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?
