Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
On the other hand those who have the insight to stay in school, educate themselves, put in their time in McJobs to develop a work ethic, references, and skill sets, prepare themselves for a marketable trade, and stay pretty much away from illegal substances and activities BEFORE they start a family are pretty unlikely to be in that low income group. Or they are unlikely to be there for long.
Insight also suggests that those who don't do that are likely to vote for and/or support politicians who will reward them for lack of foresight and/or for being irresponsible.
drawing any real conclusions on PC's lame attempts at inflating her sense of righteous elitism might require more insight in and of it self:
- insight into what the history of this demography was.
- insight into what partisan demographics look like along these same lines.
- realization that it is equally insightful to recognize a bias in your favor as much as it is to recognize one against you.
could go on...
I think either might apply. But you can't use 1991 figures to make THAT point. Every indicator told the same story in the first decade of the 21st Century, and that was that a typical family works many more hours a year than 30 years ago, because it takes two incomes at wages that had remained stagnant since, you guessed it, 1991, in order to make ends meet. Are you going to make me pull up all the statistics which prove that?
There was nothing dishonest about the OP.
Did you find it tragic that you had to read the entire article? Poor baby...
The lead sentence was "Less than half of middle class Americans now believe that President Barack Obama is doing a good job, according to a new Gallup Poll." and the OP contained proof of same.
You seem a bit petulant...could it be due to the numbers and how they reflect on your choices?
Grow up. Wise up.
I find it hilarious that I only had to read the article to find out you intentionally misrepresented the numbers in order to propagandize them. You managed to make fools of a couple of your rightwing nut buddies too, which is even hilarious-er.
There's nothing misrepresented. You're grasping at straws because it's all you have left. So she left that category out. Citing a 47% approval rating as a smoking gun doesn't really help you. Last I checked that was also still less than half.
On the other hand those who have the insight to stay in school, educate themselves, put in their time in McJobs to develop a work ethic, references, and skill sets, prepare themselves for a marketable trade, and stay pretty much away from illegal substances and activities BEFORE they start a family are pretty unlikely to be in that low income group. Or they are unlikely to be there for long.
Insight also suggests that those who don't do that are likely to vote for and/or support politicians who will reward them for lack of foresight and/or for being irresponsible.
drawing any real conclusions on PC's lame attempts at inflating her sense of righteous elitism might require more insight in and of it self:
- insight into what the history of this demography was.
- insight into what partisan demographics look like along these same lines.
- realization that it is equally insightful to recognize a bias in your favor as much as it is to recognize one against you.
could go on...
First I bristle a bit at the judgmental characterization of PC who found an interesting topic and put it out there for discussion. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are unable to focus on a concept but rather attack the messenger who offers it without any consideration for the validity of it. It seems in many cases, all that is required to hold somebody up for contempt is to be uncomfortable with the thesis they present.
It is not ideology to note that it is the least affluent Americans who approve of President Obama. And it is not ideology to wonder why that would be the case when President Bush did not reduce any of their funding, increased most funding, and Obama's policies seem geared to ensure that those in the low income bracket will remain there for the foreseeable future.
Do you think there is a relationship between income and education, and, if so, how is education related to the polls?
Care to play?
Less than half of middle class Americans now believe that President Barack Obama is doing a good job, according to a new Gallup Poll.
Among those earning from $24,000 to $59,988 a year, just 46 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing, down from 51 percent in May and 66 percent in the week of his inauguration.
Among Americans earning $60,000 to $89,988 a year, 44 percent approve of his job performance, down from 51 percent in May and 69 percent during inauguration week.
The only income bracket in which a majority still approves of Obamas job performance is those earning less than $24,000 a year and only 52 percent of them approve.
Overall, 46 percent of Americans told Gallup they approve of Obamas job performance during the week of June 7-13, tying for the worst week of his presidency.
CNSNews.com - Middle Class Is Abandoning Obama: He Gets Majority Approval Rating Only From Americans Making Less Than $24,000 Per Year
drawing any real conclusions on PC's lame attempts at inflating her sense of righteous elitism might require more insight in and of it self:
- insight into what the history of this demography was.
- insight into what partisan demographics look like along these same lines.
- realization that it is equally insightful to recognize a bias in your favor as much as it is to recognize one against you.
could go on...
First I bristle a bit at the judgmental characterization of PC who found an interesting topic and put it out there for discussion. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are unable to focus on a concept but rather attack the messenger who offers it without any consideration for the validity of it. It seems in many cases, all that is required to hold somebody up for contempt is to be uncomfortable with the thesis they present.
It is not ideology to note that it is the least affluent Americans who approve of President Obama. And it is not ideology to wonder why that would be the case when President Bush did not reduce any of their funding, increased most funding, and Obama's policies seem geared to ensure that those in the low income bracket will remain there for the foreseeable future.
sorry, fox. it is a pet peeve of mine and PC has championed it too many times to afford her any benefit of the doubt.
Do you think there is a relationship between income and education, and, if so, how is education related to the polls?
Care to play?
her selective messenger work in the OP, and subsequent anxiety to get to work characterizing 'the left' on its implications beg no quarter from me, either.
is it ideology to note that the most wealthy are more likely than the middle class to approve of obama? doesn't leaving that out make the ideological capital in the other pejorative arguments richer?
the democratic party has a strong bond with the poor afforded them by the civil rights and progressive era. the republicans have lost their grip on their wealthy support base in the campaign reform era. maybe this study lends more insight into that.
as to the messenger, i make no apologies for reading implications of character from the bent of her conclusions.
Canadians were overwhelmingly in favour of Obama. But it seems as if his words don't match his actions. its not even the lies that every politician has to make but the general thread of character that runs through most individuals and makes it possible to predict their actions. With Obama there seems to be a disconnect, as if he is hiding who he is.
Canadians were overwhelmingly in favour of Obama. But it seems as if his words don't match his actions. its not even the lies that every politician has to make but the general thread of character that runs through most individuals and makes it possible to predict their actions. With Obama there seems to be a disconnect, as if he is hiding who he is.
That's because Obama is PINO (President In Name Only). He's a nothing, a shill, a tool for the progressives. He goes absolutely mental the minute anything goes off script. He's only comfortable at parties and apparantly swinging the clubs. He's a clueless hack. The poor fucker can't even be straight about who he is. Refers to himself as a Muslim, his wifer refers to him as being Kenyan, says he's from Hawaii but uses a CT isued SS#... even though he's never lived in CT. Yeah... no mysteries there.
The whiny losers of society vote Democrat. This is not a new revelation.. The Democrats promise the whiny losers that they will spend other citizens' hard-earned money to support their loser a*ses. Gee who do you think the losers are going to vote for? I fully expect the whiny losers to continue supporting the Democratic Party but i'm not too sure the common sense thinking Independents will. I guess we'll see?
First I bristle a bit at the judgmental characterization of PC who found an interesting topic and put it out there for discussion. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are unable to focus on a concept but rather attack the messenger who offers it without any consideration for the validity of it. It seems in many cases, all that is required to hold somebody up for contempt is to be uncomfortable with the thesis they present.
It is not ideology to note that it is the least affluent Americans who approve of President Obama. And it is not ideology to wonder why that would be the case when President Bush did not reduce any of their funding, increased most funding, and Obama's policies seem geared to ensure that those in the low income bracket will remain there for the foreseeable future.
sorry, fox. it is a pet peeve of mine and PC has championed it too many times to afford her any benefit of the doubt.
Do you think there is a relationship between income and education, and, if so, how is education related to the polls?
Care to play?
her selective messenger work in the OP, and subsequent anxiety to get to work characterizing 'the left' on its implications beg no quarter from me, either.
is it ideology to note that the most wealthy are more likely than the middle class to approve of obama? doesn't leaving that out make the ideological capital in the other pejorative arguments richer?
the democratic party has a strong bond with the poor afforded them by the civil rights and progressive era. the republicans have lost their grip on their wealthy support base in the campaign reform era. maybe this study lends more insight into that.
as to the messenger, i make no apologies for reading implications of character from the bent of her conclusions.
But for those who want to be honest, character cannot be removed from the equation.
You either want the government to support and/or provide for you more than you want to be independent of government and support yourself or you don't. That is an issue of character.
You either take what steps are necessary to support yourself or you don't bother on the theory that the government is your backup should you need it. That is an issue of character.
You either have the ambition and will to improve and educate yourself and prepare yourself to aspire to be affluent in legal and productive ways. Or you don't. That is an issue of character.
Does that mean that all low income people are lacking in character? Of course not nor did PC remotely suggest that. Lord knows I've experienced times in my life when there was a lot of week left at the end of the money. Hubby and I together, as did many like us, have held down as many as four or five jobs at a time to make ends meet during tough times. We neither expected nor wanted the government to come to our rescue. We wanted the government to inspire and enable an economy in which we could better prosper. And eventually we all did. I like to think there was character involved in that too.
To remove character, individual initiative, personal responsibility, accountability, and consequences for the choices we make from the equation is to be extremely short sighted and doom even more generations to choose to be captives of government programs that mostly put them in that position in the first place. I am not speaking of the intermittant short term situations when somebody is out of work or has a temporary crisis. I'm speaking of a way of life that the government can encourage. Or can choose not to encourage.
Kids should grow up seeing their parents get up, get dressed, get breakfast, get the kids off to school and at least one going to work and bringing home earned cash to support the family. They should see that as the norm and not mom and/or pop receiving a government check and sitting around muttering about how bad things are.
The more losers there are in America,the more votes the Democratic Party will receive. When you realize this,you better understand why they're in such a hurry moving us towards Third World misery. Third World misery obviously benefits the Democratic Party. They desperately need more whiny loser dummies to vote for them. ACORN is only the beginning for these creeps. A prosperous and affluent America does the Democratic Party no good. They need those millions of whiny losers to seize permanent power. That's what Class Warfare is all about. It's about power. We are rapidly being moved towards Third World misery. This is happening. Is this intentional? I'll let you decide that for yourselves. I know where i stand.
