Posted by
rycK on Friday, April 18, 2008 12:14:53 PM
Stereotypically Clinging to Stereotypes, the New York Times Stereotypes, as Usual.
The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [anagram is appropriately ‘wet laundry rat’]—excels in propaganda[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]and has provided us with yet another excellent example of the art. Being a closet Clinton supporter, actually adhering to the NYT’s presidential choice, our famous non-economist Paul Krugman essays us on why the low class vote Republican and ignore the splendors of socialism.
We read in an essay entitled Clinging to a Stereotype By Paul Krugman the following opening to a proper propaganda piece:
“Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.”[6]
Really? Sounds like a mechanical Clinton supporter who has waxed angry and frustrated with the voters, who, obviously, voted incorrectly. I wonder if these assertions broach either reality, the facts from the polls or reason. They need not approach any of these attributes for a good, juicy propaganda piece.
“Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”
Ah, the real point of this screed. We cannot equate Clinton and Bush in economic terms nor can we even mention that the Clinton Era was made possible by the Ronald Reagan Tax Cuts, the horror of the left. Krugman also leaves out the Clinton-Gore recession. The focus of half-truthful points is a hallmark [or earmark?] of propaganda and we are thankful to the krugmaniacal one here for its enlightening usage. Didn’t the Bush years produce lower unemployment and more jobs than the Clinton era? Lower taxes too!! We also liberated 50,000,000 from Islamo-Fascism too.
He surges on!
“We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.”
Krugman will NOT argue the antecedents of the Clinton inheritance. He cannot even inspect the SP 500 curve, as any economist might, to see that the growth curve does not even show when Clinton came in to push his socialized medicine, a program that would have crushed prosperity with massive taxes and inefficiency. Krugman still embraces follies such as the Phony Cuban Healthcare system.[7] It is clear that Clinton’s economic claims rest only the Reagan Legacy. Keep to the track: Republicans are economic zombies and Democrats produce economic splendor.
Switching to sociology, our esteemed author discusses the notion that economic distress encourages religion, guns and xenophobia:
“But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)”
This is an excellent example of cherry picking the facts to support an obscure point. Detailed studies show how people vote in terms of race, religion, sexual preference and other factors. The demographics of voters based on many factors are highly complex as the Pew Forums Research show. [8]
Income Distribution of Religious Traditions
|
U.S. Religious Traditions
|
Less than $30,000
|
$30,000-$49,999
|
$50,000-$74,999
|
$75,000-$99,999
|
$100,000+
|
Sample Size
|
|
National Total:
|
31%
|
22%
|
17%
|
13%
|
18%
|
29435
|
|
Members of Evangelical Protestant Churches
|
34%
|
24%
|
18%
|
11%
|
13%
|
7943
|
|
Members of Mainline Protestant Churches
|
25%
|
21%
|
18%
|
15%
|
21%
|
6142
|
|
Members of Historically Black Protestant Churches
|
47%
|
26%
|
12%
|
7%
|
8%
|
1656
|
|
Catholics
|
31%
|
20%
|
16%
|
14%
|
19%
|
6565
|
|
Mormons
|
26%
|
21%
|
22%
|
16%
|
16%
|
512
|
|
Orthodox
|
20%
|
24%
|
16%
|
13%
|
28%
|
290
|
|
Jehovah's Witnesses
|
42%
|
23%
|
17%
|
9%
|
9%
|
178
|
|
Other Christians
|
29%
|
21%
|
13%
|
13%
|
23%
|
111
|
|
Jews
|
14%
|
11%
|
17%
|
12%
|
46%
|
520
|
|
Muslims
|
35%
|
24%
|
15%
|
10%
|
16%
|
868
|
|
Buddhists
|
25%
|
19%
|
17%
|
17%
|
22%
|
357
|
|
Hindus
|
9%
|
10%
|
15%
|
22%
|
43%
|
220
|
|
Other Faiths
|
28%
|
25%
|
16%
|
13%
|
18%
|
378
|
|
Unaffiliated
|
29%
|
23%
|
16%
|
13%
|
19%
|
4279
|
Ref:[9]
This krugmaniacal comment that the rich attend religious ceremonies more than the poor may hold for Hindus, blacks and Jews, but the national trend is for the affluent to somewhat avoid religion in smooth trend. I couldn’t find a state-by-state breakdown.
Regional Distribution of Religious Traditions
|
U.S. Religious Traditions
|
Northeast
|
Midwest
|
South
|
West
|
Sample Size
|
|
National Total:
|
19%
|
23%
|
36%
|
22%
|
35556
|
|
Members of Evangelical Protestant Churches
|
10%
|
23%
|
50%
|
17%
|
9472
|
|
Members of Mainline Protestant Churches
|
19%
|
29%
|
34%
|
18%
|
7470
|
|
Members of Historically Black Protestant Churches
|
13%
|
19%
|
60%
|
8%
|
1995
|
|
Catholics
|
29%
|
24%
|
24%
|
23%
|
8054
|
|
Mormons
|
4%
|
7%
|
12%
|
76%
|
581
|
|
Orthodox
|
33%
|
19%
|
24%
|
25%
|
363
|
|
Jehovah's Witnesses
|
16%
|
19%
|
36%
|
29%
|
215
|
|
Other Christians
|
14%
|
23%
|
22%
|
41%
|
129
|
|
Jews
|
41%
|
12%
|
26%
|
21%
|
682
|
|
Muslims
|
29%
|
22%
|
32%
|
18%
|
1050
|
|
Buddhists
|
17%
|
15%
|
23%
|
45%
|
411
|
|
Hindus
|
29%
|
13%
|
32%
|
26%
|
257
|
|
Other Faiths
|
23%
|
20%
|
26%
|
31%
|
449
|
|
Unaffiliated
|
19%
|
23%
|
29%
|
29%
|
5048
|
Ref:[10]
This is all very complicated—too complicated to make generalizations. Yes, the South has more religious people and the Northeast the least. This is not news. The point off all this sociological fluff must have a propagandistic endpoint and here it is:
“So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.”
I was thinking Krugman would forget to inject racism into his screed. I am so relieved.
“Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.”
The liberals want to hike taxes to the roof in direct conflict with the despised notion that tax cuts inspire growth and increase jobs and income. We can ‘win’ back working-class types with more government? Higher taxes that will drive corporations away from our country and socialized medicine that will break the budget Recall that one of their phony programs, Social Security, is already broke and the same liberals didn’t want to do anything about that after the 2004 election. This notion is backward: the lefties DO NOT WANT ECONOMIC PROSPERITY as that drives voters away from them. Fact.
“Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.”
We could discuss this notion of ‘real’ for centuries.
“And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.”
We remember LBJ and JEC!!
All this fluff to state the obvious fact that most people vote their pocket books as we have known for centuries? The inference here is that only Clintoonery can provide economic prosperity after we ignore the FDR years, Jimmy Carter and his Malaise and the Clinton-Gore Recession.
We can, with a bit of reason, understand the tax-whoring pathologies of the liberals egged on by Krugman and his lackeys on the left. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] All they have is your money and they know how to spend it better than you ignoranti who vote against liberalism. Shame on you.
The point of this article is that the unwashed slobs in the lower economic strata in the US ought to vote for a Democrat, probably Hillary as first choice according to this propaganda artist, and be comprehensively ashamed of their racism, religion and former votes for Republicans.
Obama is not that good or precise, but he will raise your taxes as much, or more, as Hillary and tax us all into prosperity. Isn’t it interesting that the New York Times cannot publish an article on their op Ed page without howling about taxes and racism. Racism is the very b bedrock upon which the Old Gray Lady exists.
Join the Tax Hike Zombies and elect a Democrat!!
rycK
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[6] Clinging to a Stereotype By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 18, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[Emphasis is mine in terms of color, bold and italics in all quotes from this article unless otherwise noted.]
[8] http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits
[9] http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons
[10] http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons