD accept that.
i totally accept that, and said that in no uncertain terms. if you reread what i said, you'll see that i said that i believe the results, only that i don't place that much significance to them. it was as predictable as the spike candidates get following their party's convention. it was nothing more than a predictable spike in public opinion, which i consider to be vastly different from the segment of the poll that i posted.
when you look at it, what has bush done in the last three weeks to rate a higher acceptance?
Thats not really the point though...you obviously wholehearteldly believe in polls, so you should accept that rating..correct?
once again, i totally accept the results of that poll. i merely point out that the swing does not equate to good job performance, because he hasn't done anything to warrant it yet.
not much of anything that you can attribute to him, unless you want to factor in the staff and cabinet resignations. having said that, i believe those polling results, because i believe in the science of polling, provided they are carried out by skilled organizations who abide by the professional standards of statistical sampling. i just don't place all that much importance on the slight rise in job approval.
Okay...but thats what your polling people think..so I think you should find it important..they obviously do.
already explained twice.
convince me of what he has actually accomplished (other than talk) in the last three weeks and maybe you can change my mind.
Im not here to convince you of anything..the polling people are doing that for you..arent they??
that was merely a manner of speaking, and you are the one i was speaking to, not the gallup organization
it would appear, however, that you don't accept ANY polling results if it's not what you want to hear.
Actually I dont believe much in any polling at all regardless of what they say...and certainly I think I made my point about that even when the polls said Bush was leading the polls....maybe you forgot to read those though huh?
I believe in stats in most cases...just not polls such as this...regardless of who does them....
i read every poll that i was aware of. where there were differences between polls, if you allow for the margin of error in each poll, the results were very close to one another.
i guess gallup, harris, neilsen, etc, might as well fold up their tents, since it seems that they are practicing some type of voodoo. sorry, i think you are dead wrong in mistrusting polls which are conducted according to professional standards. they are generally reliable to about 95% or better. to listen to you, most of them cannot be trusted. that's just plain wrong.
And again..Why is it a problem to ask who they polled and how many? Dont you think that this is a big variable in polling stats? I would think so!
because your response comes across as questioning the validity of the sample size. how else could it be interpreted? furthermore, you back it up by saying that you don't trust polls.
for an answer to your question about the actual sample size used, i guess you'd have to contact the gallup people, or maybe it's somewhere in their web site. be assured though, irrespective of the size, the poll was scientifically done, and they questioned a proper number of people, whatever the sample size was. again, the sample size is NOT arbitrary. it is scientifically calculated according to standards of statistical sampling.
that's quite easy. there's a middle road to almost everything. i prefer kerry's platform on just about every issue, but since he wasn't elected, i'm for some sort of middle ground that congress would have to work out.
tax cuts? yeah, i'll return my tax cut gladly if everyone else in the country returns theirs as well. the real solution? don't extend the current cuts. let them expire, as scheduled. second best? reduce the extent of the cuts.
social security? i don't know enough about it yet, but i oppose anything that resembles a mandatory privatization of a portion of it. if not mandatory, i would want complete assurance that the trust funds that i paid into for so many years would not be impaired for my children's retirement. that might mean raising the retirement age or raising payroll taxes, or both, and if that's what it takes, we'll all have to bite the bullet. but i don't want my money invested in bush's billionaire boys' corporations either by the government or by individuals using funds that would otherwise go into the general social security trust fund.
you suggest by implication that i am a loose cannon objecting to anything bush wants to do. well, it would seem that 2/3 of the country now wants plans that entail cooperation from both political parties. what YOU apparently want is your 'mandate' to allow bush to go screw up anything and everythig he chooses to do, on a 'my way or the highway' basis.
Well, there's not a middle of the road on everything - some things are binary. Either we privatize a portion of social security, or we don't. The downside is that current SS revenue would be sent to private accounts and would not be available to current retirees. But the upside is that SS savings should grow at a greater rate if invested in a mix of fixed income and equity investments.
Yes, 2/3 want cooperation. That really means that all Kerry voters want Kerry cooperation, and 1/6 of Bush voters want cooperation. Bush voters sent him to the White House, so who is he more duty-bound to, Kerry supporters + 1/6 of his constituency, or 5/6 of his constituency?
That doesn't mean Bush gets nor gives up on everything he wants. But you shouldn't be surprised to see that Bush, for the most part, will pursue the Republican party platform that keyed is reelection.
usanow said this in post #9 :
Yes, 2/3 want cooperation. That really means that all Kerry voters want Kerry cooperation, and 1/6 of Bush voters want cooperation. Bush voters sent him to the White House, so who is he more duty-bound to, Kerry supporters + 1/6 of his constituency, or 5/6 of his constituency?
IF THAT ISN'T THE MOST ASININE STATEMENT MADE TO DATE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!!
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WHO REQUIRES SOME EDUCATION ABOUT STATISTICAL SAMPLING .
so the gallup organization, who has demonstrated a remarkable, respected and trusted record since being founded in 1935, is stupid enough to poll a sample that is heavily weighted with kerry supporters and only 1/6 of bush supporters!!!!!
why don't you first take a minute and read something about the enviable reputation of the Gallup Organization (multiple link references provided on request). Here's just a small sample:
The Gallup Poll
Dr. Gallup founded the Gallup Poll in 1935 with Harold Anderson, a businessman who oversaw the marketing of the poll to newspaper. The Gallup Poll Monthly provides a Gallup Poll Accuracy Record that begins with the election of 1936 and calculates the deviation for every election. The APIO surveys have become an important feature in American journalism. The results of different polls on wide and sundry topics have appeared in 120 US newspapers. Today, the Gallup Poll is syndicated to hundreds of newspapers and conducts "exclusive polls for CNN, USA Today, Newsweek, and other news
11-23-2004 06:04 PM
