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.
You are acting like each state has the exact same natural resources and advantages. If you cannot understand why over regulation would hurt the rust belt more than California than I cannot help you. By they way if everybody moves to California what do you think happens?
What hurt the rust belt is an evolution of technology, old infrastructure and a workforce lacking skills to transition. Regulation or not the rust belt will always be depressed. Again, what I am speaking of is capitalism and what you are promoting is a a pseudo social welfare program to bolster areas that could not transition into the modern day economy. Gone are the 9 to 5 lunch pail jobs doing the same thing over for 30 years. Those in the rust belt and yourself have difficulty identifying that.
Granted that the jobs in manufacturing probably won't be coming back after companies have invested in plants overseas. Even if it is impossible to stop the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, it is in our interest to slow the process down to where people have a chance to prepare to make the necessary changes. Don't forget that not everyone can pick up and move to another part of the country just to have a lower paying job than they have where they live now. Or, if it does pay more, chances are the COL negates any increase in income. For those who can't move, education may not improve their chances to get a job either, if there are no jobs there.
But then what you are speaking of is socialism and not capitalism. Voters in the rust belt are mixed up on what candidate stands for what. What you stated is more in line with Bernie Sanders and not Clinton or Trump.
BTW I do agree with much of what you said. However nobody wants to come out and call it what it is. I would rather see the United States become a social market economy with single payer healthcare. I'm being devils advocate where the candidate that aligned with what you stated got blackballed by the DNC and neither trump nor Clinton stand for this.
What hurt the rust belt is an evolution of technology, old infrastructure and a workforce lacking skills to transition. Regulation or not the rust belt will always be depressed. Again, what I am speaking of is capitalism and what you are promoting is a a pseudo social welfare program to bolster areas that could not transition into the modern day economy. Gone are the 9 to 5 lunch pail jobs doing the same thing over for 30 years. Those in the rust belt and yourself have difficulty identifying that.
Are we capitalism or socialism going forward?
You have the liberal talking points down, too bad they are not based on reality. So technology replaced the rust belt? Are the steel factories still there? Are the car manufacturers still there? Or are they gone?
Why are they gone? Let's see a combination of free trade, unions pushing too far, and over regulation by government, seems to be a fair argument, considering cars are being manufactured world wide to be shipped to the US. All in countries where they have lower government regulation and no unions, but you are right automation replaced them.
Coal is basically destroyed in the rust belt area, must be due to lack of demand right? OF course we will just ignore the fact that coal has increased 70% in Australia mainly through a company that funds environmental causes in the US, but that is all automation as well right?
Oil and Gas are still funding the governments in the middle east and Russia, and millions work in the industry, but it struggles in the US, all automation right?
One last question, government involvement, government regulation, and unions are those capitalist or socialist theories?
You have the liberal talking points down, too bad they are not based on reality. So technology replaced the rust belt? Are the steel factories still there? Are the car manufacturers still there? Or are they gone?
Why are they gone? Let's see a combination of free trade, unions pushing too far, and over regulation by government, seems to be a fair argument, considering cars are being manufactured world wide to be shipped to the US. All in countries where they have lower government regulation and no unions, but you are right automation replaced them.
Coal is basically destroyed in the rust belt area, must be due to lack of demand right? OF course we will just ignore the fact that coal has increased 70% in Australia mainly through a company that funds environmental causes in the US, but that is all automation as well right?
Oil and Gas are still funding the governments in the middle east and Russia, and millions work in the industry, but it struggles in the US, all automation right?
One last question, government involvement and regulation, are those capitalist or socialist theories?
It is socialist theories for sure, but what you are saying is for the government to negotiate deals to help the social welfare of those in left behind states and towns. What you are proposing is social welfare.
If you want capitalism there should be free trade and no regulations period. And if we want to that the rust belt would still be the rust belt. And pollution would be everywhere. That is capitalism
Make free trade no longer would be a huge government intervention on par with the cost and ramifications of social security and welfare.
I am not disagreeing with you but what you ask for is a social ideal. You are not much different than a democrat socialist
Also that big bad EPA was founded and started under republican president Richard Nixon. Liberals and conservatives are mixed up on what is identified as a social program and what isn't.
Last edited by Scott_Holiday; 11-26-2016 at 09:42 AM..
It is socialist theories for sure, but what you are saying is for the government to negotiate deals to help the social welfare of those in left behind states and towns. What you are proposing is social welfare.
If you want capitalism there should be free trade and no regulations period. And if we want to that the rust belt would still be the rust belt. And pollution would be everywhere. That is capitalism
Make free trade no longer would be a huge government intervention on par with the cost and ramifications of social security and welfare.
I am not disagreeing with you but what you ask for is a social ideal. You are not much different than a democrat socialist
You seem to think that the whole world is one giant market place all playing under the same rules. I am all for free markets but you cannot have free trade if you are the only country doing the free trading. It is a fact that other countries are subsidizing commodities and selling those commodities back to us under free trade (look into sugar if you want proof), and then turning around and taxing our goods coming into their countries.
I am also for some regulation, and would be fine if we went to the regulations from the late 80s when they actually controlled the smog and pollution, but did not destroy industries all in the name of the environment.
Also there is no such thing as a democrat socialist, those are 2 different political ideologies pushed by a man who did not want to come out and admit that he was for strict government controls over much of the country. I am me, I am not an ideology, I do not push for a specific ideology, I push for many things that will be for the benefit of the country, and I have yet to see a single country thrive with the government getting bigger and having more control.
We'll talk about your 'educated' vote in four years...
No need to wait. On day one, Trump will pull out of the TPP and rescind many of Obama's ridiculous executive orders. You won't need to wait four years to see how all Americans will benefit from his presidency, even those who weren't smart enough to vote for him.
Same here. Masters degree in engineering. I have yet to meet an engineer that claimed to vote for Hillary. There are studies that show that people with STEM degrees tend to be more conservative.
Strange. I've never met a "conservative" scientist. Sounds like an oxymoron to me!
I always thought getting a degree in gender studies or women's studies was the equivalent of a graphic design degree...
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.
