Poll of rural Americans shows cultural divide

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

One principle of "middle of the road" is that complicated problems generally don't admit simple solutions. Whether the topic is health-care reform, tax brackets, the environment, energy-policy, response to terrorism, immigration or whatever else - the solution, or even attempts at solution - is likely to be protracted, nuanced, and likely only partial. The opposing view - that all that's required is a modicum of "common sense", that complicated problems can be reduced to a brief manifesto - are the hallmarks of extremism, whether left or right.

Similarly, "middle of the road" acknowledges that everything involves tradeoffs. Cutting spending might help with the deficit, but it probably reduces economic activity, at least temporarily. Retaining benefits for the poor/sick/disabled probably means cutting benefits for somebody else - or raising taxes. Preserving American factory jobs in one industry likely means raising costs for consumers, or perhaps harming jobs in another industry. Doing nothing, might mean looking weak and inept; while doing anything in particular, might be counterproductive and erroneous. Extremists on either side would aver that most problems are so glaring, that solving them is a win/win, that tradeoffs are arcane and nugatory.

Responding directly one aspect of the above: if everyone went to college (suspending the idea of tradeoffs, lets suppose hypothetically that college was free, and that free college had no adverse effect on the economy), we would have a serious problem. Let's suppose that somehow everyone actually managed to graduate. Would college graduates deign to pick cabbage, drive taxis, steam-clean rugs, repair roofs, scrub toilets, gather garbage, deliver newspapers and so forth? OK, suppose that robots could do all of that. Great. But would such a society be stable? Can a village of philosophers and mathematicians manage to cohere? I would argue that it is absolutely essential for a stable society, that there be a hierarchy of level of education, resembling a pyramid. Most people wouldn't be all that well educated, quite a few would be in the middle, and a few would be at the pinnacle.

As for who is "in the middle between Sanders and Trump"... I'd argue that both Sanders and Trump are populists, peddling facile solutions. Rather than being two points at diametrically opposite extremes, they're actually quite alike. "Middle of the road", by my reckoning, would be someone like G.H.W. Bush (that is, the elder President Bush) or Bill Clinton. It might be the Republican "Never Trump" movement (what ever happened to them???).

All to say, again, "balance is key."

Unfortunately, the goal of balance is also one subject to a high degree of subjectivity...

Could take up any of these topics you highlight and many others, but this one about education is perhaps as important as any. One might ask if a high school education is considered an education we can and should expect to be financed with tax money, to provide an equal opportunity for all Americans to receive such education, why not further education?

Keeping in mind that the correlation between higher income is strongly correlated with higher education, what better way is there to achieve that balance between those born into families that can't afford higher education vs those who can? Perhaps helping to close that gap between the haves and have nots, and just like with regard to the cost of health care, so too with education, the most wealthy higher income earning Americans need to pay a higher NET tax rate!

Or..., the quality of a high school education needs to be far improved in America, or we will not only fall further behind other countries as an educated populace but also see that divide between rich and poor get worse.

Also keep in mind, further and/or better education isn't all about jobs and pay. It's also about better understanding what is going on around us, and we could use a far better understanding of all that before we can expect things to improve around us here in America to any negligible degree.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by Seacove

No, the farm subsidies need to end. If farmers need more money they can charge more. But if they charge more than Costa Rica, they lose out. Why should we as taxpayers give subsidies to farmers? If they are a self-sustaining business, they will survive. This giving of direct payments to farmers is ridiculous. We a result, they grow endless amounts of corn which ends up being corn syrup in everything. It does not necessarily result in more food. Stop the farm subsidies. It's amazing how much rural farmers hate the government except when money is going into their pocket.

Today's corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). The whole clean fuel thing was driven by the Left in the citys, you guys wanted "renewable fuel" so you created an incentive to grow it......

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by my54ford

Today's corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). The whole clean fuel thing was driven by the Left in the citys, you guys wanted "renewable fuel" so you created an incentive to grow it......

Another subject "near and dear to my heart," since I used to work in the energy industry in headquarters for one of the majors...

You are right that "renewable fuels" were promoted by anyone who was for more independence from fossil fuels, and for a variety of reasons, I guess that tends to be those who lean left. The oil industry, with all those billions of dollars in crude oil reserves are not quite as keen for obvious reasons. Right wingers prefer the other option of more drilling and/or fracking, to make access to fossil fuels easier, for greater supply, lower cost.

Problem is that fossil fuels come with a cost that doesn't show up at the pump. Pollution...

Ultimately, we elect our government representatives to evaluate all these pros and cons and broker a policy that promotes our best interests; fuel expense, efficiency, cleanliness, accessibility, etc. Additionally, there are the other considerations that your rightfully describe, that affect our supplies of other commodities, like corn, grain, beef.

None of us is really well versed or informed enough to judge other than per our already established bias and predispositions dictate, that have us lean left or right, and then support that agenda per the talking points we have come to know best.

Anecdote: I well remember when the oil industry was hard at work to prevent the requirement for cleaner burning fuels (with or without ethanol). I'm glad the industry was forced to "clean up its act," because free market forces would never have accomplished the same NECESSARY progress. I could hardly breath on some days in the Summer growing up in SoCal where the smog was so bad. The oil industry also successfully argued for MTBE instead of the likes of Ethanol, and of course all "you guys" know how that turned out before that problem was also corrected as NECESSARY...

PS: my wife and I now own a hybrid, and it's WONDERFUL, not only to drive, and not only so we can spend less time at the pump, but great for now spending far less on gasoline every month as well!