5 ms·

Honest question: why do many of these communities continue to vote for “pull yourselves up from your bootstraps” conservative politicians and reject “help a man

Honest question: why do many of these communities continue to vote for “pull yourselves up from your bootstraps” conservative politicians and reject “help a man when he’s down” progressive politicians? It seems what these communities need is a helping hand, better educational options, and healthcare safety nets.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cheez 7y ago
You're thinking about it the wrong way. They vote for people who promise not to take even more from them.
Sojuwa 7y ago
Not exactly excited to jump at the party that unfairly blanket paints of them as redneck white supremacist Nazi idiots. Doubly so since they masquerade as intersectional saviors of humanity while doing so.
torstenvl 7y ago
There are a large number of assumptions to unpack in your question. Most key, I think, is the mapping between progressive proposals and helping people when they're down. If I'm a rural American farmer or miner, how does it help me to require me to buy health insurance or pay a fine? How does it help me to tax me so that the future white collar and management classes of the American populace can owe less in student debt? The problem isn't just that the rural poor don't act in their own best interests. It's also that the coastal rich are extremely presumptuous about what other people's interests are.
- conception 7y ago
  Well.. First - when you buy that Heath insurance, if you're poor or poorish, it's heavily subsidized. Of course, it might have been free but a number of red States didn't expand Medicare. But yes, it may cost you money because Oabamacare was step 1 and was always planned to be tweaked but well... We've seen how political discourse has gone. But medical bankruptcies have fallen tremendously with Obamacare. That's why you have to pay because it'll save you if you're unlucky. Just like social security. Re:free college - why do you think rural areas couldn't benefit from free college? Less, more expensive education isn't going to help. And the people that need to pay for it are the ones destroying your neighborhoods and city centers (aka the Walton family and their ilk) The lack of investment in their people and empathy for their people of Midwest governments is what's killing them, not costal elitism. The green new deal is a perfect example of the sort of investment it needs. But they'll fight it because winning is all that matters, people's lives be damned.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    "Heavily subsidized" is relative. The people being forced to pay a hefty bill every month aren't comforted by being reminded that the bill could be higher. You're conflating college and education. That is exactly the kind of elitism that the rural poor interpret as a personal attack. I know you don't mean it as such, and I know most people who say similar things as you're saying similarly don't mean it that way, but that's how it's received.* When I talk about empathy, that is what I mean - understanding others' perspectives and feelings. And no, "free" college does not help the working class, though it may help their children if they're lucky enough to benefit from the limited upward mobility in this country. There is a baseline number of jobs in the trades and service industries that need to be filled, they don't require a college degree, and for the people going into those jobs, getting a "free" college degree will only incur opportunity costs and additional taxes. * In understanding this anger, it's useful to understand the effect of childhood poverty on stress response. "By age five, the lower a child’s socioeconomic status, on the average, the (a) higher the basal glucocorticoid levels and/ or the more reactive the glucocorticoid stress response, (b) the thinner the frontal cortex and the lower its metabolism, and (c) the poorer the frontal function concerning working memory, emotion regulation, impulse control, and executive decision making; moreover, to achieve equivalent frontal regulation, lower-SES kids must activate more frontal cortex than do higher-SES kids." Robert Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst 195 (Kindle edition: Penguin Press 2017) (citing, inter alia, S. J. Lupien et al., Effects of Stress Throughout the Lifespan on the Brain, Behaviour and Cognition, 10 Nat'l Rev. Neuroscience 434 (2009); D. Hackman et al., Socioeconomic Status and the Brain: Mechanistic Insights from Human and Animal Research, 11 Nat'l Rev. Neuroscience 651 (2010); M. Sheridan et al., The Impact of Social Disparity on Prefrontal Function in Childhood, 7 Pub. Libr. Sci. One e35744 (2012); I. Liberzon et al., Childhood Poverty Alters Emotional Regulation in Adulthood, 10 Soc. Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience 1596 (2015)).
  - masonic 7y ago
    it might have been free "Free". No, not free -- paid for by other taxpayers, at full retail cost for the provider. but a number of red States didn't expand Medicare If you don't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, perhaps broad policy comments should be avoided.
shijie 7y ago
There was a reply to your question that was phrased poorly and thus downvoted, but largely held some truth: Eventually, one gets tired of being called a racist bigot when one’s ideas of beneficial government policy are not in line with the progressive way of thinking. I grew up in a very conservative state and I have surmised that this served the basis of why so many people voted for Trump. I did not, and it bewildered me when he won, but I get it now: when all you hear are ad hominem attacks leveled at you, AND you’re economically in a tight spot, then why not pick the angry orange man that fights back, even if he’s a buffoon sometimes; at least he fights back.
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  Thanks for your (and sibling) responses. This is a new perspective I usually don't given living on the coasts. I'd love to hear what is the general view in these areas on what should be done. I'll admit I have a closed mindset here, thinking that 1. Expanded education would improve opportunities by expanding the jobs one qualifies for 2. Healthcare coverage would allow folks to take risks with businesses, study, etc. I also dont understand how reducing taxes for the uber rich helps...i'm hearing that the economy in these areas is not well and unemployment high, so why are folks adamant to not raise taxes for the rich? And if trickle down...doesn't the present state suggest it hasn't trickled down? I'm very interested to hear, what do folks think will help? I'll admit that whatever happened in 2009-2016 did not help. However, neither did what happened in 2001-2008, nor 2016-now. What could I help to advocate for that would help, without making presumptuous assumptions about needs?
  - cheez 7y ago
    In my opinion even your suggestions are steeped in ignorance. Education is not the be all end all. Not everyone wants to be in STEM or be highly educated. Some want to work with their hands. Out of the people currently declared, Andrew Yang understands these people very well. No, they don't need yet another bureaucratic program, just give them a basic amount of money unconditionally and they'll figure out the best use for themselves.
  - houseofrep 7y ago
mindslight 7y ago
It stands to reason that being able to provide for themselves is the thing they're missing the most.
bensonn 7y ago
"Help" isn't always helpful. Healthcare- ~50k per year means mandatory $300/month for the "benefit" of an $8,000 deductible plan, or for many people you pay $300 per month for the "benefit" of paying all your own medical expenses. If the income drops to $40,000 per year then you only have to pay $150 per month for the coverage. Unless your medical bills are more than $12,000 (monthly + deductible) paying the fine/tax/penalty is cheaper. Come April, writing a $1000 check to the IRS isn't helpful. You almost have to hope to be really poor or really sick to get an actual benefit. The worst off 5% may benefit. The top 5% may benefit (well-off techies that want to leave an employer and create a startup app but still have benefits) but the middle 90% who are somewhat healthy and make average (40-50k) incomes pay more for "help" they hopefully never need. Many people don't view "help a man when he's down" as working that way. The success of food stamps is based on how many people are on the program, not how many people are helped off the program. Subsidizing overpriced tuition doesn't lower tuition, it raises tuition while moving and hiding the true cost. Medicare and medicaid are the probably the biggest reasons why healthcare is so expensive. Does spending millions on tent cities really solve a homeless problem? Public schools already cost $10,000+ per student per year- is more money really what is needed? These aren't questions looking for answers but when "help" is viewed through this lens it may explain why many people prefer the "leave me and my money alone" approach instead of the "tax me more for these great solutions" approach.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > The success of food stamps is based on how many people are on the program, not how many people are helped off the program Has anyone done this analysis?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cheez 7y ago

You're thinking about it the wrong way. They vote for people who promise not to take even more from them.

Sojuwa 7y ago

Not exactly excited to jump at the party that unfairly blanket paints of them as redneck white supremacist Nazi idiots. Doubly so since they masquerade as intersectional saviors of humanity while doing so.

torstenvl 7y ago

There are a large number of assumptions to unpack in your question. Most key, I think, is the mapping between progressive proposals and helping people when they're down. If I'm a rural American farmer or miner, how does it help me to require me to buy health insurance or pay a fine? How does it help me to tax me so that the future white collar and management classes of the American populace can owe less in student debt? The problem isn't just that the rural poor don't act in their own best interests. It's also that the coastal rich are extremely presumptuous about what other people's interests are.

conception 7y ago
Well.. First - when you buy that Heath insurance, if you're poor or poorish, it's heavily subsidized. Of course, it might have been free but a number of red States didn't expand Medicare. But yes, it may cost you money because Oabamacare was step 1 and was always planned to be tweaked but well... We've seen how political discourse has gone. But medical bankruptcies have fallen tremendously with Obamacare. That's why you have to pay because it'll save you if you're unlucky. Just like social security. Re:free college - why do you think rural areas couldn't benefit from free college? Less, more expensive education isn't going to help. And the people that need to pay for it are the ones destroying your neighborhoods and city centers (aka the Walton family and their ilk) The lack of investment in their people and empathy for their people of Midwest governments is what's killing them, not costal elitism. The green new deal is a perfect example of the sort of investment it needs. But they'll fight it because winning is all that matters, people's lives be damned.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  "Heavily subsidized" is relative. The people being forced to pay a hefty bill every month aren't comforted by being reminded that the bill could be higher. You're conflating college and education. That is exactly the kind of elitism that the rural poor interpret as a personal attack. I know you don't mean it as such, and I know most people who say similar things as you're saying similarly don't mean it that way, but that's how it's received.* When I talk about empathy, that is what I mean - understanding others' perspectives and feelings. And no, "free" college does not help the working class, though it may help their children if they're lucky enough to benefit from the limited upward mobility in this country. There is a baseline number of jobs in the trades and service industries that need to be filled, they don't require a college degree, and for the people going into those jobs, getting a "free" college degree will only incur opportunity costs and additional taxes. * In understanding this anger, it's useful to understand the effect of childhood poverty on stress response. "By age five, the lower a child’s socioeconomic status, on the average, the (a) higher the basal glucocorticoid levels and/ or the more reactive the glucocorticoid stress response, (b) the thinner the frontal cortex and the lower its metabolism, and (c) the poorer the frontal function concerning working memory, emotion regulation, impulse control, and executive decision making; moreover, to achieve equivalent frontal regulation, lower-SES kids must activate more frontal cortex than do higher-SES kids." Robert Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst 195 (Kindle edition: Penguin Press 2017) (citing, inter alia, S. J. Lupien et al., Effects of Stress Throughout the Lifespan on the Brain, Behaviour and Cognition, 10 Nat'l Rev. Neuroscience 434 (2009); D. Hackman et al., Socioeconomic Status and the Brain: Mechanistic Insights from Human and Animal Research, 11 Nat'l Rev. Neuroscience 651 (2010); M. Sheridan et al., The Impact of Social Disparity on Prefrontal Function in Childhood, 7 Pub. Libr. Sci. One e35744 (2012); I. Liberzon et al., Childhood Poverty Alters Emotional Regulation in Adulthood, 10 Soc. Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience 1596 (2015)).
- masonic 7y ago
  it might have been free "Free". No, not free -- paid for by other taxpayers, at full retail cost for the provider. but a number of red States didn't expand Medicare If you don't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, perhaps broad policy comments should be avoided.

shijie 7y ago

There was a reply to your question that was phrased poorly and thus downvoted, but largely held some truth: Eventually, one gets tired of being called a racist bigot when one’s ideas of beneficial government policy are not in line with the progressive way of thinking. I grew up in a very conservative state and I have surmised that this served the basis of why so many people voted for Trump. I did not, and it bewildered me when he won, but I get it now: when all you hear are ad hominem attacks leveled at you, AND you’re economically in a tight spot, then why not pick the angry orange man that fights back, even if he’s a buffoon sometimes; at least he fights back.

TuringNYC 7y ago
Thanks for your (and sibling) responses. This is a new perspective I usually don't given living on the coasts. I'd love to hear what is the general view in these areas on what should be done. I'll admit I have a closed mindset here, thinking that 1. Expanded education would improve opportunities by expanding the jobs one qualifies for 2. Healthcare coverage would allow folks to take risks with businesses, study, etc. I also dont understand how reducing taxes for the uber rich helps...i'm hearing that the economy in these areas is not well and unemployment high, so why are folks adamant to not raise taxes for the rich? And if trickle down...doesn't the present state suggest it hasn't trickled down? I'm very interested to hear, what do folks think will help? I'll admit that whatever happened in 2009-2016 did not help. However, neither did what happened in 2001-2008, nor 2016-now. What could I help to advocate for that would help, without making presumptuous assumptions about needs?
- cheez 7y ago
  In my opinion even your suggestions are steeped in ignorance. Education is not the be all end all. Not everyone wants to be in STEM or be highly educated. Some want to work with their hands. Out of the people currently declared, Andrew Yang understands these people very well. No, they don't need yet another bureaucratic program, just give them a basic amount of money unconditionally and they'll figure out the best use for themselves.
- houseofrep 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

It stands to reason that being able to provide for themselves is the thing they're missing the most.

bensonn 7y ago

"Help" isn't always helpful. Healthcare- ~50k per year means mandatory $300/month for the "benefit" of an $8,000 deductible plan, or for many people you pay $300 per month for the "benefit" of paying all your own medical expenses. If the income drops to $40,000 per year then you only have to pay $150 per month for the coverage. Unless your medical bills are more than $12,000 (monthly + deductible) paying the fine/tax/penalty is cheaper. Come April, writing a $1000 check to the IRS isn't helpful. You almost have to hope to be really poor or really sick to get an actual benefit. The worst off 5% may benefit. The top 5% may benefit (well-off techies that want to leave an employer and create a startup app but still have benefits) but the middle 90% who are somewhat healthy and make average (40-50k) incomes pay more for "help" they hopefully never need. Many people don't view "help a man when he's down" as working that way. The success of food stamps is based on how many people are on the program, not how many people are helped off the program. Subsidizing overpriced tuition doesn't lower tuition, it raises tuition while moving and hiding the true cost. Medicare and medicaid are the probably the biggest reasons why healthcare is so expensive. Does spending millions on tent cities really solve a homeless problem? Public schools already cost $10,000+ per student per year- is more money really what is needed? These aren't questions looking for answers but when "help" is viewed through this lens it may explain why many people prefer the "leave me and my money alone" approach instead of the "tax me more for these great solutions" approach.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> The success of food stamps is based on how many people are on the program, not how many people are helped off the program Has anyone done this analysis?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]