Can Anything Be Done to Assuage Rural Rage?

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Thank you - I noted the same. Urban areas are islands of blue local governance in red states.
Paul Krugman is not taken seriously by most people outside the liberal bubble in which he dwells; he’s a man who behaves like a victim scarred from a childhood being the kid bullied on the playground when interviewed.
He has been successful posing as an economist while in reality he’s an ultra liberal political activist.

Agree or disagree with him he’s pretty highly regarded in the field of economics, so not sure your opinion is the final word.

Also - and I know it will make your head explode - Krugman writes/influences the AP Econ textbook. Maybe you could email Ron and give him something else to go to war over.

 

[hawkedoff]

Can Anything Be Done to Assuage Rural Rage?- Looks like he answer is no....​

You belong in jail

 

[ThorneStockton]

Lol at the idea that someone has to have lived or spent enough time in rural America to be able to interpret the data about rural America.

Good to know for the next time people are scared of Chicago violence or the terrors or any communist urban environment.

Let me guess, the cancer doc has to have had cancer before too?

 

[goldmom]

Agree or disagree with him he’s pretty highly regarded in the field of economics, so not sure your opinion is the final word.

Also - and I know it will make your head explode - Krugman writes/influences the AP Econ textbook. Maybe you could email Ron and give him something else to go to war over.

I did acknowledge that he’s regarded in certain circles more than others - I don’t disagree.

 

[hawkedoff]

Lol at the idea that someone has to have lived or spent enough time in rural America to be able to interpret the data about rural America.

Good to know for the next time people are scared of Chicago violence or the terrors or any communist urban environment.

Let me guess, the cancer doc has to have had cancer before too?

Oh is that what he is doing? Yeah it really isnt....

 

[ThorneStockton]

Oh is that what he is doing? Yeah it really isnt....

Yeah, he's opining or perhaps pontificating on observable phenomena that is largely underpinned by data. If you didn't have such a massive chip on your shoulder, it would be apparent. Instead of actually disputing any of the claims or analysis, you've just ranted and raged.

As the Republican Party has moved ever further into MAGAland, it has lost votes among educated suburban voters; but this has been offset by a drastic rightward shift in rural areas

Do you deny this claim?

This week my colleague Thomas B. Edsall surveyed research on the rural Republican shift. I was struck by his summary of work by Katherine J. Cramer, who attributes rural resentment to perceptions that rural areas are ignored by policymakers, don’t get their fair share of resources and are disrespected by “city folks.”

Is this research and conclusions flawed? The bolded should resonate.

It’s not just farm subsidies, which ballooned under Donald Trump to the point where they accounted for around 40 percent of total farm income.

Is his data inaccurate?

In terms of resources, major federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because such areas have a disproportionate number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare.

Is this inaccurate or misleading? Data off?

rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans to be on Medicaid and receive food stamps.

Is this data BS?

And because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays much less per person in federal taxes,

Not data? And the rest.

Government and the so-called health care and social assistance sector each employ more people in rural America than agriculture

hanging economy has increasingly favored metropolitan areas with large college-educated work forces over small towns.

he rural working-age population has been declining

Rural men in their prime working years are much more likely than their metropolitan counterparts to not be working

 

[hawkedoff]

Yeah, he's opining or perhaps pontificating on observable phenomena that is largely underpinned by data. If you didn't have such a massive chip on your shoulder, it would be apparent. Instead of actually disputing any of the claims or analysis, you've just ranted and raged.



Do you deny this claim?



Is this research and conclusions flawed? The bolded should resonate.



Is his data inaccurate?



Is this inaccurate or misleading? Data off?



Is this data BS?



Not data? And the rest.

Link? You give his statements way to much credence and accept his claims at face value. Which of course.means he gets to set the narrative on interpretation.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Link? You give his statements way to much credence and accept his claims at face value. Which of course.means he gets to set the narrative on interpretation.

Many of them are linked, feel free to verify what he says that they say. Of course, that wasn't the point anyhow, the point is that he was interpreting data/results/metrics. Something you said that he wasn't doing. Of course, that was easily proven to be nonsense, simply by reading the piece.

And yes, of course he sets the narrative on the interpretation, he is the writer of the opinion. That is literally the point and purpose.

 

[hawkedoff]

Many of them are linked, feel free to verify what he says that they say. Of course, that wasn't the point anyhow, the point is that he was interpreting data/results/metrics. Something you said that he wasn't doing. Of course, that was easily proven to be nonsense, simply by reading the piece.

And yes, of course he sets the narrative on the interpretation, he is the writer of the opinion. That is literally the point and purpose.

Sure thing. I believe the technical term I used is that he is a twit. I was correct. I checked the data. See how easy that was?

Krugman is a partisan tool that builds bullshir arguments cherry picking data. He is a tool and plays to other twits.

An east coast liberal upper East side twit opening about the serfs in the rural outer lands and how they don't know what is good for them.

Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?

 

[ThorneStockton]

Sure thing. I believe the technical term I used is that he is a twit. I was correct. I checked the data. See how easy that was?

Krugman is a partisan tool that builds bullshir arguments cherry picking data. He is a tool and plays to other twits.

An east coast liberal upper East side twit opening about the serfs in the rural outer lands and how they don't know what is good for them.

Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?

Yeah, you've said all that before. Yet you never actually dispute what Krugman says, it's hard to believe you read it, and if you did, it's clear you didn't comprehend it. Just stunted by the chip on your shoulder, seemingly in love with the idea that other people - urban elites or whoever you imagine - loathe and look down on you, probably helps to justify your hatred for them.


"Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?"

This doesn't make any sense. Make the attempt, demonstrate that Krugman is saying rural people don't know enough to know what is good for them. Because that's not what his piece is about, you just want it to be.

The corollary would be: "Can anything be done to assuage the suburban weariness?"

 

[hawkedoff]

Yeah, you've said all that before. Yet you never actually dispute what Krugman says, it's hard to believe you read it, and if you did, it's clear you didn't comprehend it. Just stunted by the chip on your shoulder, seemingly in love with the idea that other people - urban elites or whoever you imagine - loathe and look down on you, probably helps to justify your hatred for them.


"Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?"

This doesn't make any sense. Make the attempt, demonstrate that Krugman is saying rural people don't know enough to know what is good for them. Because that's not what his piece is about, you just want it to be.

The corollary would be: "Can anything be done to assuage the suburban weariness?"

You are so.full of shit. Right in the opening:

The answer will depend on two things: whether it’s possible to improve rural lives and restore rural communities, and whether the voters in these communities will give politicians credit for any improvements that do take place


Because restoring rural communities will help democrats right? Explain it away genius and try not to be so full of shit

 

[ThorneStockton]

You are so.full of shit. Right in the opening:

The answer will depend on two things: whether it’s possible to improve rural lives and restore rural communities, and whether the voters in these communities will give politicians credit for any improvements that do take place


Because restoring rural communities will help democrats right? Explain it away genius and try not to be so full of shit

Which of course isn't this:

"Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?"

At all.

I know you want it to be, I know you need to feel like the condescending coastal elites look down their noses at you. Got to have a reason to rage.

What a sad existence.

 

[torbee]

Sure thing. I believe the technical term I used is that he is a twit. I was correct. I checked the data. See how easy that was?

Krugman is a partisan tool that builds bullshir arguments cherry picking data. He is a tool and plays to other twits.

An east coast liberal upper East side twit opening about the serfs in the rural outer lands and how they don't know what is good for them.

Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?

Haha, you’re STILL mad. 😂

Spending a week ranting in a thread about rural rage to try to debunk the concept of rural rage.

Gotta hand it to you, that is second level irony.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Yeah, Doff....the article isn't helpful, but there is some truth in it.

Personally I think its caused by the way of life in the rural areas disappearing. You have some people feeling adrift in economic and cultural forces they cant control.

 

[hawkedoff]

Haha, you’re STILL mad. 😂

Spending a week ranting in a thread about rural rage to try to debunk the concept of rural rage.

Gotta hand it to you, that is second level irony.

Not mad torbee. You are projecting again like the good little narcissist you are

 

[Roooodolph]

The answer is no. People have forgotten what the farm crisis of the 1980s devastated rural towns and they never recovered. You can argue Carter was partly responsible with grain embargoes during the cold war, but world wide inflation was a problem as well.

The other issue is globalization. That isn't any party's policy. The world is much smaller now and it's much easier for corporations do what they want with their business. Republicans want deregulation with big tax breaks and incentives. That's not helping. It's much easier to move business to Mexico for a cheaper workers. Factories close and people blame the union democrats. The reality is republicans don't hold the corporations responsible and their big tax breaks are given on the backs of Americans. Look at KS Governor Brownback's tax cuts did for trickle down effects. It nearly destroyed the KS economy.

When Pepsi bought Quaker Oats in Cedar Rapids, they wanted lower wages. Workers didn't want pay cuts so they threatened to strike. Pepsi countered and said they were closing the plant and moving to Mexico. The unions took a small pay cut but then negotiated a contract that said future employees would start at a much lower wage, thus ensuring their children would not do as well as their parents. That's the plight in America. Hits rural areas much harder where there aren't alternative jobs or industries.

Eroding populations, aging populations, brain drain, etc lead to an eroding tax base. Lower tax base effects home values and property taxes. Those in turn effect quality of schools. This is why Iowa is dropping in education. Reynolds voucher for private schools won't help rural Iowa. There aren't alternative schools in small towns. They will only erode decent schools in the cities. It was an intentional dig on Democrats.

Republicans also disparage immigrants. Those are the people willing to move back to small towns due to cheaper housing. Some of that population is keeping the towns afloat. Their tax dollars go into schools, their spending keeps the local store open, etc.

Interestingly, though, the left champions addressing climate change, included in this is working “backwards” to more localized economies, to the benefit, of course, if those negatively impacted by globalization.

It’s all so unbelievably twisted.

 

[torbee]

Not mad torbee. You are projecting again like the good little narcissist you are

Keep flicking

 

[hawkedoff]

Keep flicking

Whatever that means. Just how.much narcissistic supply does this board provide for you daily? Your feelings of inadequacy get addressed through therapy yet?

 

[srams21]

Sure thing. I believe the technical term I used is that he is a twit. I was correct. I checked the data. See how easy that was?

Krugman is a partisan tool that builds bullshir arguments cherry picking data. He is a tool and plays to other twits.

An east coast liberal upper East side twit opening about the serfs in the rural outer lands and how they don't know what is good for them.

Tell me wise one could we substitute rural with inner city black people and opine about how they don't know enough to know what is good for them?

You seem pretty insecure about this rural stuff.

 

[hawkedoff]

You seem pretty insecure about this rural stuff.

Lol. Sure.

 

[torbee]

Whatever that means. Just how.much narcissistic supply does this board provide for you daily? Your feelings of inadequacy get addressed through therapy yet?

Flick it! Flick it! Feels so good!!

 

[pjhawk]

Umm sorry but it's pretty common among liberals to insult rural areas. Maybe the politicians zip their lips about insulting rural areas better than most but that doesn't change the fact that many liberals also blatently look down on rural areas.

Republican politicians and rightwing media openly attack and deride urban "blue" America. Yet you never see a liberal or Democrat EVER claim that's the reason they vote the say they do.

 

[hawkedoff]

Flick it! Flick it! Feels so good!!

You need help

 

[kwik44]

The red state/blue state thing has become a joke. Country is in big big trouble.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Which party runs those cities? That’s more relevant than who runs the state….

Then the f'n states run by GOP governors should stop bitching about the feds. Your logic...such as it is.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You look down on people from rural areas torbee as do most of.your liberal friends. You devalue them and think their values are on the wrong side of history whatever the hell that means.

Right here is the problem. Values? Like good roads? Like health care? Nooooo...not THOSE values. Exactly what "values" are you talking about?

The GOP excels at promising people they can have everything they want...including tax cuts.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Link? You give his statements way to much credence and accept his claims at face value. Which of course.means he gets to set the narrative on interpretation.

So. Disprove. One.

Should be a simple task.

 

[torbee]

You need help

You need anger management. For your rural rage.

 

[hawkedoff]

You need anger management. For your rural rage.

Ok narcissist

 

[torbee]

Ok narcissist

You should just admit you are a little embarrassed that everyone in this thread for the most part is disagreeing with you and can see you are, indeed, quite angry.

Projecting insults at me that are non-sensical in nature is just more evidence of that obvious fact.

I do appreciate you continually bumping the thread though, that has been quite amusing.

 

[joelbc1]

Farm net income has exceeded all prior years in 2021-22 under Biden.
Farmers seem to resent Democratic pols despite the fact that they do better under dem presidents. Prior record net income came in 2010-2012 under Obama.
Farmers always claim they want to earn their income thru open markets rather than a handout from the govt....like the 40 billion Trump gave them due to loss of markets after Trump's trade war w China.
Under Biden they are getting what they claim to want...still dislike him....this leaves progressives wondering what motivates these voters. Not looking down on them, just confused .....not the same

By and large, historically, farmers do better when Dems are in control. Maybe not ag industries, I honestly don't know....but FARMERS (ranchers) fare better with Dems.....but vote consistently for Repubbers.

 

[ThorneStockton]

By and large, historically, farmers do better when Dems are in control. Maybe not ag industries, I honestly don't know....but FARMERS (ranchers) fare better with Dems.....but vote consistently for Repubbers.

Do better, how? Economically?

Even if there are measurements that show that is true, that's also not the only reason to prefer a certain party.


There's lots and lots of rich Democrats who would "do better" economically with lower taxes and fewer regulatory costs under Republican leadership yet they prefer Democrats.

 

[joelbc1]

Do better, how? Economically?

Even if there are measurements that show that is true, that's also not the only reason to prefer a certain party.


There's lots and lots of rich Democrats who would "do better" economically with lower taxes and fewer regulatory costs under Republican leadership yet they prefer Democrats.

The inference here being "by doing better" Dems have provided policies and price supports that help keep farmers in business, thereby helping them out economically, as opposed to classic "market driven" practices. An example today that might benefit cattle ranchers/livestock farmers today might be "market prices" for their product.....there are tremendous profits in these products that are realized by the processor, wholesaler and retailer, but the producers most common co plaint is they cannot sell their product at a sufficient profit to the processor. .

 

[ThorneStockton]

The inference here being "by doing better" Dems have provided policies and price supports that help keep farmers in business, thereby helping them out economically, as opposed to classic "market driven" practices. An example today that might benefit cattle ranchers/livestock farmers today might be "market prices" for their product.....there are tremendous profits in these products that are realized by the processor, wholesaler and retailer, but the producers most common co plaint is they cannot sell their product at a sufficient profit to the processor. .

Got it, I figured that's what you meant. Do you agree that there are other aspects to consider when choosing a party to support besides just economical ones?

 

[joelbc1]

Got it, I figured that's what you meant. Do you agree that there are other aspects to consider when choosing a party to support besides just economical ones?

In America's case, this would also include equal access to to all the rights guaranteed to our citizens. I just wish there was a way to educate the masses on their responsibilities as a citizen. These "responsibilities" are are more important than the rights "we" clamor for.