What American's Think

[chelle]

of that monkey that is getting sworn in today...

 

From The New York Times:

January 20, 2005

Public Voicing Doubts on Iraq and the Economy, Poll Finds

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

 

On the eve of President Bush's second inauguration, most Americans say they do not expect the economy to improve or American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, and many have reservations about his signature plan to overhaul Social Security, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

 

Seventy percent, however, said they thought Mr. Bush would succeed in changing the Social Security system. The poll found that 43 percent of respondents expect most forms of abortion to be illegal by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, given Mr. Bush's expected appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

The Times/CBS News Poll offered the kind of conflicting portrait of the nation's view of Mr. Bush that was evident throughout last year's presidential campaign. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they were generally optimistic on the eve of Mr. Bush's swearing-in about the next four years, but clear majorities disapproved of Mr. Bush's management of the economy and the war in Iraq.

 

Nearly two-thirds said a second Bush term would leave the country with a larger deficit, while 47 percent said that a second Bush term would divide Americans. A majority of those surveyed said that they did not expect any improvement in health care, education, or in reducing the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly by January 2009.

 

Just under 80 percent, including a majority of those who said they voted for Mr. Bush in November, said it would not be possible to overhaul Social Security, cut taxes, and finance the war in Iraq without increasing the budget deficit, despite Mr. Bush's promises to the contrary.

 

The findings, coming after a tensely competitive election, suggest that Mr. Bush does not have broad popular support as he embarks on what the White House has signaled would be an extraordinarily ambitious second term, which in many ways will commence with Mr. Bush's swearing-in and speech on Thursday. That could undermine his leverage in Congress, where even some Republicans have expressed concern about major aspects of Mr. Bush's Social Security plans.

 

Mr. Bush's job approval rating is at 49 percent as he heads into his second term - significantly lower than the ratings at the start of the second terms of the last two presidents who served eight years, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And 56 percent said the country has gone off on the wrong track, about as bad a rating Mr. Bush has received on this measure since entering the White House.

 

Still, as Mr. Bush enters what the White House views as a critical two-year window before his power begins to wane, the poll suggests that Mr. Bush's effort to lay the groundwork to reshape the Social Security system has had some success.

 

Fifty percent said Social Security is in crisis, echoing an assertion that Mr. Bush has made and that has been disputed by Democrats and independent analysts.

 

Answering another question, 51 percent said that while there were good things about Social Security, the system needed "fundamental changes," while 24 percent said it needed a complete overhaul.

 

But 50 percent said it was a "bad idea" to permit workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into the stock market, as Mr. Bush is expected to propose. That number leaps to 70 percent when the question includes the possibility that future guaranteed benefits would be reduced by as much as one-third.

 

Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they were not likely to put their own Social Security money into the stock market, and a majority said that in pushing for a Social Security overhaul, Mr. Bush was more interested in helping Wall Street than protecting the average American.

 

"I think it's a bad idea," said Tina DeSantis, 46, of Pennsylvania, who identified herself as a Republican. "People that I've encountered don't necessarily have the tools necessary to make proper decisions with them and end up losing money."

 

And Ilene Bernards, 46, a Republican from Clinton, Utah, said she feared that permitting people to invest in private accounts would end up destabilizing the system.

 

"We would be farther in the hole than we already are with Social Security, because at some point if people use their money and lose it and they're old, then somebody is still going to have to take care of them," Ms. Bernards said.

 

The nationwide telephone poll was taken Friday through Tuesday with 1,118 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

 

The poll suggests that in some ways, many Americans are expecting Mr. Bush to succeed in making major changes in the political landscape over the next four years.

 

That is most notable on the question of abortion; 71 percent expect Mr. Bush to appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to outlaw abortion.

 

A majority of Americans, 71 percent, support some forms of legal abortion, albeit some with more restrictions than now exist.

 

Tony Rhoden, 53, an independent from Queens, said of the president regarding abortion: "He is against it, so obviously whatever judges he picks are going to be ruling in his favor. He wants someone who thinks the way he does. It seems to me that with everybody he's putting into place whatever he wants, they're going to get for him."

 

The poll also found that concern about the war in Iraq is rising: 75 percent said Mr. Bush had no clear plan for getting out of Iraq, a sharp jump up from 58 percent last fall, and a majority said that he routinely exaggerated conditions there.

 

And 75 percent said they believe a significant number of American troops will still be stationed in Iraq when Mr. Bush leaves the presidency.

 

The poll also found that 53 percent of Americans think the war in Iraq will not have been worth the loss of American life if unconventional weapons are never found.

 

A majority of respondents said that Iraq, which has been plagued by violence over the last week, is not secure enough to proceed with elections in two weeks, as scheduled.

 

However, the respondents are divided over whether the elections should be postponed in the hope of some sense of order being restored there.

 

In any event, only 15 percent of respondents said that elections would produce a decline in violence in Iraq; 40 percent said it would create more violence.

 

Respondents do not appear to share Mr. Bush's concern about the urgency of the Social Security problem, in the context of other problems facing the nation.

 

Asked to name the most important problem facing the country, just 3 percent named Social Security, while 11 percent named Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and 10 percent identified "war" and the economy.

 

Still, 54 percent of respondents said they do not expect the Social Security system to have enough money to pay them pensions when they retire, a figure that has not varied much since the Times/CBS News Poll started asking the question in 1981.

 

And younger people were much more likely to support the change Mr. Bush is seeking than older Americans.

 

On taxes, another area where the Bush administration is expected to make a major effort over the next four years, 54 percent said investment and interest income should be taxed at the same rate as wages.

 

Republicans have been moving to reduce the tax on investments and interest as a way of overhauling the tax system and encouraging business investment.

 

At the same time, by a margin of 47 to 40 percent, Americans think that temporary tax cuts that were passed in 2001, and are due to expire this year, should be made permanent.

[Dru]

Americans can think?

[cracked]

Apparently they can't think well enough to realize that an apostrophe doesn't denote a PLURAL.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

of that monkey that is getting sworn in today...

 

we're all descended from primates - remember?

[Ricardo_Montalban]

Americans can think?

 

not really. we are only capable of regurgitating the last bit of propaganda that we saw on TV.

we can no longer think for ourselves. this is a good thing though because that means we are not responsible for ourselves nor for our actions. we're quite a schizophrenic self serving bunch.

principles de jour

[Harkin_Banks]

SMOKE EM OUT AN GIT 'EM

[cracked]

Americans can think?

 

not really. we are only capable of regurgitating the last bit of propaganda that we saw on TV.

we can no longer think for ourselves. this is a good thing though because that means we are not responsible for ourselves nor for our actions. we're quite a schizophrenic self serving bunch.

principles de jour

Wow, that self-loathing must be a bitch. I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of yourself.

[Harkin_Banks]

if you don't git em and smoke em, well, you be gitten smoked

 

brand em!

[Norman_Clyde]

of that monkey that is getting sworn in today...

 

we're all descended from primates - remember?

 

Obviously you weren't taught about Intelligent Design in school. But don't worry-- within four years, all public schools will lose their funding if they don't teach that God made the earth in six days, 6000 years ago.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

of that monkey that is getting sworn in today...

 

we're all descended from primates - remember?

 

Obviously you weren't taught about Intelligent Design in school. But don't worry-- within four years, all public schools will lose their funding if they don't teach that God made the earth in six days, 6000 years ago.

 

Hey Chicken-Little, the sky is falling!!

[Ricardo_Montalban]

cracked, that's a blanket statement referring to the general decline of american's capacity to think for themselves, and to critically deconstruct propaganda that's thrown at them on a constant basis.

i feel lucky that my friends and i (and most people that i randomly meet in the pnw) can read between the lines better than average, but when i go back to wichita, ks i nearly lose hope for this country.

[iain]

Thank you to whomever took the hint from the Portland Mercury and took a pink paintball gun to that kxl750 billboard on I-5 in downtown Portland! Lars Larson you are a bloated windbag

[KaskadskyjKozak]

that's a blanket statement referring to the general decline of american's capacity to think for themselves, and to critically deconstruct propaganda that's thrown at them on a constant basis.

 

Translation: if you don't agree with me, come to the same conclusions as I, and share my world view - you can not think.

 

[Norman_Clyde]

Hearing Bush's speech today, having recently read a few quotes from Woodrow Wilson, prompts me to post the following.

 

"The example of America must be a special example. The example of America must be the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevating influence of the world and strife is not. There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right." -Woodrow Wilson, 1915

 

"We are now about to accept gage of battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the Nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no evil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and freedom of nations can make them." -Woodrow Wilson, 1917

[Harkin_Banks]

[Ricardo_Montalban]

that's a blanket statement referring to the general decline of american's capacity to think for themselves, and to critically deconstruct propaganda that's thrown at them on a constant basis.

 

Translation: if you don't agree with me, come to the same conclusions as I, and share my world view - you can not think.

 

 

exactly...now you're getting it!!

 

seriously, this goes both ways. there is mass propaganda from the left and right.

i need to retract part of my statement above. i do have friends that are guilty of believing some hard left propaganda at face value.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

that's a blanket statement referring to the general decline of american's capacity to think for themselves, and to critically deconstruct propaganda that's thrown at them on a constant basis.

 

Translation: if you don't agree with me, come to the same conclusions as I, and share my world view - you can not think.

 

 

exactly...now you're getting it!!

 

seriously, this goes both ways. there is mass propaganda from the left and right.

i need to retract part of my statement above. i do have friends that are guilty of believing some hard left propaganda at face value.

 

The problem is there is no way to independently verify all information we have dumped on us daily. Everyone has an agenda. There is no truly objective fact-checker. We all must pick and choose the sources we trust, make short cuts to derive conclusions, and trust others. It is a thorny problem.

[Ricardo_Montalban]

The problem is there is no way to independently verify all information we have dumped on us daily. Everyone has an agenda. There is no truly objective fact-checker. We all must pick and choose the sources we trust, make short cuts to derive conclusions, and trust others. It is a thorny problem.

 

I agree. my beef is with those who back up an argument with a soundbite they just heard on tv/radio/etc. when pressed for more insight to their opinion, they can't explain why.

example: my brother voted bush b/c "bush will make this country safer". when asked to explain exactly how, and what kerry would/wouldn't do...no back up.

i don't want to rehash this argument, this is just an example of regurgitating soundbites without thinking critically.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree. my beef is with those who back up an argument with a soundbite they just heard on tv/radio/etc. when pressed for more insight to their opinion, they can't explain why.

example: my brother voted bush b/c "bush will make this country safer". when asked to explain exactly how, and what kerry would/wouldn't do...no back up.

i don't want to rehash this argument, this is just an example of regurgitating soundbites without thinking for one's self.

 

Those are the worst types of questions, because there is no answer. Will America be safer? There's no way to know - ever.

[catbirdseat]

Come on, you can do better than that! An answer might be, "I think that America will be safer because Bush pushed through the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, and beefed up the number of Border Patrol Agents". A negative answer might be something like, "Bush is making us less safe by supporting Israel unconditionally and by antagonizing Islamic peoples around the world".

 

Of course there are no absolutes, but a person who thinks at least can make a reasoned argument.

[Harkin_Banks]

I wonder what the 128 anonymous users reading this site think

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Come on, you can do better than that! An answer might be, "I think that America will be safer because Bush pushed through the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, and beefed up the number of Border Patrol Agents". A negative answer might be something like, "Bush is making us less safe by supporting Israel unconditionally and by antagonizing Islamic peoples around the world".

 

Of course there are no absolutes, but a person who thinks at least can make a reasoned argument.

 

The key word here is to qualify these statements with words like "think" or "believe" - "I think Bush made America more/less safe, because...".

 

Both sides need to acknowledge that there is no way to know for sure. Even empirical evidence after the fact does not prove that things would not be better or worse had a different course of action occurred.

[catbirdseat]

What is so frustrating, as Ricardo mentioned, is that so many people just parrot the sound bites they are fed in political TV commercials. Nobody bothers to read the news anymore or understand what is going on in the world, let alone the US.

[chucK]

Replace "nobody" with "vast majority" and I might agree somewhat.

 

I seriously doubt it's any different now than it ever was, except for the fact that now we're so much more inundated by propaganda in our daily lives.

 

One hundred years ago people might not have been able to make any more intelligent decisions than now. The only difference being that back then it was because of ignorance, and now it's because of liars.

[ChrisT]

And Bush preys on the fears of the average American by calling everything a "crisis". The whole Social Security issue is an example. Not even close to a crisis.