BP201 saidThat article is horse shit.
First, not all poor people use the system (pride), and for the ones that do, plenty of them are raising families and working full time for a better future. That horse shit of an article insinuates that poor people don't work hard. Fuck outta here with that, not all poor people are destined to be poor for the rest of their life. People born into wealth have it easier PERIOD.
It may be likely that no one actually read the actual article in question in this thread (or read it incorrectly and reacted to it in whatever way they did), or for that matter even read the study it was based on (or it's appendix as well, which I did do!). Anyways, the article is "bad" for insinuating attitudes that the "financially secure" might have on the poor that they may not in fact have (that they believe that the "poor have it easy", and not so much as others in this thread have come to believe the article had said, that the "poor have it easy", as it was not referencing a supposed fact, but a sentiment, or a judgement made by the "financially secure"). Withstanding possible agendas, the MSN writer of this article clearly did not comprehend what the actual Pew study meant to say (revealing the nuanced political nature of financial security and insecurity, and how financial insecurity especially affected peoples voting) and it had very little to do with how the "financially secure" judged the "poor". Though he tries to interpret what the the study meant by the words, "financially secure", by mentioning income levels and access to things like a checking account, the way he mentioned such may have still lead his readers to conclude that to be "financially secure" was synonymous with being "rich" (a word of which other media outlets have stupidly used when describing the study themselves), and that such a group of people have judge the poor rather harshly (something that may actually be true, but this again is not the point of the study!). It's clear that "financial security" or "insecurity" doesn't actually mean income levels or wealth at all, but on one's capacity to have none or a given number of indicators on a scale of ten that makes one "financially insecure", and this scale can actually allow people who are typically judged as poor by most Americans, as people who can be "financially secure", and people who make high incomes, but are individuals who have liabilities and struggle financially, as people who are "financially insecure". The most "financially secure" Americans accordingly accounts for 25% of the American population while the least "financially insecure" accounted for another 20%, and the rest of the American population is divided variously among three groupings that are in between the two groups. When the article concludes with the statement, "in 2014, the Democratic Party left far more potential votes 'on the table' than did the Republicans", the study isn't making a statement about overall voting trends when it comes to "financial security" or "insecurity" and its potential for increased Democratic votes (and the writer may confuse readers by having it sound like a statement about voters who are "financial secure") but rather it's a statement about how otherwise "financially insecure" individuals, who also happened to be undecided or voters who had no political preference, if such a group of people were to turn out to vote, that the Democratic Party, naturally, and obviously, would capture voters from this category than would the Republicans.