Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
73 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Counties that voted for Trump account for only 36% of US GDP rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't remember anyone mentioning this from late last year, I just ran across it and found it to be pretty stunning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donal...

Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, he also very badly lost the vote if you look at economic production. It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.

I think that eventually the idea of "low taxes for the rich" will blow up in the Republican's faces. It just seems to me that this economic disparity is going to continue to increase in the future and eventually all of those poor Republican voters will realize how they have been bamboozled. It is the tax structure itself, the destruction of unions, the destruction of public education / free job training / other social programs, etc that the Republicans are pushing that is exacerbating the situation. Eventually those voters have to realize who is actually causing their problems don't they?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This was talked about a fair amount, including a thread here. I don't think it got a lot of traction, mainly because it was one of many interesting post-mortem ideas.

What's so interesting to me is the market rally after the election. It seemed pretty clear from market moves during the election that the market favored Clinton and was nervous about Trump, but once the election was over the market decided it loved Trump. One hypothesis I heard was that pre-election people thought Clinton would win and focused more on Trump being borderline insane, and then when he won they started looking at just how pro-business he was, and the impact on regulation and taxes that might be felt.

It's puzzling to me because Trump has given no signals that he doesn't want to pursue some of the more destructive elements of his agenda, so the market seems either to be engaging in the oft-repeated mistake of thinking Trump doesn't mean the crazy shit he says or it's convinced that the Congress will check him where they want him to.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sfox wrote:
It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Maybe the programs aren't what people want, or need.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
sfox wrote:
It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Maybe the programs aren't what people want, or need.


Then why have we seen multiple people on the news lately who voted for Trump and who are a bit mad at him for wanting to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare which doesn't help them as much ?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
When obamacare is not repealed, or merely tinkered with as they are considering, look for the stock market gains to be lost.

All the talk about deregulation driving the market is true, but scrapping obamacare is specifically the one item that bolstered the markets and was holding the economy back.


I look forward to your proof that stocks are booming in anticipation of ACA being repealed. I'm sure it's up to the usual standards of your sources.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would be interesting to see what the GDP of those counties would have been 30 or 40 years ago. I suspect that would explain why people voted for someone who campaigned largely on the promise of bringing industry back to the US.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why would the Stock Market surge after obamacare is repealed? Why wouldn't it go back to what is was before the ACA was passed?

I seem to recall a few record highs in the market as well. How did they happen with the ACA in place?

8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
When obamacare is not repealed, or merely tinkered with as they are considering, look for the stock market gains to be lost.

All the talk about deregulation driving the market is true, but scrapping obamacare is specifically the one item that bolstered the markets and was holding the economy back.


I look forward to your proof that stocks are booming in anticipation of ACA being repealed. I'm sure it's up to the usual standards of your sources.


Yes, I usually seek financial wisdom from non-standard (or knowing) sources.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why wouldn't the people not doing well vote for the candidate that promised to help them. (Based on their success so far, they evidently have made other bad decisions already.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
sfox wrote:
It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Maybe the programs aren't what people want, or need.


Then why have we seen multiple people on the news lately who voted for Trump and who are a bit mad at him for wanting to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare which doesn't help them as much ?

While there were certainly some swing voters who voted for Trump due to his economic message, I do not believe that covers the vast majority of why people vote for the Republican party. To me, it seems to be based primarily on social issues. A lot of religious people let themselves be manipulated into voting against their economic interests by focusing on social issues. In the end it is appears to be a failure inherent in a two party, winner take all, election system.

It is perfectly possible to have a social issues party that also believes in more of a Christ like outlook on society where taxes are used to redistribute income and to protect the little guy from big business. In fact, that is exactly how some political parties in Europe are structured. There is not a natural relationship between big business and religion, it is actually quite unnatural. Countries with different election systems such as a parliamentary system do not have such a strong alignment between big business and religion since it really doesn't make any sense.
10 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:


In the few blue zones with which I am familiar, people commute from the red zones to work at banks and offices in the blue zones. just because their labor is calculated to have occurred within a blue zone is indicative of very little.

I think your claim is just wishful thinking rather than having any basis in reality. Heck you live in Alaska, so your anecdotal information seems even more useless than anecdotal information typically is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
I don't remember anyone mentioning this from late last year, I just ran across it and found it to be pretty stunning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donal...

Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, he also very badly lost the vote if you look at economic production. It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.

I think that eventually the idea of "low taxes for the rich" will blow up in the Republican's faces. It just seems to me that this economic disparity is going to continue to increase in the future and eventually all of those poor Republican voters will realize how they have been bamboozled. It is the tax structure itself, the destruction of unions, the destruction of public education / free job training / other social programs, etc that the Republicans are pushing that is exacerbating the situation. Eventually those voters have to realize who is actually causing their problems don't they?


No, they really don't. The more miserable they are, they more they project it on immigrants and democrats.

It's partially a messaging problem with democrats and partially a VOTING VOTING VOTING problem with democrats. Being an older fart in a conservative state, I know people who will have programs cut. The ones against trump didn't vote. Some haven't voted for years.

Partially that's a 'winner' effect in texas. For the most part, it's so gerry mandered that you know your vote doesn't matter. My vote has really mattered once since 1998. Every other vote I made was with the 30% minority or the 70% majority in my district.

That said, President Trump won by 80,000 votes in a few states and he has almost certainly alienated well over 80,000 votes in those states.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The tone in this thread is very... confirming. "Why are people not voting for whoever will give them the most stuff?" The mindset of the government existing to give you stuff is so embedded in people's psyche that they can't comprehend that people would vote for greater independence, for being enabled to take care of themselves.

Now, can Trump follow through on that? Likely not. But those were what people were hearing and that was what was being promised. People didn't want a government that would hand them more and more stuff, they wanted to be able to support themselves and hopefully see their towns revived so their neighbors would be more able to do the same.

Some birds, once in captivity long enough, can never be released back into the wild again.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Anderson
msg tools
Avatar
Trying to make a moral judgement on Red states by how productive they are is ass backward. I think a better statistic is how much more Federal dollars going towards social programs end up going to red states despite consistently voting against them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clairebot wrote:
Trying to make a moral judgement on Red states by how productive they are is ass backward. I think a better statistic is how much more Federal dollars going towards social programs end up going to red states despite consistently voting against them.


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KissaTaikuri wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
People didn't want a government that would hand them more and more stuff, they wanted to be able to support themselves and hopefully see their towns revived so their neighbors would be more able to do the same.
This is great if we only want the strong to survive. If we are looking to weed out the weak and less capable then yay. The more stuff we are discussing is basic healthcare, gainful employment, and affordable necessities.

When only the wealthy get the breaks, it's these same people who will suffer the most. I understand wanting to be self sufficient but what happens when the opportunity isn't there and all of the safety nets are taken away or full of holes?


So if you are a voter who is being given a choice between increasing government dependence and being good at keeping their promises to do so, or promising greater independence but being horrible at keeping their promises, which choice should they go for? Yes, we are in a no-win situation.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Anderson
msg tools
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
Clairebot wrote:
Trying to make a moral judgement on Red states by how productive they are is ass backward. I think a better statistic is how much more Federal dollars going towards social programs end up going to red states despite consistently voting against them.


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.


I guess the question then is why someone would want to have their safety net stripped from them before the jobs have come back? It feels like putting the cart before the horse.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="GameCrossing"
Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.[/q]

But that's the thing though: The current Republican alternative is NOT going to fix the problem. If one, instead of listening to promised outcomes, listens to promised policy changes, and then looks at the outcomes of those policies, the result is again that the alternative to dependence is poverty and death.

There's one way forward, and that way is increasing growth. Republicans today aren't really pro growth, but pro keeping the status quo alive a little bit before other countries that really care about growth are actually helped by the US closing itself.

If there's a place for US growth it's precisely in the opposite direction of what the Republican platform wants: It's in providing good education to poor and in bringing in more immigrants, especially those well educated. The opposite of what the current administration will do, which is to keep the poor uneducated and enjoying the fun effects of pollution on IQ.

My hope is that this policies will lead to catastrophic results, and banish Bannon's ideas from serious consideration for another generation or two.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
sfox wrote:
It just seems crazy to me that so many people are voting for the party which wants to destroy the social programs which were designed to help them.


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Maybe the programs aren't what people want, or need.


Why do people sin?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.


There's a lot to process here, started with 'dependence foisted on them'. Are you implying that the safety nets are a forced dependence?

To the other part, jobs aren't an either/or. The real conversation would be:

"Hey I'll give you your $30/hr jobs back!"
"Yay! I want that! Here's my vote"
"Haven't quite gotten around to getting those jobs back, here's some cuts to services that have been helping you while you look for a job."
"Umm, OK. It'll be great when I get that $30/hr job tho!"
...
...
...
...
...
"Hello?"
...
...
...
"Umm you promised jobs, where are they?"
"Turns out this stuff is harder than we thought. If you vote for us again this time I'm SURE we'll get you those $30/hr jobs right away!"
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clairebot wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Clairebot wrote:
Trying to make a moral judgement on Red states by how productive they are is ass backward. I think a better statistic is how much more Federal dollars going towards social programs end up going to red states despite consistently voting against them.


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.


I guess the question then is why someone would want to have their safety net stripped from them before the jobs have come back? It feels like putting the cart before the horse.


My thing is I believe we can't strip away the social safety net. We have spent 60 years since LBJ creating and increasing people's dependence on government. I think it was the wrong thing to do, but here we are now. We've done it and now we have an obligation to the people who we have made dependent on the government. So yes... the social safety net needs to be greatly reduced, but over the span of decades, not months. This is not a Band-Aid that can just be ripped off. Society needs to be weaned from this much dependence. So I agree that anyone who is looking to just drop as much as possible as fast as possible is being wildly irresponsible.

But I also think that further increasing the amount of dependence people have on government is only going to make matters worse. We need to change how we approach the government being the answer for everything. We are now seeing a trend of people who are making an industry out of providing solutions outside of government's scope. It's small movements here and there, such as the one I highlighted a few weeks back of cash-only surgery centers. We've gone a couple of decades where the marketplace has been nothing but bottom-line and socially unaware, but there seems to be a trend where that may be changing. It is NOT a call to just throw everything to the market all at once and expect unicorns to fart rainbows. But it does give hope that with a bit of directing guidance from the government to encourage further such industries rather than outright government usurpation, we can find ways to make this happen. But it can't and won't happen all at once, and until the time we can find ways to make it work, we have to keep our obligation to those we have compelled to rely on our obligation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Anderson
msg tools
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
Clairebot wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Clairebot wrote:
Trying to make a moral judgement on Red states by how productive they are is ass backward. I think a better statistic is how much more Federal dollars going towards social programs end up going to red states despite consistently voting against them.


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.


I guess the question then is why someone would want to have their safety net stripped from them before the jobs have come back? It feels like putting the cart before the horse.


My thing is I believe we can't strip away the social safety net. We have spent 60 years since LBJ creating and increasing people's dependence on government. I think it was the wrong thing to do, but here we are now. We've done it and now we have an obligation to the people who we have made dependent on the government. So yes... the social safety net needs to be greatly reduced, but over the span of decades, not months. This is not a Band-Aid that can just be ripped off. Society needs to be weaned from this much dependence. So I agree that anyone who is looking to just drop as much as possible as fast as possible is being wildly irresponsible.

But I also think that further increasing the amount of dependence people have on government is only going to make matters worse. We need to change how we approach the government being the answer for everything. We are now seeing a trend of people who are making an industry out of providing solutions outside of government's scope. It's small movements here and there, such as the one I highlighted a few weeks back of cash-only surgery centers. We've gone a couple of decades where the marketplace has been nothing but bottom-line and socially unaware, but there seems to be a trend where that may be changing. It is NOT a call to just throw everything to the market all at once and expect unicorns to fart rainbows. But it does give hope that with a bit of directing guidance from the government to encourage further such industries rather than outright government usurpation, we can find ways to make this happen. But it can't and won't happen all at once, and until the time we can find ways to make it work, we have to keep our obligation to those we have compelled to rely on our obligation.


I say go the other way. Technology is ensuring we're just going to get fewer and fewer jobs for people to do. Go all out with "government dependance" and get guaranteed basic income.

Probably be a long time till that's a political reality though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
The tone in this thread is very... confirming. "Why are people not voting for whoever will give them the most stuff?"

Your argument itself shows how biased you are. Your belief is that Socialism = giving people free stuff rather than socialism = giving people what they deserve. Capitalism is a great economic system, but anyone that believes it is actually a fair economic system is not very well informed. Capitalism has to be balanced by wealth redistribution and social programs such as public education to function well. Not only is that good for the poor who suffer the most under capitalism, it is also actually very good for the rich as well.

Improving the health and education of the poor does cost money, but in the long term, it grows the economy. There are plenty of other areas such as basic scientific research as well as risky research which the private sector will always be terrible at. This is all due to a short term vs. long term mindset, and capitalism is all about the short term. Capitalism must be balanced by Socialism, without which we would all be much poorer.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Again, the fact that they are having government dependence foisted on them does not change the fact that they don't want government assistance. They want to have circumstances changed to where they are no longer as dependence presented as the only option.

"Look at all the money you are being given from the federal government!"
"We don't want money, we want our jobs back."
"Why are you voting for less money?"
"Because we want our jobs back."
"But.... money!"

Some people's values just don't let them take too well to not working for something. And that's not a character flaw as others seem to construe it.


There's a lot to process here, started with 'dependence foisted on them'. Are you implying that the safety nets are a forced dependence?

To the other part, jobs aren't an either/or. The real conversation would be:

"Hey I'll give you your $30/hr jobs back!"
"Yay! I want that! Here's my vote"
"Haven't quite gotten around to getting those jobs back, here's some cuts to services that have been helping you while you look for a job."
"Umm, OK. It'll be great when I get that $30/hr job tho!"
...
...
...
...
...
"Hello?"
...
...
...
"Umm you promised jobs, where are they?"
"Turns out this stuff is harder than we thought. If you vote for us again this time I'm SURE we'll get you those $30/hr jobs right away!"


I am not saying that people are forced to rely on safety nets. But I am saying that government's solution more and more is to just take things over, compelling people to rely on them rather than helping enable people to take care of themselves.

And did I not distinguish between the fact that what has been promised is not being followed up on effectively? Or at all? It still leaves the choice as one between promising increased dependence and keeping that promise or promising more opportunities to be independent and being horrible at doing anything about that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
So if you are a voter who is being given a choice between increasing government dependence and being good at keeping their promises to do so, or promising greater independence but being horrible at keeping their promises, which choice should they go for? Yes, we are in a no-win situation.

If only that was the actual choice being presented. Again, if you actually ask voters why they are voting for parties, most of them do not do it based on such basic economic or "freedom" issues as you claim.

I'd argue that a very high percentage of Republicans, as in, well above 50%, vote Republican either because they identify as a Republican or because of social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and so on. It isn't about being dependent on the government as you claim, for most voters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.