Just trying to get this straight (from a Brit who doesn’t care if Bush gets impeached or whatever - not my business).
28% of all Americans say it should be a top priority 23% of all Americans say it should be a low priority That means that 51% of all Americans think it should be done or perhaps don’t care, yes? Or 51% think it should be done but are split on whether it should take precedence over other things? So less than half the population (44%) actively oppose impeachment.
Also: 38% think rolling back the tax cuts should be high priority. 28% think that it should be a low priority, which could be read as being in favour but other things are more important to do first. This is implied by the last part which says that 28% don’t think it should be done at all.
So that means that 66% of the population are generally in favour of rolling back the tax cuts.
I am having difficulty seeing how you call these as losers for Democrats?
|
| |
Written By:
Kav
URL:
http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
|
Just trying to get this straight (from a Brit who doesn’t care if Bush gets impeached or whatever - not my business). I think that you’d find the "23 percent say it should be a lower priority" to be an extremely mushy group with many of them fleeing immediately to the 44% who say "no" if it was actually initiated. I’m arguing that there’s really just no real desire for this among the majority of Americans.
Same goes with the 28% who say tax cuts should be a "lower priority". That’s a nice way of saying "I’d like to see you win but don’t you dare touch my tax cuts". Any move in that direction would again, in my estimation, harden a majority against.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
"68 percent want increasing the minimum wage to be a top priority..."
Undoubtably the same (roughly) 62% in another recent poll (Harper’s?) who believe the president has significant influence over gas prices.
Sigh. |
| |
Written By:
Unknown
URL:
http://
|
If this were 2002, and we knew then what we know now, I’d be highly supportive of impeachment proceedings, but there doesn’t seem to be much point now. Not that I don’t believe that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, I do, I just don’t see what good it will the country to spend the last two of his lame duck administration talking about the past.
Surely anyone who has questions about either why we went to war or how we prosecuted has to admit that they would like to see answers to some questions made under oath in a public hearing. This may be hard for Democrats to pass on, once they have subpoena power.
On the tax cuts, I think that if the DemoCongress were to roll back the tax cuts at the top income brackets, but leave the rest alone, they may find this to be a popular (and populist) plan (as opposed to the polling results above).
On minimum wage, everyone seems to be sure of the economic soundness of their positions. Opponents have excellent arguments, proponents have excellent historical evidence. For my part, having little philosphical opposition to the idea, am generally supportive of a reasonable increase in the MW. I believe that this may be the most effective weapon to combat illegal immigration (most illegals are paid "on the books").
Cap
|
| |
Written By:
CaptinSarcastic
URL:
http://
|
I believe that this may be the most effective weapon to combat illegal immigration (most illegals are paid "on the books"). I seriously doubt it. While you are correct that most illegals are paid "on the books" it’s been my experience that very few are willing to work for anything close to the minimum wage.
And I live in a city with a large illegal population and a low cost of living for a city it’s size. |
| |
Written By:
Davebo
URL:
http://
|
I seriously doubt it. While you are correct that most illegals are paid "on the books" it’s been my experience that very few are willing to work for anything close to the minimum wage. Anecdotal evidence aside...
The average income of illegal aliens is $7.31 per hour. This is the AVERAGE, and considering that almost none should be under $5.25, and a significant number would be above $7.31, the fewest illegals at minimum wage would be around 40%. The fact is that illegals work for 40% lower wages than legal immigrants and they work for far less than half of what natives average.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html
Would this policy reduce the number of jobs available? Presumably, it would — but that is what opponents of illegal immigration want. Hamburger flipping, car washing, hotel bed-making, apparel production and strawberry picking would cost more, absent the illegals. With fewer jobs to offer, the attraction to enter the U.S. illegally would diminish.
Cap |
| |
Written By:
CaptinSarcastic
URL:
http://
|
My guess? Full speed ahead on all of them to include the two losers (and plus a whole bunch more investigations). And you know what I think all of that will do in ’08 unless Dems can reign in some of their inclinations to go after the President and his administration (instead of attempting to make a case to the American people for keeping them on) on everything they think they can get him on. Not according to Nancy Pelosi. From last night’s 60 minutes,She has pledged that as Speaker she would give the Republicans rights they’ve denied the Democrats, like allowing them to introduce amendments to bills. But she may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge. There’s already talk of multiple investigations and impeachment of the president.
"No, impeachment is off the table," she says.
"And that’s a pledge?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it’s a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it’s a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time," she replies.
"Wouldn’t they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them," Pelosi says. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me." Of course one does not have to believe her. I watched the interview. She kinda fumbled the bit about the pledge. Not sure what that means, though.
Personally, I don’t think they’ll impeach unless there is evidence revealed through investigations that we don’t have as of today.
If, say, evidence was uncovered suggesting Bush knowingly lied to congress, or something. Then the Dem’s might try to oust The Decider.
Cheers. |
| |
Written By:
PogueMahone
URL:
http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
|
|
Bush has been a lame duck since Social Security fell through. Does she think that any possible outcome of the ’06 election would change that fact? |
| |
Written By:
OrneryWP
URL:
http://
|