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.