[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/13/social-survey-thatcherite-britain]It finds that the public is now less sympathetic towards benefit claimants than at the end of the Thatcher era. In 1991, 58% thought the government should spend more on benefits. By 2009 that had more than halved to 27%.

Just over half (51%) backed policies to redistribute income from rich to poor in 1989, compared with 36% now. The researchers blamed the "significant change in political rhetoric" throughout the New Labour years, with the abandonment of Clause 4, the party's promise to redistribute wealth, and the emphasis in welfare policies on people going back to work. "This could be due to the reluctance of parties on the left to talk positively about redistribution, which has become synonymous with an 'Old Labour' 'tax and spend' approach," the report says.

But concern about inequality in wealth has simultaneously grown, with 78% of people now saying the income gap between rich and poor is too large. The report argues that the difference between high levels of concern about that income gap and support for policies to redistribute wealth is explained by "self-interest" on the part of higher earners who do not want to lose money from their pay packets to support others and a perception of "laziness" among poorer people.[/url]

Wizlah wrote:I'm officially turning into grumpy old guy. #$&! kids. they know nothing:

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/13/social-survey-thatcherite-britain]It finds that the public is now less sympathetic towards benefit claimants than at the end of the Thatcher era. In 1991, 58% thought the government should spend more on benefits. By 2009 that had more than halved to 27%.

Just over half (51%) backed policies to redistribute income from rich to poor in 1989, compared with 36% now. The researchers blamed the "significant change in political rhetoric" throughout the New Labour years, with the abandonment of Clause 4, the party's promise to redistribute wealth, and the emphasis in welfare policies on people going back to work. "This could be due to the reluctance of parties on the left to talk positively about redistribution, which has become synonymous with an 'Old Labour' 'tax and spend' approach," the report says.

But concern about inequality in wealth has simultaneously grown, with 78% of people now saying the income gap between rich and poor is too large. The report argues that the difference between high levels of concern about that income gap and support for policies to redistribute wealth is explained by "self-interest" on the part of higher earners who do not want to lose money from their pay packets to support others and a perception of "laziness" among poorer people.[/url]

Maybe it's just people in general I hate.

#$&! labour. #$&! Blair.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Wizlah wrote:I'm officially turning into grumpy old guy. #$&! kids. they know nothing:

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/13/social-survey-thatcherite-britain]It finds that the public is now less sympathetic towards benefit claimants than at the end of the Thatcher era. In 1991, 58% thought the government should spend more on benefits. By 2009 that had more than halved to 27%.

Just over half (51%) backed policies to redistribute income from rich to poor in 1989, compared with 36% now. The researchers blamed the "significant change in political rhetoric" throughout the New Labour years, with the abandonment of Clause 4, the party's promise to redistribute wealth, and the emphasis in welfare policies on people going back to work. "This could be due to the reluctance of parties on the left to talk positively about redistribution, which has become synonymous with an 'Old Labour' 'tax and spend' approach," the report says.

But concern about inequality in wealth has simultaneously grown, with 78% of people now saying the income gap between rich and poor is too large. The report argues that the difference between high levels of concern about that income gap and support for policies to redistribute wealth is explained by "self-interest" on the part of higher earners who do not want to lose money from their pay packets to support others and a perception of "laziness" among poorer people.[/url]

Maybe it's just people in general I hate.

#$&! labour. #$&! Blair.

It's not exactly intelligent, and perhaps there's a more sinister propaganda deal afoot, but it's not entirely unreasonable that an increasingly pinched middle class would rather keep it's money than to help those less well off. That is, they don't see rich people footing the bill for social programs, they see themselves paying for it.

jerseyhoya wrote:dajafi might be the only person who cares, but a good piece on Schumer vs. Weiner by my boy Kornacki.

jerseyhoya wrote:Steele running for reelection

Go away

azrider wrote:this lee deal got me thinking...

are the phillies/yankees/red sox not the embodiment of the sins and inequalities of capitalism? shouldn't all the teams throw all their revenue into one giant hat minus operating expenses and divide that equally? isn't it hard to root for a team that literally buys players or makes unfair deals to acquire players because another team can not afford that player? it is like taking advantage of the less fortunate. this truly is exploitation of the weak. as a progressive, i am ashamed of the hypocrisy i display by being a phillies fan.

TenuredVulture wrote:
Like commies? Go root for the #$&! NFL.

jerseyhoya wrote:NYT Maps the Census

So cool