9 ms·
> Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place. If you don't think rural Amer
by coolso 5y ago
> Yet snd still it’s rural America that’s subsidized by those “filthy cities” where all of the economic activity is taking place.
If you don't think rural America would trade those subsidies in the blink of an eye for the dissolution of those cities into their own separate union or something, you really don't know rural America.
> But why should the minority get to dictate policies if the majority?
Because a few pinprick-sized geographical locations overflowing with millions of people who think that's how everyone should live / does live (it's not) shouldn't get to dictate the policies of the entire rest of the country that is living in relative peace and comfort away from such overpopulated, crime-ridden areas with extremely high costs of living and an overall terrible QoL. Look at any US-wide election map, by county; see how few areas are truly blue. The homogeneous state of southern California should not get to decide how the rest of us live/suffer.
The founders knew what they were doing.
- sudosysgen 5y agoWhatever they would do is irrelevant. If those things did happen, farmers would go into bankruptcy en masse and be utterly financially ruined. Whether they know this or not isn't relevant.
- pnutjam 5y agoThere has never been a "rural" empire. You're basically advocating a return to serfdom. Breaking the links between cities and rural areas will just strand people in rural areas. Cities will get fed, they have the people and the might. The current system is way more beneficial to rural people then any alternative.
- scarface74 5y agoRural America gets far more from the federal government than their taxes pay for. Heck the only reason rural America has internet or before that phone lines is because of government mandates and taxes added on to phone bills Z