Should Democrats Unapologetically Embrace Metro Areas the Way Republicans have Rural Areas? (Brown, dollar)
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.
East and West Coast Progressives' disdain, including politicians and media, for the values of Middle American, suburban America, and rural America has been espoused for at least a decade. You are late in your assessment and recommendation to Democrats, Seacove.
Yes, Dems used to represent much of middle America but those JFK days are long gone.
Now if you're not a Socialist Progressive you must be a RWNJ and uneducated. Obama has shoved the Party hard left thus they've lost power and seats in Congress.
There is an interesting perspective from Dan Savage on Bill Maher this week. Wouldn't Democrats be better off embracing the representation of cities rather than trying to win over rural America? He's right, John Kerry shooting a gun is not going to win over rural Republicans so don't bother. Embrace representing the cities as the engines of commerce for this country. Represent those highly populace cities with fervor and represent their economies and voters without apology. As cities get confident with their representation, we can put to control our dollars at home more rather than sending it to rural areas.
Democrats should focus on our strengths, revenue generation, education, diversity, environment, healthcare. Let Republicans have rural voters and don't waste another penny on them, instead, fully embrace the metro areas with no apologies.
That's exactly what the Democrats have been doing all along and it's why they've been losing. In the USA, people don't have power, square miles do. Even though most people live in cities, those who don't have much more voting power per person.
Democrats do a half-ass job of campaigning in rural areas, if they bother to go there at all. And then they wonder why they're so powerless in the government.
LOL. These are scattered hospitals as you said in the poorest of counties whose patient base has been declining and are majority are elderly (medicare) or on assistance (medicaid) and use Emergency services as their primary health provider. Why would anyone expect them to stay open. They operate in the red therefore need to close.
Some of you seem to believe this is representative of all rural areas, its not.
Let Them Die!
And Rural America is getting older and poorer across the board as boomers age and human and financial capital continues to move to cities. This is going to be a growing problem whether you want to pay for it or not.
Let Them Die!
And Rural America is getting older and poorer across the board as boomers age and human and financial capital continues to move to cities. . This is going to be a growing problem whether you want to pay for it or not.
meh, in my rural area more elderly transplants with good retirement, insurance and savings are moving into the area. As well there are more businesses moving to the area. But we all pay for medicaid, it is federal tax dollars so you will be paying right along side me.
The greatest number of people are in the urban metros. That is a winning strategy. Why try to win over a group of voters we have nothing in common with? Better to truly embrace metros and the interests of metros is working for the largest number of votes. Let Republicans have rural voters, embrace metros completely. It makes sense to me.
I think your entire premise is flawed. There are Democrats in the country as well as Republicans. There are Democrats in metro areas as well as Republicans.
People don't choose where to live based on their politics. They choose where to live based on their likes or dislikes, and on their employment situation. They might work in the city or the country (there are jobs in the country too, believe it or not). Many country people commute to the city to work. My dad did for many years. We had 27 acres in the country. He worked in Cleveland.
I think you need to do some research. You're being misinformed by someone.
Gosh, well if all of the good people in rural America would just pay their bills then I guess there wouldn't be a problem.
if you get rid of the insurance companies, and get government out of the ''entitlement'' of care, costs would go down, making it more affordable
anytime you have the government or some-other entity (insurance) make the guaranteed payment, costs skyrocket.
look at the skyrocketing costs of college.....the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education.
Quote:
Student aid accounts for most of the tuition increases between 1987 and 2010, according to a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The more money students can borrow, the idea goes, the more colleges can charge. Over the last few decades, the amount of aid available to students has increased dramatically: subsidized loans were expanded, while an unsubsidized loan program made its debut. But looking at the big picture, does that money always offset the costs to students?
The researchers say no. Instead, colleges increase tuition even more, because they know financial aid can cover the difference. Student aid may cover more of students' tuition -- but if the aid wasn't available, tuition might not have gone up in the first place.
For example, a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibr...orts/sr733.pdf suggests that colleges were raising their sticker prices because the federal government was giving students more loans.
get government and the insurances out and you solve the problem of CARE being too costly
Every state has larger cities, enough of them win the elections. If Republicans can proudly demonize cities the way they have, why shouldn't Democrats focus on representing cities and metros the same way?
Which Republicans demonize cities? Where are you getting your information from? Rachel Madcow?
if you get rid of the insurance companies, and get government out of the ''entitlement'' of care, costs would go down, making it more affordable
anytime you have the government or some-other entity (insurance) make the guaranteed payment, costs skyrocket.
look at the skyrocketing costs of college.....the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education.
For example, a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibr...orts/sr733.pdf suggests that colleges were raising their sticker prices because the federal government was giving students more loans.
get government and the insurances out and you solve the problem of CARE being too costly
I'm all for removing private for profit insurance from the equation, but removing both them and government isn't going to suddenly drop the cost of medical equipement, tests, doctors salaries, etc to levels that someone making poverty wages can afford. I'm all for reform, but not system shocks that will kill thousands in the process and many more moving forward.
Unemployed coal miners aren't able to pay cash much less barter for their healthcare.
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.
