» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/03/05 at 4:04 am
CNN
February 03, 2005
(CNN) -- President Bush's State of the Union address raised support for his policies on health care and Social Security among people who watched the speech, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Wednesday night.
The percentage of respondents who said the president's proposals in those areas will help the country rose 15 points from when the same question was asked of the same people in the two days before the speech.
In the post-speech sample, 70 percent of respondents said Bush's policies on health care were positive, while 66 percent approved of the president's plan for Social Security.
Bush showed almost as much improvement on Iraq, with 78 percent of respondents saying U.S. policy there is heading in the right direction, a 12 percentage point increase over pre-speech polling. Overall, 77 percent of respondents said Bush is taking the country in the right direction after the speech compared to 67 percent beforehand.
Overall, Bush got very positive or positive reactions to his speech from 86 percent of respondents, his best numbers since the State of the Union address he gave January 29, 2002 -- just four-and-a-half months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- when 94 percent of those polled gave him positive marks.
Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.poll/index.html
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/03/05 at 9:45 am
Frivolous asbestos lawsuits?
He just stood up there and lied about Social Security, and then he goes to the Prayer Breakfast this morning, honoring a God who says you're supposed to tell the truth. Some nerve, some effen nerve!
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: CatwomanofV on 02/03/05 at 12:05 pm
Didn't bother to even watch it. I didn't want to hear anymore of his lies-so we watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban instead. ;D
Cat
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: Tanya1976 on 02/03/05 at 12:52 pm
Didn't bother to watch it. I am allergic to lies.
Tanya
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: ChuckyG on 02/03/05 at 1:14 pm
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ai.htm
stunning numbers for viewership.. don't forget these (from your favorite source no less!)
if the goal was to convince his flock of followers, than well, "Mission Accomplished"
Considering the Democrats have already stated their opposition, and maintain a large enough number of votes to prevent it from passing the Senate, it's a fun diversion from real tasks for the president.
too bad his "State of the Union" said very little about the actual state of the union, and more about his goals for his new term.
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: Don Carlos on 02/03/05 at 4:09 pm
Polling stats are interesting things. According to an AP-IPSOS poll (Jan 5-9 of 1503 adults, 54% of those polled favored private investment accounts for SS taxes, 58% of the 18-54 year olds and 45% of those over 55. The same group said, 65% strong, keep guaranteed benefits, 63% of those under 55, and 71% of those 55 or over. Since you can't have it both ways, evan under Lil' Georgie's pie in the sky plan, there seems to be a major contradiction and a major disconnect here. It all depends on how you ask the question.
Interesting, though, that so many people tuned him out. Harry won by the way.
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/03/05 at 5:09 pm
The speech was we-can-have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too fluff.
Did you see that Iraqi lady standing there with the First Lady? She looked like Rikki Lake in the movie Hairspray! Yeah, I thought Laura Bush looked like Judge Judy last night. I was like, "why are they giving Judge Judy such royal treatement?"
And bringing that soldier's parents to the speech was emotional pornography. The same Republican pundits who 'gwan praise Dubya for that stunt are the ones who came down on Michael Moore for "exploiting" that dead soldiers mother in Fahrenheit 911. And speaking of that, Michael Moore could just distribute that speech unedited as a short film on why our country is going to HELL.
:o ::)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: ChuckyG on 02/03/05 at 7:12 pm
it's due to the funny math. Tell someone the money is there's no matter what, and they of course support it. Tell them how the plan works, they may think twice about it.
Washington Post does the numbers.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's. With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
The best part? if the account earns less than 3 percent, you LOSE money.
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: Spaff.com on 02/03/05 at 8:15 pm
I sent a message to an email group I'm in asking for a synopsis of the State of the Union address (since I missed it). Two of the replies I got were too good not to receive a wider audience, so I'm going to share them with you, like it or not.
<<
Here's what I remember (I was trying to learn some PHP programming while watching, so the speech is a bit of a blur):
My budget is going to make small but nasty cuts in popular programs so I can pretend to do something about the deficit that I created by giving massive tax cuts to the rich and starting an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Let's privatize Social Security, even though I'm lying to you when I tell you it's in crisis and I'm not going to say the word "privatize" because it doesn't do well in focus groups. Oh, and I'm going to keep my privatization plan secret.
Kids, don't join gangs or get pregnant. Oh, and gay people shouldn't get married.
Freedom is on the march. You can tell because there's an Iraqi sitting next to my wife whose finger is blue, indicating democracy. (Pink means corrupt dictatorship.) And lots of Republican Congressmen appear to have dyed their fingers blue as well, indicating that they too braved suicide bombers and snipers and threats of reprisal to cast their votes.
Also, we're winning the war on terror. You can tell because there are some middle-aged Middle Americans sitting with Laura who lost a son in Iraq. Let me assure you that their sacrifice will not go unrepeated.
Also on that topic, let me take a moment to threaten some other Middle Eastern countries, Iran and Syria: We will not tolerate your ruthless repression and brutal dictatorships. On the other hand, to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia I say: Keep up the good work.
>>
<<
Per your request, the full text:
My Fellow, Freedom-Loving Americans,
Good Evening.  I stand before you humbled and free--humbled by the overwhelming success of the elections I organized in Iraq , and free because I am the leader of the Free World , the President of a free country , where freedom rings and people pick up and give a listen , because they're free.
I am also grateful.  Grateful for the series of stunning victories we've achieved in the War on Terror, and grateful to be free. The naysayers said them Iraqi's weren't capable of grabbing the lifeline of liberty , that they couldn't grab the brass ring of democracy , that towel heads couldn't belly up to the bar of Freedom . Well , they were wrong.  Iraq is now the second free-est country in the whole wide world, after the U-nited States of Amerca, . How do I know that? 'Cause I've got a hunert and fifty thousand of our boys over ready to step on any Mohammedan pissant that tries to pee on Freedom's parade.
But I must confess that I'm also more than a little worried.  Not about Afghanistan, or Iraq or our brilliantly executed War on Terror.  Like I said--we got that little annoyance covered like a Sunday dress on my Baptist Granny. No, I'm worried about my retirement. Hell, 'cause it's part of my job, I'm worried about your retirement too.  Why am I worried?  I'll tell you why. . I took a walk the other day over to the Treasury, where we keep all y'all's cash and whatnot. 'Magin' my surprise to find out that all that money we been putting into the Social Securty ain't there.  I sh*t you not!ÂÂ
Well,  I'm a gonna fix that !ÂÂ
>>
xoxox
Spaff
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: GWBush2004 on 02/04/05 at 12:40 pm
it's due to the funny math. Tell someone the money is there's no matter what, and they of course support it. Tell them how the plan works, they may think twice about it.
Washington Post does the numbers.
If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's. With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.
The best part? if the account earns less than 3 percent, you LOSE money.ÂÂ
Hmm...is that the article by Jonathan Weisman in the Washington Post? The one at the following link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59136-2005Feb2.html
Now where have I read about that article today? Maybe the following will help:
White House: Washington Post Article 'Flat Wrong'
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The White House pushed back against an article in Thursday's Washington Post, calling it 'flat wrong' about the President Bush's plan for Social Security reform. The article appeared the morning following the president's State of the Union address in which he provided a list of broad principles that would govern his approach to overhauling the retirement system.
Bush began a five-state tour on Thursday to make his case to the American people for his reform proposals. He visited states that he carried in November's elections that have one or more Democratic senators. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Democratic leadership vowed to block any plan that would include personal retirement accounts.
The article's publication also coincided with a press conference Congressional Democrats held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial on Thursday to proclaim their opposition to any change in the retirement program. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led the caucus who reiterated their determination to prevent the president's plan from being passed.
The White House voiced its objection to the Washington Post news article by Jonathan Weisman titled, "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," saying that its headline and central assertion were inaccurate. The White House said that the statement about workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system," is wrong. The White House has asked the newspaper for a correction.
In a press release, the White House stressed, "Under President Bush's plan, participants would get every single penny of their retirement accounts -- both the principal and interest."
It disputed the Washington Post claim that personal retirement accounts benefit the federal government because of a "claw back" feature. Such a feature would reduce the amount of benefits paid out by the federal government when the personal retirement account investments earn more than the standard rate of return in the traditional system. In effect, the more successful the personal account does, the less a beneficiary would receive from the government.
The White House denied that the president's plan for personal retirement accounts contains a "claw back" feature. It insisted that the amount beneficiaries receive from the government would not be affected by the performance of a personal account. All gains from the retirement accounts would go to the beneficiary.
The author of the article, Jonathan Weisman, recently posted an article on a journalism web site, PoynterOnline.com discussing his dissatisfaction with how the White House dealt with him. He complained that in exchange for special access to administration officials, the White House wanted to approve attributable quotes for accuracy.
He wrote, "I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House."
Last August, Weisman wrote an article for the Washington Post titled, "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle" which reflected a theme of the Kerry campaign's "middle class squeeze." It sited conclusions in a Congressional Budget Office report that had been requested by Democrats on the Capitol Hill. At the time, the Bush campaign suggested the results had been "shaded" by the questions asked by Democrats.
Link to the above Talon News article: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/february/0204_wh_wash_post.shtml
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: ChuckyG on 02/04/05 at 3:47 pm
Hmm...is that the article by Jonathan Weisman in the Washington Post? The one at the following link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59136-2005Feb2.html
Now where have I read about that article today? Maybe the following will help:
White House: Washington Post Article 'Flat Wrong'
WASHINGTON (Talon News)
Talon News? The fake news site run by the GOP? That "source" might as well have been writen by a Moonie at the Washington Times.
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: Don Carlos on 02/04/05 at 4:35 pm
Hmmm, looks like the Social Security Crisis? thread has shifted.
Clearly, Lil'Georgie's "plan" is designed to fatten the wallets of Wall Street finance managers, and is based on funny math. IF it were to work, there would be no crisis in the current system because its assumptions are the rosiest, while those made to assess the current system are the most bleek. That, in itself, is statistical manipulation and dishonest.
Beyond that, his appeal to black people is absolutetly dishonest. The claim is that because black life expectancy in this country is lower than that for whites, black people don't get has much in benefits as whites do.ÂÂ
The life expectancy figures are accurate, but the conclusion is spurious. Why? Because "life expectancy" is figured at birth and so includes INFANT MORTALITY. Shamefully, black infant mortality is considerably higher than that for white babies (and, by the way, higher than infant mortality in Cuba). Naturally that brings the "life expectancy" of black people down. But note that neither white nor black infants contribute to Social Security (neither of my grand daughters are taxed for it, are your's?).
The shame is that Lil' Georgie hasn't suggested that we need a massive public health program to lower the black infant mortality rate. Why is it that black babies are much more likely to die before their first birthday than white kids (a rhetorical question)?ÂÂ
And another problem with this (psudo)analisys: (because of racism) Black workers earn less than whites, on average, and therefore get lower benefits from SS. Does that mean that SS is cheating them? No, it means that their employers are cheating them.
Lil' Georgie, STOP THE LIES
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: danootaandme on 02/04/05 at 5:38 pm
In a press release, the White House stressed, "Under President Bush's plan, participants would get every single penny of their retirement accounts -- both the principal and interest."
That would be at the time the fund is drawn upon. Many lucky Enron workers found that they were able to recoup their principal, but the interest they would have made was gone to Ken Lay and his myriad
homes. Social Security has provided a guarenteed benefit. There are never any guarantees in money invested in stocks...never(except to the brokers, of course)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: ChuckyG on 02/04/05 at 6:13 pm
Talon News article: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/february/0204_wh_wash_post.shtml
here's an article for you,
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Bill Gross, manager of the world's largest bond fund, is criticizing President Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security.
Gross, managing director at Pimco, called the argument about the solvency of Social Security "silly" and said it was an example of the president not focusing on more important issues, such as the budget deficit.
The president's argument for individual Social Security accounts is meant "to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR," Gross wrote in comments posted on Pimco's Web site.
"Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich," Gross wrote.
"Presto!" he continued. "We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the president intends to spend his well-advertised political capital."
But while the president says that will help fix Social Security, "the problem has more to do with demographics than the lack of ownership," Gross wrote.
Gross argued that it will take more than individual Social Security accounts to correct a projected shortfall and suggested the government should focus on cutting the budget deficit instead.
so we have the word of a someone, who's businesses all failed (or robbed the public blind) and the manager of the largest bond fund. Who's math do I believe?
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/04/05 at 6:41 pm
here's an article for you,
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Bill Gross, manager of the world's largest bond fund, is criticizing President Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security.
Gross, managing director at Pimco, called the argument about the solvency of Social Security "silly" and said it was an example of the president not focusing on more important issues, such as the budget deficit.
The president's argument for individual Social Security accounts is meant "to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR," Gross wrote in comments posted on Pimco's Web site.
"Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich," Gross wrote.
"Presto!" he continued. "We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the president intends to spend his well-advertised political capital."
But while the president says that will help fix Social Security, "the problem has more to do with demographics than the lack of ownership," Gross wrote.
Gross argued that it will take more than individual Social Security accounts to correct a projected shortfall and suggested the government should focus on cutting the budget deficit instead.
so we have the word of a someone, who's businesses all failed (or robbed the public blind) and the manager of the largest bond fund. Who's math do I believe?
Uh...yeah...Gross is just the latest in a series of qualified professionals to denounce the Bush social security privitization plan. Unphased, the Bush forces will use the media lapdogs to keep pounding the idea. It's part of the plutocratic, anti-collectivist propaganda mill.
What disturbs me is the experts said exactly the same thing about supply side economics--and they were correct--but the Right used phony populism and the ignorance of the American people to push through Reaganomics. Only the wisdom of the Congress can save us now (gulp!).
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: philbo on 02/05/05 at 11:33 am
Couldn't resist pointing this one out: Think (GWB's Second Inauguration Speech) (to 'Think' by Aretha Franklin)
The main reasoning behind Bush's proposed social security changes seems to me to be a buck-passing exercice: when returns fail to materialize, people fail to get their pensions etc. who gets the blame? The buck no longer stops there...
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll: Bush's state of the union speech wins converts, was a big hit
Written By: ChuckyG on 02/15/05 at 1:26 pm
not as big a hit as expected I guess:
http://gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14893
one week later and he drops over 8 points with the same polling firm? The last poll looks like what a statistican would call an "outlier".