Voting against interests

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Of course, that's a problem. Isn't the solution to limit campaign contributions as that solves this problem and most of the other problems people point out about big campaign contributions controlling policy? Why argue that big contributions negatively impact America AND we cannot limit big campaign contributions.

Agree. We would be better off if government officials weren't getting bribed with large donations.

I would limit contributions greatly and also put a stop to paid advertising that is more based on lying about the opposition than anything helpful. Let a nonpartisan entity put a web page up for all candidates running for office and limit the content to displaying the candidate's views and what they would do if elected. Advertising on tv and such could run through the non-partisan entity and just provide those details and compare and contrast the candidates that are running against each other just the facts. But of course that will never happen.

 

[bawlmer]

There is a reason why the sugar and soft drink industries spends billion on lobbyists. Candy, soft drinks, sugar coated cereal can all be purchased with food stamps. Supplements like vitamins, iron, and lutein are verboten.

I suspect billions is an exaggeration - but I agree this kind of influence and even mission creep is a problem with many government programs.

BUT, what you described is not a problem of the left. Quite the opposite.

 

[NPT]

While that may be true, we then cannot complain about government's role in obesity and then oppose the government's attempt to combat obesity.

CO frequently comments on the obesity problem, clearly seeing it as a problem. At the same time he hated Obama's solution and posted frequently about how we had to have cupcakes in school classrooms. That line is so fine to walk an electron microscope can't see it.

If childhood obesity is a problem, serving sweetened milk with chicken fried steak and mashed potatoes with a cake is a problem. Griping at the government for trying to solve childhood obesity is like griping at the guy handing out pink lifeboats on the Titanic.

I think that problem has to be solved at home. I think CO gripes because the government thinks it can solve all problems by inserting itself into the middle of everything. Now if we could get parents to teach their kids to eat healthy then the government would have a role to supply healthy food at school. And if kids would learn to entertain themselves with something besides a video game or smartphone. But that has to be done at home also except I would be fine with schools banning smartphones at school (maybe that is already the rule.... I don't know)

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

One of the chapters of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk is online, it was a Vanity Fair article. It details the story of someone moving from Kurachi to Edinboro, PA and what he does when he grows up.

Edinboro is a small town of under 7000 between Cleveland and Buffalo. It is a fairly poor town, and Ali Zaidi's family was poorer than most. But the area is heavily Republican, and he was a Republican. He does transform into a Democrat. Some excerpts from that:

If you had asked Ali, before he went to New Orleans, what he thought of people who didn’t help themselves, he would have said, “My parents had to start all over again. What’s the big deal? Just suck it up.” The sight of little kids post-Katrina jolted him. “It kind of blew my mind: if you are in kindergarten you should at least get a fair shot. It was just eye-opening: to see how much your geography could determine the opportunities available to you.”​

​

Now he sensed that poverty came in many flavors. He’d been lucky to have his particular parents and his particular community. He was reminded of the first time he’d run on a track with spikes. “You just fly on the track.” The poor kids he saw in New Orleans were trying to run the same race in life that he was. But he was wearing spikes and they weren’t. “There’s a real idealism that you have to indulge to think that people in New Orleans were now going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. There were no bootstraps.”​

​

Then it gets into his time in the Department of Agriculture:

A small fraction of its massive annual budget ($164 billion in 2016) was actually spent on farmers, but it financed and managed all these programs in rural America—including the free school lunch for kids living near the poverty line. “I’m sitting there looking at this,” said Ali. “The U.S.D.A. had subsidized the apartment my family had lived in. The hospital we used. The fire department. The town’s water. The electricity. It had paid for the food I had eaten.”​

​

Trump really worked to slash the USDA. And the citizens of Edinboro largely voted for Trump as did rural people around the country. Yet without the USDA much of rural America would struggle to feed their kids (school lunch), pay for new homes (FHA loans), rent apartments (USDA-financed Rural Rental Housing or Farm Labor Housing projects), have police (USDA Rural Development Funding) , or fire protection (also USDA Rural Development).

Is it that people in places like Edinboro really don't want all that? Or are they just unaware of what the government really does? Let's remember, the lower-middle class aren't paying massive taxes. People taking advantage of reduced school lunch, getting FHA loans, or needing help to buy a fire truck largely are consuming more tax money than they pay.

Below is the article, it is the chapter in the book I just finished. It isn't nearly as frightening as the chapter on the Department of Energy. But a quick look revealed it online.

Inside Trump’s Cruel Campaign Against the U.S.D.A.’s Scientists

When Trump’s political appointees arrived at the U.S.D.A., career employees were shocked by their new bosses’ lack of qualifications. Michael Lewis explores why Americans need to care.

www.vanityfair.com

Ive never really understood the "vote against financial interest" complaint. Don't you "vote against interests," too, if we are defining interests as financial? I know a lot of very wealthy liberals who do (I don't know if you are), if we are just looking at tax policy and welfare benefits.

To be rational, do poor people only have to vote for what financially benefits them and not what they think will benefit the nation at large? But rich people are rational when they vote for things against their interests? I've always thought that this seems like a very patronizing double standard.

I vote for what I think is in the best interests of the particular voting body to which I am electing someone, my own interests be damned.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ive never really understood the "vote against financial interest" complaint. Don't you "vote against interests," too, if we are defining interests as financial? I know a lot of very wealthy liberals who do (I don't know if you are), if we are just looking at tax policy and welfare benefits.

To be rational, do poor people only have to vote for what financially benefits them and not what they think will benefit the nation at large? But rich people are rational when they vote for things against their interests? I've always thought that this seems like a very patronizing double standard.

I vote for what I think is in the best interests of the particular voting body to which I am electing someone, my own interests be damned.

It isn't like people turn down benefits. He gave a story that the Ag Dept would go to rural towns with the giant checks saying US Dept of Agriculture. They wanted to display those checks at ribbon cutting ceremonies for health centers, fire and police stations, and the like built with federal money. In many areas, especially in the south, the mayors flat out refused to allow it. So people did not know the Feds were involved, or at least not as aware as they could be because it fits the one party rule there.

He gave a case of a dyed in the wool Republican businessman who got a bank loan to open up a manufacturing plant. At the announcement he railed against the government, he was a successful businessman doing things on his own. After he was introduced to an Ag employee, and he asked "what the hell are you doing here". The employee explained it was customary for a member of the department to attend such ceremonies when the department guarantees a loan. Yep, the bank would have turned him down but someone there contacted the Ag department who guaranteed it through their program to build jobs in rural America. I bet the guy did not walk back out and tell everyone he was wrong and the government helped make his dream come true.

The catch to this is people are voting against their interests and have no idea how much is spent propping up rural America. They don't know the only reason their town can survive is because the Feds believe rural America is worth keeping.

 

[UncleMark]

Few understand the importance of gov and the role gov plays in providing services we all take for granted. When some are critical of the gov it's not regarding that; it's regarding whether they are being good stewards of our money, and what we're getting for our taxes.

The catch to this is people are voting against their interests and have no idea how much is spent propping up rural America. They don't know the only reason their town can survive is because the Feds believe rural America is worth keeping.

Does anyone remember all the whining and wailing when the Republicans "shut down" the government?

You don't?

Oh, you might remember the whining and wailing, but I defy you to tell me how your lives were actually impacted to any extent.

The mail got delivered.
Planes kept flying.
SS checks kept arriving.
School lunches kept being served.
Bullets kept flying.
Courts kept trying.
...and on and on and on.

Maybe the next time that happens, we actually do shut the fvcker down, and I mean down. Then maybe people will start understanding what government actually does.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Does anyone remember all the whining and wailing when the Republicans "shut down" the government?

You don't?

Oh, you might remember the whining and wailing, but I defy you to tell me how your lives were actually impacted to any extent.

The mail got delivered.
Planes kept flying.
SS checks kept arriving.
School lunches kept being served.
Bullets kept flying.
Courts kept trying.
...and on and on and on.

Maybe the next time that happens, we actually do shut the fvcker down, and I mean down. Then maybe people will start understanding what government actually does.

i don't htink anyone (at least they shouldn't) should disregard the import of gov. gov obviously provides endless important services and has been pointed out provides services no one else will. for me it's the accountability and the cost. and it's not even a partisan think. both parties spend like drunks, just on some different stuff

 

[UncleMark]

i don't htink anyone (at least they shouldn't) should disregard the import of gov. gov obviously provides endless important services and has been pointed out provides services no one else will. for me it's the accountability and the cost. and it's not even a partisan think. both parties spend like drunks, just on some different stuff

My point is that doing a real shutdown would educate people. And it would make the politicians think twice about playing stupid games.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My point is that doing a real shutdown would educate people. And it would make the politicians think twice about playing stupid games.

Yeah, but if we did it for real for any length of time, the method of education would likely be the very visible collapse of our civilization.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah, but if we did it for real for any length of time, the method of education would likely be the very visible collapse of our civilization.

Which is the 5th risk (name of book).

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It isn't like people turn down benefits. He gave a story that the Ag Dept would go to rural towns with the giant checks saying US Dept of Agriculture. They wanted to display those checks at ribbon cutting ceremonies for health centers, fire and police stations, and the like built with federal money. In many areas, especially in the south, the mayors flat out refused to allow it. So people did not know the Feds were involved, or at least not as aware as they could be because it fits the one party rule there.

He gave a case of a dyed in the wool Republican businessman who got a bank loan to open up a manufacturing plant. At the announcement he railed against the government, he was a successful businessman doing things on his own. After he was introduced to an Ag employee, and he asked "what the hell are you doing here". The employee explained it was customary for a member of the department to attend such ceremonies when the department guarantees a loan. Yep, the bank would have turned him down but someone there contacted the Ag department who guaranteed it through their program to build jobs in rural America. I bet the guy did not walk back out and tell everyone he was wrong and the government helped make his dream come true.

The catch to this is people are voting against their interests and have no idea how much is spent propping up rural America. They don't know the only reason their town can survive is because the Feds believe rural America is worth keeping.

Lewis writes great anecdotes. They're very colorful. But is there data to support this notion generally? I'm skeptical because I think the Republicans who rail against Big Government and subsidies, etc. make damn sure to champion the services that benefit their districts. Republicans in rural districts vote to support federal pork for their people or they don't get elected. Do they do this despite their voters not knowing about it?

I agree with the general notions that people are hypocritical about issues (subsidies for me but not for thee), don't understand the full scope of government services or the risks it is managing (see Dept of Energy), and might not know where which level of the government is subsidizing them. I disagree that there is much evidence showing that rural voters vote more irrationally against their own interests than urban or suburban voters.

Also, I don't think pointing out someone's hypocrisy in taking a benefit he rails against shows he votes against his interest or that his vote is irrational: for example, I would vote for stop signs and support laws requiring full stops but frequently violate that law. I'm not voluntarily sending in $100 every time to the city. Does that make my support for the law irrational or against my overall interest? No. I want it to be used to stop people from blowing stop signs near my house. Does it make me a hypocrite? Yep.

Do you think wealthy, or upper middle-class people who vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes or give welfare to poorer people are voting against their interests? Do they not understand what is going on? Or do you believe they are making a noble sacrifice with their vote and putting country/society first? If the latter, why can't this be true for the rural voter as well?

By the way, I've got no dog in this fight and mostly am just not sold on the underlying narrative. I'm really not looking for a fight, but would like a debate or at least a look into how you and others think about these matters.

 

[stollcpa]

One of the chapters of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk is online, it was a Vanity Fair article. It details the story of someone moving from Kurachi to Edinboro, PA and what he does when he grows up.

Edinboro is a small town of under 7000 between Cleveland and Buffalo. It is a fairly poor town, and Ali Zaidi's family was poorer than most. But the area is heavily Republican, and he was a Republican. He does transform into a Democrat. Some excerpts from that:

If you had asked Ali, before he went to New Orleans, what he thought of people who didn’t help themselves, he would have said, “My parents had to start all over again. What’s the big deal? Just suck it up.” The sight of little kids post-Katrina jolted him. “It kind of blew my mind: if you are in kindergarten you should at least get a fair shot. It was just eye-opening: to see how much your geography could determine the opportunities available to you.”​

​

Now he sensed that poverty came in many flavors. He’d been lucky to have his particular parents and his particular community. He was reminded of the first time he’d run on a track with spikes. “You just fly on the track.” The poor kids he saw in New Orleans were trying to run the same race in life that he was. But he was wearing spikes and they weren’t. “There’s a real idealism that you have to indulge to think that people in New Orleans were now going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. There were no bootstraps.”​

​

Then it gets into his time in the Department of Agriculture:

A small fraction of its massive annual budget ($164 billion in 2016) was actually spent on farmers, but it financed and managed all these programs in rural America—including the free school lunch for kids living near the poverty line. “I’m sitting there looking at this,” said Ali. “The U.S.D.A. had subsidized the apartment my family had lived in. The hospital we used. The fire department. The town’s water. The electricity. It had paid for the food I had eaten.”​

​

Trump really worked to slash the USDA. And the citizens of Edinboro largely voted for Trump as did rural people around the country. Yet without the USDA much of rural America would struggle to feed their kids (school lunch), pay for new homes (FHA loans), rent apartments (USDA-financed Rural Rental Housing or Farm Labor Housing projects), have police (USDA Rural Development Funding) , or fire protection (also USDA Rural Development).

Is it that people in places like Edinboro really don't want all that? Or are they just unaware of what the government really does? Let's remember, the lower-middle class aren't paying massive taxes. People taking advantage of reduced school lunch, getting FHA loans, or needing help to buy a fire truck largely are consuming more tax money than they pay.

Below is the article, it is the chapter in the book I just finished. It isn't nearly as frightening as the chapter on the Department of Energy. But a quick look revealed it online.

Inside Trump’s Cruel Campaign Against the U.S.D.A.’s Scientists

When Trump’s political appointees arrived at the U.S.D.A., career employees were shocked by their new bosses’ lack of qualifications. Michael Lewis explores why Americans need to care.

www.vanityfair.com

Yet without the USDA much of rural America would struggle to feed their kids (school lunch), pay for new homes (FHA loans), rent apartments (USDA-financed Rural Rental Housing or Farm Labor Housing projects), have police (USDA Rural Development Funding) , or fire protection (also USDA Rural Development).

I’ve lived in rural America most of my life. They aren’t struggling to feed their kids, pay for new homes nor rent apartments.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yet without the USDA much of rural America would struggle to feed their kids (school lunch), pay for new homes (FHA loans), rent apartments (USDA-financed Rural Rental Housing or Farm Labor Housing projects), have police (USDA Rural Development Funding) , or fire protection (also USDA Rural Development).

I’ve lived in rural America most of my life. They aren’t struggling to feed their kids, pay for new homes nor rent apartments.

Soooo....thank you, USDA?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Do you think wealthy, or upper middle-class people who vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes or give welfare to poorer people are voting against their interests? Do they not understand what is going on? Or do you believe they are making a noble sacrifice with their vote and putting country/society first? If the latter, why can't this be true for the rural voter as well?

In the chapter, the guy who lived in Edinboro noted all the benefits he had received many years after he received them. I think most Democrats who vote to raise taxes know they are voting to raise their taxes. It is easy and straight forward, Biden said what, raise taxes on everyone making over $200,000. Not very hard to know.

It may be the poor rural people are being noble. It may be that they are perfectly aware of every dollar that flows into their community from the federal government. But given only like 37% of all Americans know the name of their representative it seems unlikely they know all the benefits.

Some polling was done. 23.9% of Americans say we spend too little on welfare but 67.9% say we spend too little on aid to the poor. Doesn't this poll show the disconnect?

I think my idea gains support by rural support of things like farm subsidies and ethanol. Farm subsidies have tremendous support in rural communities and it is very easy to understand and see the money rolling in. By nature there is not some county commissioner standing by to take credit for getting all the money like for a new health center. Isn't there a huge disconnect between fighting hard for farm subsidies and opposing all other rural spending on the principle that the government needs out of our lives? Isn't paying one not to grow a crop government interference in free market? Yet try to cut the program and see who complains.

There are numbers in this Kaiser poll of interest. It is a poll of rural Americans. The number 1 concern, lack of jobs. Taxes, tied for 9th at 2%. If rural Americans were knowingly voting against self interests, wouldn't taxes be much higher? Aren't lower taxes the reason they oppose Agriculture grants to create jobs in rural America? Or do they just not know those grants are happening?

One person in the book says there are counties with no other external sources of income, no employers from outside the county, no money coming in except what Ag sends in (or programs like social security). Those counties voted Trump. I am curious what rational one sees in that. When one their votes to kill the only funding, what do they think will happen to them? The most direct comparison I have is I support being annexed into Bloomington. I do not "want" to pay more taxes, but I would if annexed. So what I expect to happen if my vote gets its way is I will have to reduce $80 or so of spending each month. I can do that. To a person living in a county where the only income is from the government, what do you think they expect to happen if their county loses that money? Or is it more likely, they do not know?

 

[stollcpa]

Soooo....thank you, USDA?

For what?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For what?

For all the things you mentioned, obviously.

 

[stollcpa]

For all the things you mentioned, obviously.

We both must be having trouble sleeping.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We both must be having trouble sleeping.

The CDC says 1 in 3 adults don't get enough sleep. See, the government has you covered. .

CDC Newsroom

Press releases, advisories, telebriefings, transcripts and archives.

www.cdc.gov

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In the chapter, the guy who lived in Edinboro noted all the benefits he had received many years after he received them. I think most Democrats who vote to raise taxes know they are voting to raise their taxes. It is easy and straight forward, Biden said what, raise taxes on everyone making over $200,000. Not very hard to know.

It may be the poor rural people are being noble. It may be that they are perfectly aware of every dollar that flows into their community from the federal government. But given only like 37% of all Americans know the name of their representative it seems unlikely they know all the benefits.

Some polling was done. 23.9% of Americans say we spend too little on welfare but 67.9% say we spend too little on aid to the poor. Doesn't this poll show the disconnect?

I think my idea gains support by rural support of things like farm subsidies and ethanol. Farm subsidies have tremendous support in rural communities and it is very easy to understand and see the money rolling in. By nature there is not some county commissioner standing by to take credit for getting all the money like for a new health center. Isn't there a huge disconnect between fighting hard for farm subsidies and opposing all other rural spending on the principle that the government needs out of our lives? Isn't paying one not to grow a crop government interference in free market? Yet try to cut the program and see who complains.

There are numbers in this Kaiser poll of interest. It is a poll of rural Americans. The number 1 concern, lack of jobs. Taxes, tied for 9th at 2%. If rural Americans were knowingly voting against self interests, wouldn't taxes be much higher? Aren't lower taxes the reason they oppose Agriculture grants to create jobs in rural America? Or do they just not know those grants are happening?

One person in the book says there are counties with no other external sources of income, no employers from outside the county, no money coming in except what Ag sends in (or programs like social security). Those counties voted Trump. I am curious what rational one sees in that. When one their votes to kill the only funding, what do they think will happen to them? The most direct comparison I have is I support being annexed into Bloomington. I do not "want" to pay more taxes, but I would if annexed. So what I expect to happen if my vote gets its way is I will have to reduce $80 or so of spending each month. I can do that. To a person living in a county where the only income is from the government, what do you think they expect to happen if their county loses that money? Or is it more likely, they do not know?

I'll focus on your last questions re the poor counties and hope it can be used to extrapolate an answer to the others:

The rural voter in your example might be voting for Trump because he sees the underlying reason for there being no business/economy in his region as the results of policies pushed by the two parties over the last 30+ years that pushed globalization. Maybe that county used to have a factory nearby and now it is gone, for example, to Mexico. Many human beings value the dignity of work and want jobs, not welfare.

Trump spoke to those people and ran a campaign against the "global elites" and traditional two-party system. And Clinton did everything she could to play into the trope of the Ivy League/Washington elite who look down their noses as these people and want to give money rather than understanding the value of jobs. A lot of those people might have been raised on the notion that one doesn't take handouts and they need to work for what they have, and now find themselves ashamed, hopeless, and stuck. They've seen no one who acted like they even cared about them in politics, then along comes this "amazing businessman" who talks like them to a degree and promises them he's going to get their jobs back.

I've crafted a narrative here, I realize, but from what I've read of polling, discussions I've had with people who live in similar communities, etc., I think this narrative just as likely as Lewis's that these people have no clue where most of their benefits come from and if they did, they'd vote Democratic.

Which brings up a critique of Lewis that might or might not be apt: he seems to love to interview these government/scientist/trader/exec types, who have their own narratives about why normal people act a certain way. But when has he ever gone and interviewed the normal people to get a sense of if they really think like that? I bet if he did, for every government type that had an anecdote about someone not knowing he was getting a govt benefit, he'd find one with rural people talking about these things in a way that has nothing to do with money, not because they don't know where it is coming from, but because that isn't the main reason they vote (I don't think it's the main reason most people vote).

By the way, you seem to really like Lewis's writing (as do I; he's still by far my favorite non-fiction author of all-time). If you haven't read the Undoing Project, do so! It's about Kahnemann and Tversky and I really loved his stories of their lives and personalities. (I have reservations about how he tackled their work, although it's a good primer).

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'll focus on your last questions re the poor counties and hope it can be used to extrapolate an answer to the others:

The rural voter in your example might be voting for Trump because he sees the underlying reason for there being no business/economy in his region as the results of policies pushed by the two parties over the last 30+ years that pushed globalization. Maybe that county used to have a factory nearby and now it is gone, for example, to Mexico. Many human beings value the dignity of work and want jobs, not welfare.

Trump spoke to those people and ran a campaign against the "global elites" and traditional two-party system. And Clinton did everything she could to play into the trope of the Ivy League/Washington elite who look down their noses as these people and want to give money rather than understanding the value of jobs. A lot of those people might have been raised on the notion that one doesn't take handouts and they need to work for what they have, and now find themselves ashamed, hopeless, and stuck. They've seen no one who acted like they even cared about them in politics, then along comes this "amazing businessman" who talks like them to a degree and promises them he's going to get their jobs back.

I've crafted a narrative here, I realize, but from what I've read of polling, discussions I've had with people who live in similar communities, etc., I think this narrative just as likely as Lewis's that these people have no clue where most of their benefits come from and if they did, they'd vote Democratic.

Which brings up a critique of Lewis that might or might not be apt: he seems to love to interview these government/scientist/trader/exec types, who have their own narratives about why normal people act a certain way. But when has he ever gone and interviewed the normal people to get a sense of if they really think like that? I bet if he did, for every government type that had an anecdote about someone not knowing he was getting a govt benefit, he'd find one with rural people talking about these things in a way that has nothing to do with money, not because they don't know where it is coming from, but because that isn't the main reason they vote (I don't think it's the main reason most people vote).

By the way, you seem to really like Lewis's writing (as do I; he's still by far my favorite non-fiction author of all-time). If you haven't read the Undoing Project, do so! It's about Kahnemann and Tversky and I really loved his stories of their lives and personalities. (I have reservations about how he tackled their work, although it's a good primer).

My experience in rural communities in Illinois and Missouri mirrors yours perfectly as to both values/ethic and what appealed to them about trump. Well-stated. There could be a difference between guys running factories/plants in rural towns vs farmers tho

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'll focus on your last questions re the poor counties and hope it can be used to extrapolate an answer to the others:

The rural voter in your example might be voting for Trump because he sees the underlying reason for there being no business/economy in his region as the results of policies pushed by the two parties over the last 30+ years that pushed globalization. Maybe that county used to have a factory nearby and now it is gone, for example, to Mexico. Many human beings value the dignity of work and want jobs, not welfare.

Trump spoke to those people and ran a campaign against the "global elites" and traditional two-party system. And Clinton did everything she could to play into the trope of the Ivy League/Washington elite who look down their noses as these people and want to give money rather than understanding the value of jobs. A lot of those people might have been raised on the notion that one doesn't take handouts and they need to work for what they have, and now find themselves ashamed, hopeless, and stuck. They've seen no one who acted like they even cared about them in politics, then along comes this "amazing businessman" who talks like them to a degree and promises them he's going to get their jobs back.

I've crafted a narrative here, I realize, but from what I've read of polling, discussions I've had with people who live in similar communities, etc., I think this narrative just as likely as Lewis's that these people have no clue where most of their benefits come from and if they did, they'd vote Democratic.

Which brings up a critique of Lewis that might or might not be apt: he seems to love to interview these government/scientist/trader/exec types, who have their own narratives about why normal people act a certain way. But when has he ever gone and interviewed the normal people to get a sense of if they really think like that? I bet if he did, for every government type that had an anecdote about someone not knowing he was getting a govt benefit, he'd find one with rural people talking about these things in a way that has nothing to do with money, not because they don't know where it is coming from, but because that isn't the main reason they vote (I don't think it's the main reason most people vote).

By the way, you seem to really like Lewis's writing (as do I; he's still by far my favorite non-fiction author of all-time). If you haven't read the Undoing Project, do so! It's about Kahnemann and Tversky and I really loved his stories of their lives and personalities. (I have reservations about how he tackled their work, although it's a good primer).

Your premise cannot be discounted without polling and I do not know what polling exists. But using farmers demanding subsidies and ethanol, the idea that a government program that helps me is vital and one that helps you is a waste sounds very plausible.

My experience in rural communities in Illinois and Missouri mirrors yours perfectly as to both values/ethic and what appealed to them about trump. Well-stated. There could be a difference between guys running factories/plants in rural towns vs farmers tho

Years ago I read a quote that's premise has stuck with me. The idea is that most Americans would rather discuss their hatred of the NY Yankees than politics. I will suggest history as well.

My point, using Lewis, is people do not know how government is helping them. Do you really think all these people are sitting at home researching the federal monies coming in?

Our disdain of politics makes soundbite politics work. It is far easier to hold up a newspaper headline than explain the details of a grant program.

An example in the book, in the 2016 debates Rick Perry listed DoE as an agency that needed shut down. From his outside view, they were just this crazy organization working on green energy. The vast majority of their budget goes to guarding our nuclear arsenal and power, cleaning up nuclear waste in places like Hanford, procuring black market nuclear material to prevent it from falling into bad hands, and using sensors at places like the Super Bowl to detect a dirty bomb. After Perry was head for a while he admitted to his staff there he was wrong, DoE is critical.

How many Americans have studied DoE and know that green energy is a small part of what they do.

I will be honest, I did not know all the items the US government sends to rural America. Why should I, which news organizations are going to delve deep into the Department of Agriculture and break out how their spending helps rural communities. Would you watch that news program? My guess is it would be more sleep producing than soccer.

But someone standing up yelling "regulations", that gets attention. People hear it and immediately know what it is and know it's bad. Simple, to the point, a working soundbite.

Read about the Hanford nuclear site. 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of it as hot as Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is flowing, slowly, to the Columbia River. Ask yourself why that county voted Trump. Trump cut the budget for Hanford, and that county has statistically higher rates of lymphoma and other conditions. Are people really so self-sacrificing they will let their kids get lymphoma?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your premise cannot be discounted without polling and I do not know what polling exists. But using farmers demanding subsidies and ethanol, the idea that a government program that helps me is vital and one that helps you is a waste sounds very plausible.


Years ago I read a quote that's premise has stuck with me. The idea is that most Americans would rather discuss their hatred of the NY Yankees than politics. I will suggest history as well.

My point, using Lewis, is people do not know how government is helping them. Do you really think all these people are sitting at home researching the federal monies coming in?

Our disdain of politics makes soundbite politics work. It is far easier to hold up a newspaper headline than explain the details of a grant program.

An example in the book, in the 2016 debates Rick Perry listed DoE as an agency that needed shut down. From his outside view, they were just this crazy organization working on green energy. The vast majority of their budget goes to guarding our nuclear arsenal and power, cleaning up nuclear waste in places like Hanford, procuring black market nuclear material to prevent it from falling into bad hands, and using sensors at places like the Super Bowl to detect a dirty bomb. After Perry was head for a while he admitted to his staff there he was wrong, DoE is critical.

How many Americans have studied DoE and know that green energy is a small part of what they do.

I will be honest, I did not know all the items the US government sends to rural America. Why should I, which news organizations are going to delve deep into the Department of Agriculture and break out how their spending helps rural communities. Would you watch that news program? My guess is it would be more sleep producing than soccer.

But someone standing up yelling "regulations", that gets attention. People hear it and immediately know what it is and know it's bad. Simple, to the point, a working soundbite.

Read about the Hanford nuclear site. 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of it as hot as Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is flowing, slowly, to the Columbia River. Ask yourself why that county voted Trump. Trump cut the budget for Hanford, and that county has statistically higher rates of lymphoma and other conditions. Are people really so self-sacrificing they will let their kids get lymphoma?

How would the Democrats stop the problems at Hanford? That’s where almost all of it is taken now.

Obama killed the safest, most practical, and least expensive, nuclear storage for the sake of Nevada electoral votes. So there is that.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Your premise cannot be discounted without polling and I do not know what polling exists. But using farmers demanding subsidies and ethanol, the idea that a government program that helps me is vital and one that helps you is a waste sounds very plausible.


Years ago I read a quote that's premise has stuck with me. The idea is that most Americans would rather discuss their hatred of the NY Yankees than politics. I will suggest history as well.

My point, using Lewis, is people do not know how government is helping them. Do you really think all these people are sitting at home researching the federal monies coming in?

Our disdain of politics makes soundbite politics work. It is far easier to hold up a newspaper headline than explain the details of a grant program.

An example in the book, in the 2016 debates Rick Perry listed DoE as an agency that needed shut down. From his outside view, they were just this crazy organization working on green energy. The vast majority of their budget goes to guarding our nuclear arsenal and power, cleaning up nuclear waste in places like Hanford, procuring black market nuclear material to prevent it from falling into bad hands, and using sensors at places like the Super Bowl to detect a dirty bomb. After Perry was head for a while he admitted to his staff there he was wrong, DoE is critical.

How many Americans have studied DoE and know that green energy is a small part of what they do.

I will be honest, I did not know all the items the US government sends to rural America. Why should I, which news organizations are going to delve deep into the Department of Agriculture and break out how their spending helps rural communities. Would you watch that news program? My guess is it would be more sleep producing than soccer.

But someone standing up yelling "regulations", that gets attention. People hear it and immediately know what it is and know it's bad. Simple, to the point, a working soundbite.

Read about the Hanford nuclear site. 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of it as hot as Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is flowing, slowly, to the Columbia River. Ask yourself why that county voted Trump. Trump cut the budget for Hanford, and that county has statistically higher rates of lymphoma and other conditions. Are people really so self-sacrificing they will let their kids get lymphoma?

Your premise cannot be discounted without polling and I do not know what polling exists. But using farmers demanding subsidies and ethanol, the idea that a government program that helps me is vital and one that helps you is a waste sounds very plausible.


Years ago I read a quote that's premise has stuck with me. The idea is that most Americans would rather discuss their hatred of the NY Yankees than politics. I will suggest history as well.

My point, using Lewis, is people do not know how government is helping them. Do you really think all these people are sitting at home researching the federal monies coming in?

Our disdain of politics makes soundbite politics work. It is far easier to hold up a newspaper headline than explain the details of a grant program.

An example in the book, in the 2016 debates Rick Perry listed DoE as an agency that needed shut down. From his outside view, they were just this crazy organization working on green energy. The vast majority of their budget goes to guarding our nuclear arsenal and power, cleaning up nuclear waste in places like Hanford, procuring black market nuclear material to prevent it from falling into bad hands, and using sensors at places like the Super Bowl to detect a dirty bomb. After Perry was head for a while he admitted to his staff there he was wrong, DoE is critical.

How many Americans have studied DoE and know that green energy is a small part of what they do.

I will be honest, I did not know all the items the US government sends to rural America. Why should I, which news organizations are going to delve deep into the Department of Agriculture and break out how their spending helps rural communities. Would you watch that news program? My guess is it would be more sleep producing than soccer.

But someone standing up yelling "regulations", that gets attention. People hear it and immediately know what it is and know it's bad. Simple, to the point, a working soundbite.

Read about the Hanford nuclear site. 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of it as hot as Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is flowing, slowly, to the Columbia River. Ask yourself why that county voted Trump. Trump cut the budget for Hanford, and that county has statistically higher rates of lymphoma and other conditions. Are people really so self-sacrificing they will let their kids get lymphoma?

I think you're overstating the help most rural communities are receiving. i know nothing about farmers but have learned a fair amount about small town businesses. From my experience the biggest boon to local communities comes through city/county abatements for properties etc. some even gift the land. The biggest obstacle is gov regs. I get that they are impt but city tax county tax business licenses federal tax payroll tax workers comp insurance FLSA OT rules Fing up peak season work on and on far outweighs any benefit businesses are receiving from feds. And the businesses employ people and that's what these people want. Jobs. Not support.

https://gwipp.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2181/f/downloads/Counting%20for%20Dollars%233%20Federal%20Funds%20for%20Rural%20America%2012-18.pdf

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How would the Democrats stop the problems at Hanford? That’s where almost all of it is taken now.

Obama killed the safest, most practical, and least expensive, nuclear storage for the sake of Nevada electoral votes. So there is that.

All we have is a slow grinding cleanup. Mainly because no one is going to pump a trillion into a faster cleanup.

One of the members of a native tribe, that supports the slow cleanup, said that it is a difference in cultures. America is under 250 years old, a 50 to 100 year cleanup sounds like too long of a time. His tribe has been there 13,000 years and plan to be there as long as they and the land exist. 50 to 100 years doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think you're overstating the help most rural communities are receiving. i know nothing about farmers but have learned a fair amount about small town businesses. From my experience the biggest boon to local communities comes through city/county abatements for properties etc. some even gift the land. The biggest obstacle is gov regs. I get that they are impt but city tax county tax business licenses federal tax payroll tax workers comp insurance FLSA OT rules Fing up peak season work on and on far outweighs any benefit businesses are receiving from feds. And the businesses employ people and that's what these people want. Jobs. Not support.

https://gwipp.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2181/f/downloads/Counting%20for%20Dollars%233%20Federal%20Funds%20for%20Rural%20America%2012-18.pdf

Yes, and programs are there to create jobs. Small towns losing populations may be tough to attract bank financing for a business. I wonder how many small businesses start because of these programs but the employees are never told

How to Get Rural Small Business Grants - Small Business Funding

Find out how you can get a rural business grant to help get your small business going and participate in the rural development of your area.

www.smallbusinessfunding.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, and programs are there to create jobs. Small towns losing populations may be tough to attract bank financing for a business. I wonder how many small businesses start because of these programs but the employees are never told

How to Get Rural Small Business Grants - Small Business Funding

Find out how you can get a rural business grant to help get your small business going and participate in the rural development of your area.

www.smallbusinessfunding.com

I suspect less than you think. Most federal lending is an onerous pain in the ass. The application requirements sound the same. Again I can only speak to certain factories but in the dozen communities I've participated the cost of regs and doing biz far outweighs any help from the fed gov.

My friend just opened a factory in rural Illinois. They make construction gear. The city gave him a free building and abatements. That was the impetus. i've never heard anyone of these factories owners mention the fed gov other than to bitch

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yes, and programs are there to create jobs. Small towns losing populations may be tough to attract bank financing for a business. I wonder how many small businesses start because of these programs but the employees are never told

How to Get Rural Small Business Grants - Small Business Funding

Find out how you can get a rural business grant to help get your small business going and participate in the rural development of your area.

www.smallbusinessfunding.com

Going back to what @BradStevens said, this is how quite a few of those rural voters would view the idea that government money is helping attract businesses.

That is not a right or left thing either, there are policies that both parties have enacted that have helped to hollow out "flyover country".

Take the farm subsidies for instance. There to help the private farmer right? Wrong. Between 1995 and 2019, the top 10% of recipients received 78% of the $223.5 billion in subsidies doled out. That is the government favoring large corporate farms and putting small farmers out of business.

Subsidies go to the best rent seekers. And the best rent seekers tend to be Corporate America.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I suspect less than you think. Most federal lending is an onerous pain in the ass. The application requirements sound the same. Again I can only speak to certain factories but in the dozen communities I've participated the cost of regs and doing biz far outweighs any help from the fed gov

In 2020, $1.6 billion was given out in one category of business support. Add the other categories and it gets to $2 billion in business. That is straight jobs, the chart also lists water treatment plants, power, medicine, public safety.

Do people in rural areas want to drink sewage? Probably not, so we shouldn't discount that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/RD_2020_FundingNumbers_120420.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA5PDtveXyAhXPxZ4KHdA8Aw0QFnoECDEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2k19GXI333xnuxVa9ZAqg5

 

[mcmurtry66]

In 2020, $1.6 billion was given out in one category of business support. Add the other categories and it gets to $2 billion in business. That is straight jobs, the chart also lists water treatment plants, power, medicine, public safety.

Do people in rural areas want to drink sewage? Probably not, so we shouldn't discount that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/RD_2020_FundingNumbers_120420.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA5PDtveXyAhXPxZ4KHdA8Aw0QFnoECDEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2k19GXI333xnuxVa9ZAqg5

Agreed on all the service related dough

 

[larsIU]

My guess is it would be more sleep producing than soccer

To be fair I’d have probably rather read the Dept of Ags budget detail than watch the US draw El Salvador 0-0 the other night.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

My point, using Lewis, is people do not know how government is helping them. Do you really think all these people are sitting at home researching the federal monies coming in?

I agree, he makes this point very well.

I'd also argue that most people--including (especially?) a lot of liberals--don't understand how government or its policies hurt them or the world. And very few people, especially among the well educated, grasp exactly how large unintended consequences can be when they introduce a new program or market-altering program.

In fact, that might be one crude way to generally define a liberal vs. a conservative: liberals focus overwhelmingly on what a government program can do to solve a problem while a conservative focuses overwhelmingly on the notion that govt can't solve that problem (it might even be unsolvable) and even if it moves the needle, the unintended consequences of implementing the policy might dwarf any good you might do.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree, he makes this point very well.

I'd also argue that most people--including (especially?) a lot of liberals--don't understand how government or its policies hurt them or the world. And very few people, especially among the well educated, grasp exactly how large unintended consequences can be when they introduce a new program or market-altering program.

In fact, that might be one crude way to generally define a liberal vs. a conservative: liberals focus overwhelmingly on what a government program can do to solve a problem while a conservative focuses overwhelmingly on the notion that govt can't solve that problem (it might even be unsolvable) and even it moves the needle, the unintended consequences of implementing the policy might dwarf any good you might do.

The problem is there is no good way to discuss things. I have no realistic way of combing the federal budget for specific success stories. Others have no realistic way of combing every regulation for the bad ones.

Even then, we might not know the success story had a dark side or the regulation really stopped a disaster.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The problem is there is no good way to discuss things. I have no realistic way of combing the federal budget for specific success stories. Others have no realistic way of combing every regulation for the bad ones.

Even then, we might not know the success story had a dark side or the regulation really stopped a disaster.

I think you can discuss it. It’s why politics and policy is infinitely complex (and so, interesting). But it is nigh impossible to be certain about anything. So we should be humble. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Some polling was done. 23.9% of Americans say we spend too little on welfare but 67.9% say we spend too little on aid to the poor. Doesn't this poll show the disconnect?

That poll shows that many people distinguish between the terms "welfare" and "assistance for the poor."

The author points out all kinds of interpretations for why that may be (some contradictory). He even posits that some voters are "correctly" distinguishing between things like direct cash payments to people and public housing, and favor the latter over the former.

Notably, it doesn't appear anyone did a follow-up poll asking people to distinguish the two terms. Instead, people are just speculating about what it could mean. This is why most political/social science polling, I think, is so worthless.

Read about the Hanford nuclear site. 56 million gallons of nuclear waste, some of it as hot as Chernobyl or Fukashima. It is flowing, slowly, to the Columbia River. Ask yourself why that county voted Trump. Trump cut the budget for Hanford, and that county has statistically higher rates of lymphoma and other conditions. Are people really so self-sacrificing they will let their kids get lymphoma?

You are drawing a direct line between voting for Trump and "letting their kids get lymphoma." I think that is wildly unwarranted.

Regarding the voters and the history of that site, I'd offer this: maybe those voters, if they are voting single-issue on just Hanford (again, why do they have to be single issue voters but you or I do not?), maybe they are thinking one or some combo of the following:

1. The history of the site and the screwups date back to 1943, running across Dem and Repub admins. Time to kick the establishment bums out and see if this wildcard will do something about the problem (Trump didn't run on this issue or discuss it, I'm assuming).

2. The DOE has been in charge with running this place, and look at all this contamination, maybe a private party would do better and be safer (since they would go bankrupt had they done this; as it is, no one is accountable for a giant environmental disaster because it has been run by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats).

3. The DOE management of the site has actually been worse under Democratic leadership than Republican, or Democratic admins lie about what they are going to do/have done more than the Republican.

4. Trump might cut our funding, but he's an amazing businessman, astute about proper allocations of capital and resources, and really good at picking smart people to put in charge (Omarossa!) and his people will spend the money more wisely. (This is obviously tongue in cheek, but it points out that voters making fact-based errors about the abilities of a candidate are wrong, but they are not illogical or irrational or voting against their interest).

Note, I'm not saying I agree with any of these statements and have no idea if they are factually true. But they are logical, rationale reasons voters might vote for Trump or any other candidate who is generally in favor of deregulation or even talks about cutting funding to that particular project.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That poll shows that many people distinguish between the terms "welfare" and "assistance for the poor."

The author points out all kinds of interpretations for why that may be (some contradictory). He even posits that some voters are "correctly" distinguishing between things like direct cash payments to people and public housing, and favor the latter over the former.

Notably, it doesn't appear anyone did a follow-up poll asking people to distinguish the two terms. Instead, people are just speculating about what it could mean. This is why most political/social science polling, I think, is so worthless.


You are drawing a direct line between voting for Trump and "letting their kids get lymphoma." I think that is wildly unwarranted.

Regarding the voters and the history of that site, I'd offer this: maybe those voters, if they are voting single-issue on just Hanford (again, why do they have to be single issue voters but you or I do not?), maybe they are thinking one or some combo of the following:

1. The history of the site and the screwups date back to 1943, running across Dem and Repub admins. Time to kick the establishment bums out and see if this wildcard will do something about the problem (Trump didn't run on this issue or discuss it, I'm assuming).

2. The DOE has been in charge with running this place, and look at all this contamination, maybe a private party would do better and be safer (since they would go bankrupt had they done this; as it is, no one is accountable for a giant environmental disaster because it has been run by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats).

3. The DOE management of the site has actually been worse under Democratic leadership than Republican, or Democratic admins lie about what they are going to do/have done more than the Republican.

4. Trump might cut our funding, but he's an amazing businessman, astute about proper allocations of capital and resources, and really good at picking smart people to put in charge (Omarossa!) and his people will spend the money more wisely. (This is obviously tongue in cheek, but it points out that voters making fact-based errors about the abilities of a candidate are wrong, but they are not illogical or irrational or voting against their interest).

Note, I'm not saying I agree with any of these statements and have no idea if they are factually true. But they are logical, rationale reasons voters might vote for Trump or any other candidate who is generally in favor of deregulation or even talks about cutting funding to that particular project.

On Hanford, Trump wanted to cut it. It is not a different management strategy. Not cleaning up is not the same as clean up differently. On something like Hanford, someone wants to try a new cleanup, great. Someone wants no cleanup, that isn't open for debate. We just flat out cannot solve the problem doing less

 

[Sope Creek]

On Hanford, Trump wanted to cut it. It is not a different management strategy. Not cleaning up is not the same as clean up differently. On something like Hanford, someone wants to try a new cleanup, great. Someone wants no cleanup, that isn't open for debate. We just flat out cannot solve the problem doing less

Yep. An alternative strategy is what happened at the nuclear cleanup at Rocky Flats, and that alternative strategy was conceived and implemented by a government official. If that strategy would be useful at Hanford, there's no reason why someone wouldn't have done so.

My guess? The folks in Washington near Hanford are tired of living with it and just want to ignore the reality of its existence. They'd rather trade dealing with Hanford responsibly for a few months or years of pretending it's not there.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

On Hanford, Trump wanted to cut it. It is not a different management strategy. Not cleaning up is not the same as clean up differently. On something like Hanford, someone wants to try a new cleanup, great. Someone wants no cleanup, that isn't open for debate. We just flat out cannot solve the problem doing less

Is there support for the notion that the Trump administration wanted to end all clean up (or campaigned on it)? From these pretty legitimate looking sources, that doesn't appear to be true:

Critics decry proposed cuts in Hanford nuclear cleanup plan

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Advocates for cleaning up a former nuclear weapons production site in Washington state are outraged that the Trump administration is proposing a $700 million budget cut next year.

apnews.com

Hanford Progress Shows Trump Administration’s Commitment to Environmental Management

A summary of accomplishments at the Hanford Site since 2017

www.energy.gov

In the AP article, it states that "Trump and previous presidents have routinely proposed cutting the Hanford budget, which have been opposed by the state’s congressional delegation." That statement is pretty strong support for the notion that the Hanford residents might think the govt (or politicians from both parties who get elected President) has been screwing them for a long time.

 

[Sope Creek]

Is there support for the notion that the Trump administration wanted to end all clean up (or campaigned on it)? From these pretty legitimate looking sources, that doesn't appear to be true:

Critics decry proposed cuts in Hanford nuclear cleanup plan

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Advocates for cleaning up a former nuclear weapons production site in Washington state are outraged that the Trump administration is proposing a $700 million budget cut next year.

apnews.com

Hanford Progress Shows Trump Administration’s Commitment to Environmental Management

A summary of accomplishments at the Hanford Site since 2017

www.energy.gov

Why would Trump have had to campaign on something in order for him to support and implement that policy?

You claim to have read The Fifth Risk; had you done so you wouldn't be making such a silly assertion. Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with. Of course, neither he nor his appointees knew nothing about what the government really did . . . and had no interest in finding out. Like Mc, they presumed they knew it all because they'd nodded heads with like-minded folks for years, and got comfortable with their ignorance. Just ask Rick Perry . . . .

My take is that Trump only knew he wanted to implement a "kill the beast" GOP strategy rather than actually govern.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Why would Trump have had to campaign on something in order for him to support and implement that policy?

You claim to have read The Fifth Risk; had you done so you wouldn't be making such a silly assertion. Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with. Of course, neither he nor his appointees knew nothing about what the government really did . . . and had no interest in finding out. Like Mc, they presumed they knew it all because they'd nodded heads with like-minded folks for years, and got comfortable with their ignorance. Just ask Rick Perry . . . .

My take is that Trump only knew he wanted to implement a "kill the beast" GOP strategy rather than actually govern.

Lmao the info is readily there. published by actual gov websites. You're being duped into presuming you know more than you do ... from an author you like who comports with your feelings/beliefs that gov is good. that's just your feelings. not really based on anything again other than an author you like - who is an author and a financial guy.

i was part owner of a business in licking missouri. as rural america as it gets. we've spent countless hours in rural america working with factory owners. as brad stevens noted the regs from the gov and the aggravation from the gov far outweigh any benefit we got from them. now we run a factory outside of rolla. same drill. and the people there don't want gov handouts. they want jobs. your bias is showing, along with your newfound presumed knowledge from an author i trust neither studied gov, works in gov, has applied for gov loans/contracts nor lives/works in rural america - but has strong, biased feelings that comport with yours.

this is in keeping about your nonsense of a dearth of gov waste. i was just watching a documentary on 9/11 where the guy charged with spending oversight in Afghanistan was going on and on about the wasted billions in Afghanistan. buying billions of dollars worth of planes from italy that literally didn't fly. spending 36 million on goats to make cashmere. ridiculous stuff.

yawn - your bias is on display. want to know how the fed gov works? try resolving an issue with the IRS. try going through the federal product procurement contract process. go visit a VA hospital

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why would Trump have had to campaign on something in order for him to support and implement that policy?

You claim to have read The Fifth Risk; had you done so you wouldn't be making such a silly assertion. Trump's whole approach to government is that it's bad, and deserves to be done away with. Of course, neither he nor his appointees knew nothing about what the government really did . . . and had no interest in finding out. Like Mc, they presumed they knew it all because they'd nodded heads with like-minded folks for years, and got comfortable with their ignorance. Just ask Rick Perry . . . .

My take is that Trump only knew he wanted to implement a "kill the beast" GOP strategy rather than actually govern.

You touch on my take so far in 5th, and in life in general. Traditional real conservatives (William F Buckley, Ike) want a working functional small government. Populists want a failing government to no government.

I can gladly discuss and debate issues with conservatives, we disagree on degrees but we agree up is up and down is down. Trump populists come in with up is blue and down is kale (so do Bernie populists). So it becomes impossible. Which is where I disagree with Brad. I know no way to have meaningful dialog with up is blue and down is kale.

So Trump and his supporters have purposely elected to reject everything we have built. The know Nothings, gold standard, Bircher lineage has long existed and until Trump, thoroughly repudiated.