As long as one can disingenuously leave off any quantitative adjective in front of a collective noun while making a pronouncement, one isn't offbase. It would be offbase to assume that of a survey of 1262 randomly selected through telephone-dialing respondents, the data gathered can be extrapolated to accurately reflect the U.S. workforce.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey, a survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau under contract with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contributed survey data for the Demos paper "
By a Thread: The New Experience of America's Middle Class." What points one would make to show that "people aren't saving" could be more powerful coming from a more rigorous survey with a larger, wider collection of data sets.
But getting back to
Presidential Politics, I request evidence that the economic threat of the middle-class is a crucial concern of the candidates. I cynically figure the candidates who demonstrate concern for and offer platforms advantageous to the middle-class are going to get shut out or shouted down by other concerns: public safety, immigration, homeland security, free trade, and Iraq.
It'd be a groove, too, if my questions regarding the Federalist Papers and today's US reality vs. the Constitutionalist idea of the U.S. would be answered. How about the Bill of Rights? What candidates show strong support for the Bill of Rights? Is the Bill of Rights still relevant? When people choose a candidate are they choosing a candidate that works to strengthen the large republic, or a candidate whose platform typifies the expressed common impulse of passion or interest that is adverse to the rights of other citizens? Is supporting a voice for the middle-class supporting a faction that threatens a representative democracy?
11-28-2007, 12:33 PM
