Income and Insight

[Foxfyre]

Sometimes the only answer to 'what would you do?' is simply stop.

Stop pontificating.
Stop passing bills that nobody has read.
Stop irresponsible spending most especially trying to spend ourselves rich.
Stop pushing government programs on people who don't want them.
Stop pushing an agenda that scares people to death.
Stop looking for government programs or initiatives or mandates as the solution for all human problems.
Stop trying to fix something by throwing stuff at the walls hoping something will stick.
Stop growing the size, scope, and power of government by taking more and more of the people's freedoms and resources.

Just stop until the dust settles and we can assess what government has to do and what it doesn't have to do.

To ask what we would replace all that with makes about as much sense as what do you replace it with when you put out a fire?

i thought the same thing the 6-8 years of president bush....

what goes around comes around, i suppose?

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

 

[Care4all]

Sometimes the only answer to 'what would you do?' is simply stop.

Stop pontificating.
Stop passing bills that nobody has read.
Stop irresponsible spending most especially trying to spend ourselves rich.
Stop pushing government programs on people who don't want them.
Stop pushing an agenda that scares people to death.
Stop looking for government programs or initiatives or mandates as the solution for all human problems.
Stop trying to fix something by throwing stuff at the walls hoping something will stick.
Stop growing the size, scope, and power of government by taking more and more of the people's freedoms and resources.

Just stop until the dust settles and we can assess what government has to do and what it doesn't have to do.

To ask what we would replace all that with makes about as much sense as what do you replace it with when you put out a fire?

i thought the same thing the 6-8 years of president bush....

what goes around comes around, i suppose?

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

DID I SAY it was all W's fault?

i just told you that i felt the precise way you are feeling now, the previous 8 years....was that wrong of me?

 

[Bfgrn]

Sometimes the only answer to 'what would you do?' is simply stop.

Stop pontificating.
Stop passing bills that nobody has read.
Stop irresponsible spending most especially trying to spend ourselves rich.
Stop pushing government programs on people who don't want them.
Stop pushing an agenda that scares people to death.
Stop looking for government programs or initiatives or mandates as the solution for all human problems.
Stop trying to fix something by throwing stuff at the walls hoping something will stick.
Stop growing the size, scope, and power of government by taking more and more of the people's freedoms and resources.

Just stop until the dust settles and we can assess what government has to do and what it doesn't have to do.

To ask what we would replace all that with makes about as much sense as what do you replace it with when you put out a fire?

i thought the same thing the 6-8 years of president bush....

what goes around comes around, i suppose?

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

First you preach, moralize and pontificate about OTHERS...

Now, all you simply ask is for others to do what YOU want.

Let's try to put some REALITY to your solution...WHILE we 'Just stop until the dust settles' will people no longer need to eat?

 

[Foxfyre]

i thought the same thing the 6-8 years of president bush....

what goes around comes around, i suppose?

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

DID I SAY it was all W's fault?

i just told you that i felt the precise way you are feeling now, the previous 8 years....was that wrong of me?

Yes you did say that was the way you were feeling. But whenever the name "Bush" is evoked in that way, it is usually code for "It's all George Bush's fault" or 'No matter how bad it is now, it was much worse with Bush." So yeah, I did respond pretty much kneejerk when it appeared that is what was happening. And I thought if that wasn't on your mind, you wouldn't have mentioned the name, Bush. But I accept that you didn't intend it as a criticism of President Bush.

 

[MaggieMae]

i thought the same thing the 6-8 years of president bush....

what goes around comes around, i suppose?

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

First you preach, moralize and pontificate about OTHERS...

Now, all you simply ask is for others to do what YOU want.

Let's try to put some REALITY to your solution...WHILE we 'Just stop until the dust settles' will people no longer need to eat?

While it's a valid idea and would be a noble endeavor, it would take months of wrangling for 535 lawmakers to come to an agreement on which agencies of government should just be put on hold while they ponder a redo. Then after months of pondering, they would establish an independent commission for recommendations, the membership of which would need to have Congressional approval which would take more months, and then approve or disapprove the commission's recommendations after yet even more months of debate over those. In the meantime, they would be gearing up for yet another election, and all during that time frame, the country could suffer another economic meltdown, another Category 5 hurricane, another disastrous environmental event, or even another attack on the country. No, the only way government is going to grow smaller is by whittling it down one chip at a time, I'm afraid.

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Care4all]

Ah didn't take long to evoke Foxfyre's "W" law did it.

I don't care WHO is guilty of what. I didn't name names on purpose because there is plenty of blame to go around.

I just want them to stop okay?

And "It's all George Bush's fault" simply is not relevant to that.

DID I SAY it was all W's fault?

i just told you that i felt the precise way you are feeling now, the previous 8 years....was that wrong of me?

Yes you did say that was the way you were feeling. But whenever the name "Bush" is evoked in that way, it is usually code for "It's all George Bush's fault" or 'No matter how bad it is now, it was much worse with Bush." So yeah, I did respond pretty much kneejerk when it appeared that is what was happening. And I thought if that wasn't on your mind, you wouldn't have mentioned the name, Bush. But I accept that you didn't intend it as a criticism of President Bush.

8 years of misery from the incompetence does not go away over night...you are only 18 months in to it....you will understand better, after 6 years of it....

i agreed with all that you listed as wants...i had them myself during the Bush years, what you are going through now IS NOTHING NEW to me....and guess what? We survived! We made it through him and the republican rule that did ALL those things you mentioned...and amazingly we are all still here!

That's what i learned from it....the world is not coming to an end, President Bush is not the false prophet and cheney is not the antichrist, life goes on.... the glass is half full, not half empty.

once you are done going through this, I'm confident, you will learn the same thing.....

I laugh at myself now for being so worried that i wore my knees out from humbly praying to God to please help us...when president bush was in office...

 

[The Rabbi]

Give me a break. Misery. Yeah, 5% unemployment and 4% inflation sounds like real misery to me.

 

[antagon]

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.

this is another summarial judgment made of people earning low incomes, when most actually earn their low income. while you've jumped to the conclusion that the lowest bracket of the stats is largely the welfare state, i contend that it is largely the working class. that's the way american demographics are laid out, and on or off the doll, this is the traditional democratic base.

the pet peeve which i have with PC is this insinuation that by virtue of being a neoconservative, that high ground is entitled her in the realms of intelligence, morality, work ethic, etc.

now you're taking character for a spin up the same vein.

i'll wait for your character assessment of the wealthy who support the president in higher proportion to the middle class. they comprise the new democratic base, and ostensibly have worked harder for longer than any of the other groups.

 

[antagon]

If you're still in doubt about things just remember that a prosperous & affluent America does the Democratic Party no good. Without endless Class Warfare and Race-Baiting,they have nothing. Third World misery is actually what they need to seize permanent power. You can't have Class Warfare without it. Divide & Conquer. It's the Saul Alinsky way.

STFU you spam-ranting imbecile. how many time must you say the same shit over and over?

derrr... saul alinsky... ahh... class warfare... uhh.... democrats bad.

 

[Bfgrn]

If you're still in doubt about things just remember that a prosperous & affluent America does the Democratic Party no good. Without endless Class Warfare and Race-Baiting,they have nothing. Third World misery is actually what they need to seize permanent power. You can't have Class Warfare without it. Divide & Conquer. It's the Saul Alinsky way.

STFU you spam-ranting imbecile. how many time must you say the same shit over and over?

derrr... saul alinsky... ahh... class warfare... uhh.... democrats bad.

I thought of using the term 'broken record', but a 5 year old wouldn't comprehend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some more from the same survey:

Presidential Approval by EDUCATION:

High School or less - 47%

Some College: 42%

All College Grads: 48%

Postgraduate - 56%

College Grad - 52%

Not a College Grad - 45%

Looks like the educated approve of the president's job much more than do the uneducated.

ALL the data:

Presidential Job Approval Center

 

[Foxfyre]

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.



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.

this is another summarial judgment made of people earning low incomes, when most actually earn their low income. while you've jumped to the conclusion that the lowest bracket of the stats is largely the welfare state, i contend that it is largely the working class. that's the way american demographics are laid out, and on or off the doll, this is the traditional democratic base.

the pet peeve which i have with PC is this insinuation that by virtue of being a neoconservative, that high ground is entitled her in the realms of intelligence, morality, work ethic, etc.

now you're taking character for a spin up the same vein.

i'll wait for your character assessment of the wealthy who support the president in higher proportion to the middle class. they comprise the new democratic base, and ostensibly have worked harder for longer than any of the other groups.

I discussed neither numbers nor did I presume that 'most people on low incomes are on welfare'. You made the leap that this was my inference all by yourself with no help from me.

But the fact remains that whether they are 100% on the government dole or in part on the governmenbt dole, there are people on the government dole and it is the lower income group who are most eligible for and receiving government benefits. And, according to PC's thesis, that group continues to approve Obama's presidency in higher numbers than do other groups. And the question of course is what is the reason for that?

Why does it seem to bother you so much to include that fact in the discussion? Is there some unwritten PC law that all people of limited means must be viewed as helpless and unwilling victims? That there are no issues of character that determines a person's circumstances or who a person votes for? That if we discuss character at all within a demographic that we are painting every soul with the same brush and seeing every person in exactly the same way?

And is there some rule of Left-ism that if you focus on one concept, you are obligated to immediately include all other real or possible societal ills as well?

PC left the thesis wide open as to conclusions that could be drawn. And people who prefer to kill the messenger rather than discuss a subject that is possibly uncomfortable for them are attacking her rather than objectively consider the thesis.

 

[antagon]

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.

this is another summarial judgment made of people earning low incomes, when most actually earn their low income. while you've jumped to the conclusion that the lowest bracket of the stats is largely the welfare state, i contend that it is largely the working class. that's the way american demographics are laid out, and on or off the doll, this is the traditional democratic base.

the pet peeve which i have with PC is this insinuation that by virtue of being a neoconservative, that high ground is entitled her in the realms of intelligence, morality, work ethic, etc.

now you're taking character for a spin up the same vein.

i'll wait for your character assessment of the wealthy who support the president in higher proportion to the middle class. they comprise the new democratic base, and ostensibly have worked harder for longer than any of the other groups.

I discussed neither numbers nor did I presume that 'most people on low incomes are on welfare'. You made the leap that this was my inference all by yourself with no help from me.

But the fact remains that whether they are 100% on the government dole or in part on the governmenbt dole, there are people on the government dole and it is the lower income group who are most eligible for and receiving government benefits. And, according to PC's thesis, that group continues to approve Obama's presidency in higher numbers than do other groups. And the question of course is what is the reason for that?

Why does it seem to bother you so much to include that fact in the discussion? Is there some unwritten PC law that all people of limited means must be viewed as helpless and unwilling victims? That there are no issues of character that determines a person's circumstances or who a person votes for? That if we discuss character at all within a demographic that we are painting every soul with the same brush and seeing every person in exactly the same way?

And is there some rule of Left-ism that if you focus on one concept, you are obligated to immediately include all other real or possible societal ills as well?

PC left the thesis wide open as to conclusions that could be drawn. And people who prefer to kill the messenger rather than discuss a subject that is possibly uncomfortable for them are attacking her rather than objectively consider the thesis.

is there a rule that makes neoconservatives on the fringes of the right see the labor market in inverse?

condemning the character of americans who aren't working makes it seem as if there are more jobs than job-seekers, and that there is a class of teet-suckers who won't jump to the opportunity. instead, even when our economy is in 'full employment', less than half of the population in the US is employed, and still around 5% of the willing and eligible to work remain unemployed. the true population to employed ratio is headed for 33% in the next decade or so, at the hand of technology, age distribution and globalization. 'full employment' will curiously be 5% notwithstanding. what of the character of americans in an increasingly employment-independent economy?

is there a neoconservative requirement to focus on the externalities of character and work ethic, while ignoring the economic implications of welfare and social security, etc? lets take welfare out of the picture for a sec: is it a character flaw that bangladeshis grovel in poverty in large numbers? have you considered that in bangladesh and america - anywhere on earth - that economies don't and never, ever have provided an opportunity for everyone to participate? do you see that the marginal extents which entitlements allow for such participation is fundamental to the vitality of the US and all developed economies? do you realize that there is no exception to that?

_________

my criticism of PC is that she is a classic bullshitter. she's selectively quoted her source to make an argument about intelligence and wealth correlated to support for the president. you added character. shooting the messenger down, taking the message and applying this logic to the WHOLE message, we can dispel the fallacious link drawn between intelligence, wealth and obama support. there's no pattern there. holding your character argument to the same scrutiny, we find that women across the board lack character. particularly when they're better off. that's a conclusion based on these stupid, self-aggrandizing, righteous arguments - and more cogent to the poll than characterizing the lowest income bracket independently from the top one.

is there a rule which states that the far right must champ arguments about the character or intelligence of groups of millions of fellow americans, no matter the implications?

 

[Care4all]

Give me a break. Misery. Yeah, 5% unemployment and 4% inflation sounds like real misery to me.

yep...misery!

 

[Foxfyre]

this is another summarial judgment made of people earning low incomes, when most actually earn their low income. while you've jumped to the conclusion that the lowest bracket of the stats is largely the welfare state, i contend that it is largely the working class. that's the way american demographics are laid out, and on or off the doll, this is the traditional democratic base.

the pet peeve which i have with PC is this insinuation that by virtue of being a neoconservative, that high ground is entitled her in the realms of intelligence, morality, work ethic, etc.

now you're taking character for a spin up the same vein.

i'll wait for your character assessment of the wealthy who support the president in higher proportion to the middle class. they comprise the new democratic base, and ostensibly have worked harder for longer than any of the other groups.

I discussed neither numbers nor did I presume that 'most people on low incomes are on welfare'. You made the leap that this was my inference all by yourself with no help from me.

But the fact remains that whether they are 100% on the government dole or in part on the governmenbt dole, there are people on the government dole and it is the lower income group who are most eligible for and receiving government benefits. And, according to PC's thesis, that group continues to approve Obama's presidency in higher numbers than do other groups. And the question of course is what is the reason for that?

Why does it seem to bother you so much to include that fact in the discussion? Is there some unwritten PC law that all people of limited means must be viewed as helpless and unwilling victims? That there are no issues of character that determines a person's circumstances or who a person votes for? That if we discuss character at all within a demographic that we are painting every soul with the same brush and seeing every person in exactly the same way?

And is there some rule of Left-ism that if you focus on one concept, you are obligated to immediately include all other real or possible societal ills as well?

PC left the thesis wide open as to conclusions that could be drawn. And people who prefer to kill the messenger rather than discuss a subject that is possibly uncomfortable for them are attacking her rather than objectively consider the thesis.

is there a rule that makes neoconservatives on the fringes of the right see the labor market in inverse?

condemning the character of americans who aren't working makes it seem as if there are more jobs than job-seekers, and that there is a class of teet-suckers who won't jump to the opportunity. instead, even when our economy is in 'full employment', less than half of the population in the US is employed, and still around 5% of the willing and eligible to work remain unemployed. the true population to employed ratio is headed for 33% in the next decade or so, at the hand of technology, age distribution and globalization. 'full employment' will curiously be 5% notwithstanding. what of the character of americans in an increasingly employment-independent economy?

is there a neoconservative requirement to focus on the externalities of character and work ethic, while ignoring the economic implications of welfare and social security, etc? lets take welfare out of the picture for a sec: is it a character flaw that bangladeshis grovel in poverty in large numbers? have you considered that in bangladesh and america - anywhere on earth - that economies don't and never, ever have provided an opportunity for everyone to participate? do you see that the marginal extents which entitlements allow for such participation is fundamental to the vitality of the US and all developed economies? do you realize that there is no exception to that?

_________

my criticism of PC is that she is a classic bullshitter. she's selectively quoted her source to make an argument about intelligence and wealth correlated to support for the president. you added character. shooting the messenger down, taking the message and applying this logic to the WHOLE message, we can dispel the fallacious link drawn between intelligence, wealth and obama support. there's no pattern there. holding your character argument to the same scrutiny, we find that women across the board lack character. particularly when they're better off. that's a conclusion based on these stupid, self-aggrandizing, righteous arguments - and more cogent to the poll than characterizing the lowest income bracket independently from the top one.

is there a rule which states that the far right must champ arguments about the character or intelligence of groups of millions of fellow americans, no matter the implications?

We're gonna have to stop stacking these long posts, or one reply is gonna take up a whole page.

You don't know me very well Antagon if you interpret my remarks as condemning anybody. I've devoted a great deal of my adult life working directly with lower income people and as you will find in all other groups there are givers and takers, nobility and dishonesty, greatness and shallowness, great love, great sacrifice, great compassion, heroic resolve, and pure evil. And I've also witnessed those who have given up and no longer believe anything is possible for them. Those who don't have any willingness to try. Those who hate and blame others for their situations.

And none of that speaks to the thesis of whether it is one's income level or insight that determines whether they favor one person or political party over another, and the thessis did not presume to judge that one way or another. Certainly not as much as some presume to take an opportunity to judge PC's motive. And whether she is or is not a 'bull shitter' has absolutely nothing to do with the topic which I found interesting and would very much like to have discussed.

Alas, some seem determined to make that impossible.

You know I hold you in a great deal of esteem. But I think on this one you are not thinking or processing information as clearly as you normally do.

 

[antagon]

I discussed neither numbers nor did I presume that 'most people on low incomes are on welfare'. You made the leap that this was my inference all by yourself with no help from me.

Is there some unwritten PC law that all people of limited means must be viewed as helpless and unwilling victims?

And people who prefer to kill the messenger rather than discuss a subject that is possibly uncomfortable for them are attacking her rather than objectively consider the thesis.

is there a rule that makes neoconservatives on the fringes of the right see the labor market in inverse?

is there a rule which states that the far right must champ arguments about the character or intelligence of groups of millions of fellow americans, no matter the implications?

We're gonna have to stop stacking these long posts, or one reply is gonna take up a whole page.

I've devoted a great deal of my adult life working directly with lower income people and as you will find in all other groups there are givers and takers, nobility and dishonesty, greatness and shallowness, great love, great sacrifice, great compassion, heroic resolve, and pure evil.

You know I hold you in a great deal of esteem. But I think on this one you are not thinking or processing information as clearly as you normally do.

that may be true. i am a bit worked up by the righteous-winger blips which showed up on my radar from the first page of the thread.

we can agree that there is a penchant for sloth among some of us, and that in a society like ours which generally rewards persistent ambition, that the slothful will be at the bottom rungs of the ladder. there are character flaws which can be attributed to not recognizing that the ladder is there for climbing in the first place.

my position is that this has always been the case in america, and that all of the world's societies have a stratification of ambition and economic participation which go hand in hand. in our economy, we've endeavored to set a minimum access to participation which elevates those qualified to take up the offer to the third rung on the ladder so to speak.

it gets under some people's skin that the third rung allows those on it to access some of the quality of life which others who struggle to maintain the third fourth or fifth rung can, but without doing nearly as much work. this is a position which i've never taken up despite having been raised on these lower rungs, and in a hard-working family which hadn't ever ventured to take up the help of the government, at all. looking back, i can see that it was done at our own peril, but i can't regret the suffering which helped to make me the guy i am.

it is when folks make this sort of criticism of those who have taken up a place on the social safety net, or a criticism of the net itself, that i am left with the impression that they don't understand the basic stratification of humanity, or the crucial role which offering minimal access to economic participation plays, granted a government that has come to grips with this basic observation of human society in its own right.

like i'd said in my last post, i think that the future is pulling more people into the trend of government support. it has been a bullish trend since the late 70s. the challenge of government is to accommodate the lifestyles of more than the sloth-strata in this paradigm. the challenge to americans is to recognize whats going on, and rather than taking pot-shots at other americans who make less money (this is the only distinction drawn by the OP, and expanded to imply low intelligence, cynical political views, and poor character since), to employ an understanding of the situation in a solutions discussion, rather than the OP's righteousness rave.

for me, the public education system, prison system and foster care programs are central to the proliferation of the character issues you've observed. each should be reformed starting with defining a purpose beyond consuming time and money.

 

[topspin]

It's struggling lower middle class people condeming unemployed. They are rightfully conserned that a pink slip could be on the way.

 

[Foxfyre]

And for me the question PC left open in the OP is interesting. WHY do we see trends among various income groups as to what philosophy or ideology or political party or person they are more or less likely to support, vote for, or approve? And it is especially interesting to me why the lowest income group is the only demographic that is currently expressing approval ratings above 50% for the current president.

So her initial thesis is still of interest to me. Is that more likely because of their income level? Or because of their particular perspective?

And I think that is a valid question.

 

[antagon]

the civil rights and progressive legacy has made american life better, particularly for the lowest-income, women and minorities. granted that, the democrats have had a handle on the lower income demography for 80+ years. these groups seem to support the dem agenda's principles on the table today, but i'd imagine this history draws some benefits in these doubtful times.

they say all questions are valid, but i don't adhere to that, fox. i think some questions posed as PC has are loaded with righteous intentions - invalidating them by way of prejudice. i've never felt a need to dance around that, and the party putting this question forward has a track-record of this sort of bollucks. it's betrayed this time by subsequent commentary and convenient omissions of the facts being discussed.

 

[antagon]

Yes. My quarrel with government policy that encourages people to become dependent on government is that it teaches them to think that they can't help themselves. Or so saps them of initiative that they no longer want to try. Eventually too many just don't care anymore.

this is ingrained in american public education. i recognize that sink or swim might help to motivate some on the welfare raft, but education must affect an ascension to opportunities which are growing slimmer and slimmer. not only should education be about teaching americans their multiplication tables, public education must be changed to include direction and motivation for young americans. the discipline, seriousness and perseverance which is only afforded the best students from their parent's input, must be incorporated into the curriculum to help chisel away at defeatist behavior. this can never be fully achieved within a population, especially with the easy opportunities of abundant work, which we may have enjoyed in the 50s, being a thing of the past.