The forces behind the economic decline of rural America trace back to the beginnings of the growth of cities more than a hundred years ago.
I don't agree that there is an "economic decline of rural America" but that that is is a political statement, not necessarily a factual one. It goes with the age old Democrat claim; "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer". The poor in today's America have it better than probably 95% of the people that have ever lived on this earth since the beginning of the human race.
I think the case can be made that the rich get richer as the poor also get richer. Life is more complicated today, and I understand that it's easier to make a mess of one's economic life today, with the desires and availability of pleasures and toys, (illegal drugs, credit cards, cell phones) but problems arising from those things aren't an economic decline.
marc9000 writes:
Yes, the ones who say; "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15."
After compensation for their AR-15's they'll be economically better off, and physically safer.
I'd rather not beat the dead gun-control-horse here right now, but my reference to O'Rourke's statement was intended to show the similarity to his, and other Democrat's arrogance to the arrogance displayed by the King of England to the colonists 250 years ago. I'm sure that a small, but probably significant part of the American population at that time didn't agree with the framers of our constitution, and wanted to stay loyal to that king because he cared for them and gave them free stuff.
marc9000 writes:
The ones who are also sympathetic to little foreign girls who hate U.S. productivity.
Is this about the economic exploitation of children? I think everyone's against it.
It's about the POLITICAL exploitation of children, represented at this point in time by that little monster Greta Thunburg. No one in the news media who've made her famous, or the Democrat party have made it clear they're against that.
Is this about climate change? Do you think some politicians are making wrong choices between those directly affected by climate change now and in the future versus those affected by attempts to minimize climate change?
Yes and yes. It's a scientific fact that the climate has always been changing, its changes in the past happened before there was any chance that human activity could have caused it. Therefore it's also a fact that it could be changing today due to other factors (sunspots) that have nothing to do with human activity. There's too much actual scientific uncertainty to pinpoint exactly what could be causing it today, and what that does is make the government/scientific community completely unaccountable for any future successes/failures from their political action to address it. Here's a link to the "green new deal";
Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
There is NOTHING listed there that isn't simply vague political jargon, not one defined, nuts-and-bolts plan of action to achieve a defined goal. And in the recent Democrat debates, the subject is not coming up. There are a few of them who would like to discuss it, but other, more powerful Democrats know better. They know that there are a lot more Americans who have been scared into believing that political action must be taken against climate change, than there are Americans who are willing to pay anything for it. When they start talking about details about what they propose, they'll scare a LOT of their formally solid Democrat base over to Republicans. Let's look at a couple of lines from the green new deal;
quote:
A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
Why don't the Democrat candidates want to tell us where they're going to start? The main culprit is of course, fossil fuels. There's no question that Democrat think tanks have carefully analyzed all the different uses of fossil fuels. Cars and trucks, (old and new). Trains, planes, lawnmowers, chainsaws, farm equipment, construction equipment, home heating units, several other things. A sizable percentage of Americans either have a livelihood or hobby directly involved with fossil fuels. Who is proposed to be first?
In their analyzation of fossil fuel use, there's no question they've divided that use into "necessary" and "unnecessary" uses. Or "severe" and "non-severe" releases of greenhouse gas emissions. Are they going to start with new laws and mandates that immediately affect the majority of the population, or are they going to go for minorities at first, like hobbyists, or users of older equipment?
Every bite of food that goes into Greta Thunberg's mouth comes courtesy of fossil fuels, I wonder if her programmers have ever told her that?
Another line from the green new deal;
quote:
to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
What kinds of jobs? Environmental police? New vehicle emissions testing agents? When people who'd rather not accept free government stuff without knowing what surprises might be in the trade-offs see this type of thing, they can be reminded of this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence;
quote:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance
For a long time now the national debt has increased in most years no matter what party was in charge.
That is true, it's such a complex problem that it's not going to be fixed overnight. But lessening government regulations, unfettering job creators with lower taxes, and other things that Trump has done to lower unemployment and create more enthusiasm for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness seems to a lot of people like a good place to start.
It's the Republicans who favor cutbacks in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Bipartisan support held HUD funding roughly the same this year as last, adjusted for inflation.
The government is too small, that's the reason for homelessness? Could a decrease in work ethic, morality, and illegal drugs have something to do with it also?
What facts and logic justify disparaging attitudes about education, minorities, immigrants and urbanites? Running down government I can see for people who want to be unoriginal and cynical at the same time, but the rest? Seems anti-knowledge, racist, bigoted and parochial all at the same time.
Most of what you're calling disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.
quote:
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
That Trump fears running against Biden is why he keeps running him down in tweets like these:
I don't see fear in those tweets. It's just Trump being Trump - a lot of people who didn't vote for him, and some who held their nose and voted for him not knowing what they were going to get, admire the way he has held up to the hate. Many others would have resigned the presidency by now.
Trump has stated on numerous occasions that the strong economy is why he'll be reelected.
And he's probably right, assuming there will be no earthshaking political events happen in the next year. He should be able to use the successful Reagan line; "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" But his margin of victory won't be as comfortable as Reagans was in 1984, because the fake news does have power. I continue to monitor ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT most evenings, and am constantly amazed at their dishonesty. The out-of-context, often outdated snips, the pictures of Trump caught at just the right moment to make him look bad, prefixing the word "but" in their responses at just about everything he says, etc. The way they describe him as "lashing out", as being "brazen", while never describing Democrats with those words, even when they fit very well. The viewers of that "most watched" newscast, if they don't have any other news sources, have very little idea of what's actually going on.
marc9000 writes:
The left will never understand it, but it's a simple fact that "Trump voters" often find more value in being left alone more than getting free stuff.
Well, then they have no one to blame but themselves for their economic predicament, because it is not due to anything they're doing wrong. They're caught up in forces far more powerful than themselves. They need the help of state and federal government.
A large part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for some people is
self reliance. I know you don't understand it, and I'm not attempting to encourage you to understand it, I'm just asking that you try to accept it. I'm a country guy, lived in the country all my life, love the outdoors. Yet I'll never understand how anyone can get pleasure out of hunting and fishing. They're just not my thing. But I accept that others like to do those things.
marc9000 writes:
..or rural America's knowledge of the disastrous results of many past socialist experiments worldwide.
You mean like Europe?
I was thinking more of Venezuela, or Mexico, but Europe fits also. I don't see a mass exodus of Americans heading to Europe for a better life these days.
™ Version 4.2
(1)