they have served their purpose and are no longer of any use to the boy... useless eaters all that voted for him
Posted on 11/28/2011 6:35:49 AM PST by Evil Slayer
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Thanks for that! I laughed so hard I almost needed the Heimlich maneuver!
Find a place outside the large cities, where enough people know you personally that you have a reasonable chance to blend in.
If you can’t live there, have a plan to get there. For instance, mine is get the heck out of Iowa and closer to where I grew up. To liberal here.
they have served their purpose and are no longer of any use to the boy... useless eaters all that voted for him
It's not hard to do in Texas. We just moved to the city from a semi-rural area eight months ago. I just have to bust hiney to get us back there before the SHTF.
...and hence the threat of Cain...who knocks the legs out from under this strategy...
later
Thanks Evil Slayer.
As a professional designer, and a registered Republican, I take offense to your comment.
I prefer the classic ideas of Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. It is a complicated discussion but in essence wealth generates more wealth. the classic example is a wetland field that won't produce anything but if I spend the money to tile it and fertilize it, now it generates more wealth every year with crops.
Adam smith disliked government, lawyers, bankers and the arts because they consumed rather than produced. He did admit they are a needed part of society but MUST not be too large or the focus of activity.
Your example of the panting is exactly what obama is doing. He believes that spending money on anything generates wealth. It is very important WHERE YOU SPEND THE MONEY.
No, we wouldn't all be better painting pictures, any more than we'd all be better raising beans (while nobody built any houses or did anything else that was necessary). But that hardly means pictures are useless.
Pictures are luxuries. While they may not be strictly necessary for survival, it is the availability of luxuries which encourages those who would be able to generate more wealth than necessary for their own subsistence, to do so. If no goods were produced other than those strictly necessary for material survival, there would be a limit to the amount of wealth anyone could find it worthwhile to produce. If increasing one's labors would entitle one to more beans than one could possibly eat, but there weren't any luxuries for which one could trade the excess, would there be any incentive to maximize one's productive output?
Yes there has to be consumption as well as production.
But we need more wealth production than consumption if we are to move forward.. Right now as a society we are spending all the wealth produced by the prior generation. This has been done through out history.
If an object gives people pleasure, that object is a form of wealth. A country which had 300 million painters, but no farmers, would of course be severely economically imbalanced, but not in a fundamentally different way than one which had 300 farmers but no carpenters or doctors.
I'm not quite sure why you imply that luxuries are consumption. Consumption of any type of good or service must be balanced by production. Someone who paints a picture produces it; the owner, to some extent, consumes it (such consumption being measured by the falling amount of future enjoyment the painting will provide in its useful lifetime). How could luxuries be consumed if there was not someone who first produced them? If you don't consider luxuries to be a form of wealth, how would you define wealth?
how would you define wealth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.