Poll: 0% of Americans think economy is improving

#1
notverycrucial

notverycrucial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,473
Likes
0
#1
Wow, how often do you see a '0' in one of these polls?

The National Economy
George W. Bush's overall job approval has matched its low in American Research Group monthly polling as 82% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse, according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove.

[...]

No Americans say that the national economy is getting better, 13% say it is staying the same, and 82% say the national economy is getting worse.
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
About this Survey -

Survey Sponsor: American Research Group, Inc.

The American Research Group has been conducting national surveys of consumers since 1985.

Sample Size: 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of all adults age 18 and older living in telephone households in the continental United States.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pathetically small sample, and "telephone households" is an increasingly problematic option since more and more people are eschewing land lines for VOIP services like Vonage, or just using their cell phone as their home phone (like me).

now, I'm not saying that I think the economy is improving, but I don't see what's going on on Wall Street as the biggest problem. The biggest problem right now is the US dependence on foreign oil.
 
#3
#3
MG1968 said:
I think that's a pathetically small sample, and "telephone households" is an increasingly problematic option since more and more people are eschewing land lines for VOIP services like Vonage, or just using their cell phone as their home phone (like me).

now, I'm not saying that I think the economy is improving, but I don't see what's going on on Wall Street as the biggest problem. The biggest problem right now is the US dependence on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

oil is a much longer term problem than the housing market. the housing market is just a larger version of the internet bubble in the late 90's. plus the housing market affects a relatively small percentage of Americans compared to gas prices which affects everyone that drives.
 
#4
#4
notverycrucial said:
Wow, how often do you see a '0' in one of these polls?

The National Economy
Click to expand...
at this point in time, I would expect a 0 almost 100% of the time. One month from now, it could be something radically different.

If you were the pollster and someone told you they felt our economy is improving, wouldn't you just hang up on them under the guise of intellectual integrity?
 
#6
#6
MG1968 said:
I think that's a pathetically small sample, and "telephone households" is an increasingly problematic option since more and more people are eschewing land lines for VOIP services like Vonage, or just using their cell phone as their home phone (like me).

now, I'm not saying that I think the economy is improving, but I don't see what's going on on Wall Street as the biggest problem. The biggest problem right now is the US dependence on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

While I do think it is a huge issue, the economy and the war are more important, at least to me.
 
#7
#7
nickknx865 said:
While I do think it is a huge issue, the economy and the war are more important, at least to me.
Click to expand...

700 billion dollars/year being spent on foreign oil. While we can't take all of that back, imagine the benefit to the US economy if the US kept 500 billion. That's not money the US treasury pulls out of it's ass (as with the case of Paulson's scheme), that's hard currency that stays in the US economy.
 
#8
#8
nickknx865 said:
While I do think it is a huge issue, the economy and the war are more important, at least to me.
Click to expand...

Actually the war seems to be going pretty well right now. We should be prepared for another winter assault in Afghanistan.

By the war, do you mean simply the fact that we are at war or the situation on the ground there?
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
at this point in time, I would expect a 0 almost 100% of the time. One month from now, it could be something radically different.
Click to expand...
In a month, things are going to be considerably worse. This is just the beginning.
 
#12
#12
KB5252 said:
Actually the war seems to be going pretty well right now. We should be prepared for another winter assault in Afghanistan.

By the war, do you mean simply the fact that we are at war or the situation on the ground there?
Click to expand...

It's more/less the fact that we are there. I don't want an immedate pullout, but I wanna have it done in about 1-2 years. I want all objectives completed by then.
 
#13
#13
nickknx865 said:
It's more/less the fact that we are there. I don't want an immedate pullout, but I wanna have it done in about 1-2 years. I want all objectives completed by then.
Click to expand...

No matter who your president is that will be the case for the most part. And again, no matter who is president there will still be US soldiers in Iraq for many, many years to come. If you believe one president will keep troops there longer than needed and the other won't you are mistaken.

It is much more telling what a president will do with the situation given than what he wants to happen. There are too many situations that can arise that are never expected for whatever reason.
 
#15
#15
therealUT said:
Could you name for us the objectives you want completed?
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked :happy:

- Find Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive

- Have what I like to call a "Final Stand"
Basically, redeploy all our troops to the Iraqi borders, and begin clearing out the terrorists, one by one, until they all meet in Baghdad. Sound crazy? It should.

- Keep troops(around 4-5 thousand) in Baghdad until 2015. This should give the Iraqi parliment time to draw up measures, and give the new Iraqi military enough time to recruit, and train the new recruits.

- At the same time, keep around 5,000 troops in Kabul to prevent any rebel organizations from springing up, and let the workers to complete the "City of Light" DevelopmentCity of Light Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this war has gone on long enough, so I think this wouldn't be a bad plan.

Another thing, after the war, we need to raise the pay for soldiers overseas.
 
#16
#16
nickknx865 said:
Well, since you asked :happy:

- Find Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive

- Have what I like to call a "Final Stand"
Basically, redeploy all our troops to the Iraqi borders, and begin clearing out the terrorists, one by one, until they all meet in Baghdad. Sound crazy? It should.

- Keep troops(around 4-5 thousand) in Baghdad until 2015. This should give the Iraqi parliment time to draw up measures, and give the new Iraqi military enough time to recruit, and train the new recruits.

- At the same time, keep around 5,000 troops in Kabul to prevent any rebel organizations from springing up, and let the workers to complete the "City of Light" DevelopmentCity of Light Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this war has gone on long enough, so I think this wouldn't be a bad plan.

Another thing, after the war, we need to raise the pay for soldiers overseas.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you should be listening to whatever teacher is telling you this garbage. he's obviously not a military strategist. If he was, he'd realize that deploying troops on the entire border of a country the size of Iraq isn't feasible.

Why will it take another 7 years to create a stable Iraqi military?

What will the ROE be for the 5000 soldiers in Baghdad and Kabul? Will they have any air support? Will they be allowed to patrol?
 
#17
#17
MG1968 said:
I'm not sure you should be listening to whatever teacher is telling you this garbage. he's obviously not a military strategist. If he was, he'd realize that deploying troops on the entire border of a country the size of Iraq isn't feasible.

#1 Why will it take another 7 years to create a stable Iraqi military?

#2 What will the ROE be for the 5000 soldiers in Baghdad and Kabul? Will they have any air support? Will they be allowed to patrol?
Click to expand...

#1. Because, at the rate that recruits are coming in, another 7 years might actually not be enough. Couple that with the fact that we need to buy the basic things to sustain a military(assault rifles, bulletproof vests, desert camo uniforms, etc.), and you have yourself a storm from hell, that only time, and training from the US Military is going to help.

#2. Well, the role of the troops in the Baghdad and Kabul is to basically be a sort of police force. Yes, both forces will be able to patrol the city, and will both be able to call in air support, as we will have 5-10 Naval aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.
 
#18
#18
nickknx865 said:
Well, since you asked :happy:

- Find Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive

- Have what I like to call a "Final Stand"
Basically, redeploy all our troops to the Iraqi borders, and begin clearing out the terrorists, one by one, until they all meet in Baghdad. Sound crazy? It should.

- Keep troops(around 4-5 thousand) in Baghdad until 2015. This should give the Iraqi parliment time to draw up measures, and give the new Iraqi military enough time to recruit, and train the new recruits.

- At the same time, keep around 5,000 troops in Kabul to prevent any rebel organizations from springing up, and let the workers to complete the "City of Light" DevelopmentCity of Light Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this war has gone on long enough, so I think this wouldn't be a bad plan.

Another thing, after the war, we need to raise the pay for soldiers overseas.
Click to expand...
Hey Kid, I am just going to laugh at this. I thought you were going to talk strategy, nation-building, and political development. This, however, definitely came out of the woodwork...
 
#20
#20
nickknx865 said:
we will have 5-10 Naval aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.
Click to expand...

you're joking, right? do you know what makes up a carrier battle group? Carriers don't just travel the seas by themselves.

also, the US has 11 CBG's total. Why would you deploy 95% of them to the Persian Gulf area? Even the smaller Carrier Strike Group is composed of 4 surface ships and a submarine.
 
#21
#21
MG1968 said:
you're joking, right? do you know what makes up a carrier battle group? Carriers don't just travel the seas by themselves.

also, the US has 11 CBG's total. Why would you deploy 95% of them to the Persian Gulf area? Even the smaller Carrier Strike Group is composed of 4 surface ships and a submarine.
Click to expand...

Well, sorry, I guess I didn't know. I was just throwing out a idea off of the top of my head.
 
#24
#24
MG1968 said:
your teacher would be proud of you. I'm sure he or she just makes stuff up about the US military as well.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making ish up. I honestly don't know the logistics of the US Military. Like I said, it was just an idea that came up.
 
#25
#25
nickknx865 said:
Well, since you asked :happy:

- Find Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive
That would mean invading Pakistan.
- Have what I like to call a "Final Stand"
Basically, redeploy all our troops to the Iraqi borders, and begin clearing out the terrorists, one by one, until they all meet in Baghdad. Sound crazy? It should.
This flies in the face of every terrorist tactic ever conceived, they would simply disappear into the general population, it will never happen that way.
- Keep troops(around 4-5 thousand) in Baghdad until 2015. This should give the Iraqi parliment time to draw up measures, and give the new Iraqi military enough time to recruit, and train the new recruits.
Four to five thousand troops in Baghdad will only achieve the goal of opening the rest of the country up to terrorist activity that would undermine the authority of the Iraqi government in Baghdad. They would simply be seen as empty with no authority.
- At the same time, keep around 5,000 troops in Kabul to prevent any rebel organizations from springing up, and let the workers to complete the "City of Light" DevelopmentCity of Light Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again having your troops in the capital city does nothing for the rest of the country and will only leave our troops as sitting ducks for bombings. They need to have a presence in the areas that are contested and be flexible and adaptable enough to reposition as the dynamics change.
I think this war has gone on long enough, so I think this wouldn't be a bad plan.

Another thing, after the war, we need to raise the pay for soldiers overseas.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you here. Many of those troops were offered nice bonuses to go overseas though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top