Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No ;but as Clinton points out instead of 80% of government funding going to urban areas with 20% of poverty we should change the politics of poverty funding. 80% of poverty is in two regions of the country he points out. He really says with this failure; people need to act outside of government on poverty since apparently he has no faith in government to solve the problem.So it more a poltical problem like so many things than a issue otherwise.IMO; its really the fact that government believes urban areas riots will occur again if cut but not so in these rural areas. Perhaps its the urbanization that has created this massive violence shift in US.
Populations may trend more or less urban to rural, but I don't see the facination with acheiving it through deliberate socio-political dystopia like the OP is suggesting.
"fascination with achieving it through deliberate socio-political dystopia"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict
Populations may trend more or less urban to rural, but I don't see the fascination with achieving it through deliberate socio-political dystopia like the OP is suggesting.
Yeah, almost sounds like the OP is saying we need to take a "Great Leap Forward"
This isn't a regular forum for me, but I just had to respond.
Isn't rural living discouraging enough? I assume people live in the boonies because the rent is cheap. But it's hard to find work, you are dependent on a car for everything, and you are often isolated from community.
I don't think we need to go out of our way to tell people it isn't always a good choice.
I assume that people either live rurally because they can afford to make it work for themselves (either they own the land outright because it's been in the family for so long, or they don't mind a commute to work (I know lots of rural families who drive a LONG way to work). OR because they are so stuck they can't afford to move anywhere else.
TL;DR. Stopped at end of quote. It's not up to you to "allow" things, unless you are talking about a dictatorship. You want to revise some city codes, so be it. Telling people in rural areas "it is bad for me to allow you to live here", will get circular part of a rifle presented to you.
Their choice. Not your choice.
Fine, let it be their choice. But let' see what happens when the government decides they will not deliver government subsidies out there. Imagine no post office, fire, and social services out in the country. Or better yet, let's stop subsidizing and make local rural residents have higher taxes.
I guess I should change my stance to "discourage rural living for the poor, and allow the rich to be able to afford living out in the country"
Fine, let it be their choice. But let' see what happens when the government decides they will not deliver government subsidies out there. Imagine no post office, fire, and social services out in the country. Or better yet, let's stop subsidizing and make local rural residents have higher taxes.
The only thing that doesn't come by UPS/Fedex these days are bills, so honestly I won't miss the post office. And not only is our local (rural) fire station funded by town property tax, New Hampshire is basically a break-even state for Federal funds, so you can't claim you personally subsidize inefficient living situations here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city
I guess I should change my stance to "discourage rural living for the poor, and allow the rich to be able to afford living out in the country"
At least it would be more honest. Why do you have such a hate on for rural life?
I'm just glad your great leap forward has little chance of being implemented in America.
Fine, let it be their choice. But let' see what happens when the government decides they will not deliver government subsidies out there. Imagine no post office, fire, and social services out in the country. Or better yet, let's stop subsidizing and make local rural residents have higher taxes.
The Post Office is not a "government subsidy". On your logic there is no reason to provide a Post Office in the city. Based on your posts, it sounds like a city is nothing but a collection of dependents.
Taxes are higher in the city to pay for public employee pensions, social service programs, and because the local government is addicted to spending money.
As far as fire and social services, such are local in nature - not typically federal. You won't find much in the way of "social services" in the rural areas to begin with. Your argument here isn't consistent. The lack of such services was one of your excuses for rationalizing the herding of people into cities. With respect to fire, you'll find that rural areas tend to have volunteer fire departments and the residents pay taxes to support such services.
The "city" isn't subsidizing the services provided in the rural areas. Frankly, I doubt you are contributing much to any "subsidy" whether it's in the city or elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city
I guess I should change my stance to "discourage rural living for the poor, and allow the rich to be able to afford living out in the country"
You are promoting a system that disregards those governed by it. Your stance is irrelevant to those you want to control. If you "succeed" your "stance" will be irrelevant to the type of government you promote as well. Freedom isn't irrelevant. Maybe you should take that stance first while you still have a right to use a soap box.
Online classes are much easier! No suffering through boring lectures and 8 am classes! Online degrees are just at their infancy. The Cal State system offers a limited number of bachelors degrees online. Also there is a difference between online "education" and online "degrees". One can learn an infinite variety of stuff on from Coursera & Udacity and many other places. It won't count for a degree but one gets the knowledge for free.
I have always held to the notion one can learn anything/everything another may at university at a greatly reduced cost by merely accessing the text books. That was years ago and now the internet has left little doubt to the fact.
The sad part is you need pay $75K - $40K back then - to get the diploma. Sadder than that is you might know more of the topic than one who got the sheepskin; a 'Been there, done that' T-shirt for slackers. Being on campus isn't the end all, I remember well what it was like to sit in the front row and engage the professors while others sat along the back wall sleeping, reading or doing other homework. Those "backrow dummies" never had a voice unless called on and that was very rare. Why bother the rest of us with their apathy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"fascination with achieving it through deliberate socio-political dystopia"
