More Obama Not Understanding (or Democrats)

[TENAC]

Politicians are truly a sad lot.  Wet their finger and put it to the wind.  Blown to and fro by the winds of political polls.  How can I get elected today and fool them tomorrow?

Not a huge poll person, but sometimes, like when a show Millionaire show contestant polls the audience and it is overwhelming, the best bet is to go with the poll.

The Gallup people took a poll that is more damning to democrats in general and obama in particular, it should take notice.  But the republicans arent smart enough to understand either.


From the article, these numbers are staggering:

Lack of Support for Wealth Redistribution Spans Political Party, Income Groups

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

Keep in mind, Gallup as been the democrats bell weather polling firm.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx

[SquirleyWurley]

Edwards stressed the importance of 'good paying jobs' with such frequency I began to want to puke.  What happened to good-grammared rhetoric?

But my point is, Democrats can and do focus upon job-creation, and vocational education, career training opportunities, etc.

[VLinvictus]

That's the trouble with polls: if the questions are empty and meaningless, so are the results.

What does "Take steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans" mean?

I assume we're not talking about the Jubilee mandated in the Bible in which all debts were cancelled and land (the primary means of production) was to be redistributed equally among the population every 50 years.

The question is sufficiently vague and omnious-sounding that it makes perfect sense that people would oppose it.

I do not know of any Democrat of soi-disant "liberal" who is openly advocating such a bizarre redistribution scheme. However much conservatives want to abuse the word "socialism," there is not a single American politician today who is promoting anything even resembling that mode of production.

[Acumen]

Edwards stressed the importance of 'good paying jobs' with such frequency I began to want to puke.  What happened to good-grammared rhetoric?

But my point is, Democrats can and do focus upon job-creation, and vocational education, career training opportunities, etc.

Job creation and good paying jobs are very important to democrats because without them, they couldn't redistribute our money into the pockets of those who don't work, nor ever plan to as long as they get a free ride on the tax payer's dime.

[VLinvictus]

Job creation and good paying jobs are very important to democrats because without them, they couldn't redistribute our money into the pockets of those who don't work, nor ever plan to as long as they get a free ride on the tax payer's dime.

I think we call those people "Congressmen." 

That some people may abuse a program does not mean that the program must be abolished. What is needed is greater control and greater incentives (such as the termination of benefits unless certain benchmarks are met).

Now, if only we could do the same to that nest of welfate parasites we call "Iraq." But no: we can't set benchmarks and conditions for them to shape up and clean up their act because that would be "surrendering." 

[VLinvictus]

Job creation and good paying jobs are very important to democrats because without them, they couldn't redistribute our money into the pockets of those who don't work, nor ever plan to as long as they get a free ride on the tax payer's dime.

This post of yours doesn't hit directly, but I suddenly understand a key distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives."

"Liberals" see the nation as an organic whole; "conservatives" see it as a collection of individuals.

For "liberals," government is not an alien entity but an organ of the nation, perhaps part of the nervous and circulatory system; for "conservatives" it is an alien entity, a necessary evil but one only grudgingly tolerated to a certain degree -- otherwise, it is a parasitical imposition. For liberals, while we are individuals, we are also cells of the body politic and like cells in a body we are connected to one another and dependent on and responsible for one another; conservatives view each individual as dependent on and responsible to only himself. For liberals, each individual giving up a little in order to provide for the whole (especially for its weaker parts) is just the digestive process of the body politic; for conservatives it is an egregious imposition and violation of the individual's independence and property.

IOW, the liberal mindset is dialectical and the conservative is analytical.

No wonder it's impossible for us to get along.

[SquirleyWurley]

For "liberals," government is not an alien entity but an organ of the nation, perhaps part of the nervous and circulatory system; for "conservatives" it is an alien entity, a necessary evil but one only grudgingly tolerated to a certain degree -- otherwise, it is a parasitical imposition.

On the other hand, originally it was conservatives who argued for the stability of the organic whole, the naturally developed institutions, over the individualism of the classical liberals, etc.  Some do emphasize groups over the individual quite IL-liberally, while others emphasize individualism quite anti-socially.  Both are errors to be avoided.

Groups do not mean more than individuals.  Individuals do often have to deal with groups, and human individuals tend to be social and to benefit from social networking/alliance, etc.

That is the reality.