re: RE: Election Results in VA, KY, LA; Are We Seeing The 1st Effect of Shifting Demographics?

quote:

---

I agree. National defense should be added, too.

I really don't think too many conservatives are against any type of government, but I have encountered one such kook recently.


PS - I'm an Independent who despises the Republican Party, too. Too many bought-and-paid-for Establishment hacks like Romney and Ryan in that party. But just like you, I'm forced to vote for Republicans because the Democrats have basically become a party for those who hate America. I sure as hell can't support that.

---

I appreciate the civil response. You are Correct, the U.S. Constitution clearly says the Federal Government has the power to levy taxes and excise taxes to pay the National Debt, pay for the Common National Defense and general welfare of the country.

So National Defense is a no brainer. Where people get into disagreements is promoting the general welfare. That is a subjective term not defined so what someone think is the general welfare will be different from someone else. For example, as a Pro-Life Catholic, I in no way in hell think the Federal Government should be subsidizing abortion or euthansia. That is my belief. There are some far left DEMS in LA, San Francisco, Seattle, NYC, DC who think the Federal Government should do such things.

So like you, I as an Independent, will lean to voting Republican by default for President given all Republicans support the Hyde Amendment, even those who are pro-Choice, which forbids the Federal Government from using tax revenue to pay for abortion and assisted suicide, etc.

My issues with the Republican party began with Bush 1 and Free Trade and NAFTA, which Bill Clinton pushed through and got passed. 35 years later, we have to as a country realize that being able to buy cheap products from oversees (I mean how many shirts, pants, socks, does anyone really need) has come at the expense of many, many of our fellow Americans jobs and wage growth.

The other thing that did me in with the Republican party was the Neocon policy of Bush-Cheny, Rumsfield, etc that started this regime change interventionist foreign Policy in the middle east. I got tired of seeing rich elites send off young americans to die in wars that the rich would not send their kids to fight in. All the people here bitching about the Black vote going for JBE, about 19% of the US. Armed forces are Black Americans, which is higher than their % of the population. Most of the others are white kids from the South and Midwest and Latino's from Texas or Florida, etc. Trump to his credit fired Bolton (Bush-Neocon) and trusted his instincts, correctly, not to start more regime change wars in the middle east.

So like you, I vote Republican almost all the time by default. Anyway, here are 2 articles on structural changes in the Economy since the Free Trade policy by the DC elites took place in the early 90's. The Harvard Business Review article does a good job laying out the facts and does cite trade policy as one of the major culprits, some of their solutions I agree with, some not so much, but they don't suggest a change in trade policy. Trump is correct on this, IMO, although his means to do so I sometimes question.

LINK

LINK

Cheers and thinks for the civil response, that is lacking here with many folks

quote:

---

One would think, but you would be surprised.


Thanks for the links. I'll check them out later.

---

Your welcome, both are well written policy articles on the impact of structural changes in the U.S. Economy going back to the start of the Free Trade era. Both of them will get you to think about the issues.

quote:

---

I don’t know enough about Kentucky.

---

You can read my analysis here LINK

quote:

---

National defense should be added, too.

---

Within reason...

500 billion to 750 billion in a single year is insane.

Same can be said for higher education where spending is increased with no accountability to what is actually being bought.

The wealth of a country is based on efficient transportation for trade and has been that way throughout history. (Roman roads of yesterday to modern highways in China as examples) However, does a million dollar (contract bid price) stretch of highway tuning to 35 million in a single year make sense when the taxpayers foot the burden so a few contractors get mega rich in a single year?

quote:

---

While I agree with most of your post, it started with Regan not Bush. Had relatives with Goldman Sachs back then and many worked on both Regan terms. Bush may have gotten the traction but it was the previous administration that opened the doors to what you call Crony Capitalism and what I call Corporate Monarchy.

I am older than you but believe your generation is the one who had better vision as it had to straddle the old and the new.

As for capitalism, what it was in the 1800's was bad for the average Americans with Robber Barron's and company towns. I see similarities with this age and current China with vast cheap labor and few holders of wealth and power. What it became from the late 1800's to the 1960's was a capitalism with a human component. Such combination, and the subsequent rise of a middle class, is really what made America great and not sure Regan or Trump did a damn thing to bring this capitalism to power under their presidency.

If that was truly the intent of any modern president then policy would reflect average wages being in line with actual costs of living. If wages are growing at 1% but real costs are well above that (milk going from 1.89 to 2.59 in a single year as example) then the middle class will mostly fall to poverty and few wealth holders (mostly on the east and west coast) will rise to extreme wealth. The modern age of wage slavery is just a "acceptable" form of slavery in this era.

Far left wants socialism
Far right wants monarchy

Neither are forms of government our forefathers fought and died for.

Until the moderates and middle class of this country wake up and take back what we had, we are doomed to one of the extremes.

---

Nice post and thanks for the civil tone. I went back and did some quick research and you are correct, it was Reagan who who started the Free Trade negotiations, Bush 1 got the serious traction, getting the parties to the Table and Clinton pushed it through. So you have 3 presidents, 2 REP, 1 DEM, all involved in the Free Trade Agenda.

I started thinking and I now Remember that Pat Buchanan, someone I use to read a lot and watch on the old PBS Show Mclaughlin group, a show here Conservative and Liberal Journalist, all friends, could get together go after it and all go drink a beer after was very critical of Reagan and Bush on this Free Trade agenda. In fact, he was a staunch Reaganite and worked for Reagan, but he was objective enough to criticize this free trade policy that started back in that era. 35 years later, we see the consequences of those policies and how they impacted the middle class.

quote:

---

That is why so many young people, black and Latino and young whites under 30 don't see things they way you did or I did back in the 70's growing up and 80's during the Reagan era. So I don't think all young people see Big Government being a Nanny, some do, but those are not the majority. I do believe more of them, given the Economic structure of today's economy do see Government as providing a safety net to keep people from falling below the poverty line.

---

The economy is like the Dallas Cowboys. you have a whole bunch of 8-8, 9-7, and the occasional 10-6 season. Good enough to make the playoffs and certainly better than losing seasons, but not good enough to make a run.

The economy is growing at a pace that barely is better than inflation. It's growing... not shrinking. But it's not growing at a pace that will allow for enough GOOD jobs. Plus, many younger people see their upward mobility halted by boomers that won't retire.

Wealth is being increasingly sheltered by fewer people at the high end of the ladder. It's not being invested in a way that leads to job creation.

quote:

---

Nice post and thanks for the civil tone.

---

The correct way to reach understanding and some acceptable agreement instead of closing down to any alternative point and assuring Mutually Assured Destruction of both sides.

quote:

---

I went back and did some quick research and you are correct

---

Thank you for taking the time to research. Wish more would!

quote:

---

I use to read a lot and watch on the old PBS Show Mclaughlin group, a show here Conservative and Liberal Journalist, all friends, could get together go after it and all go drink a beer after.

---

:kige:

Open debate is good for all and like divorce, the truth is usually the average of the horror stories of either side. Problem we are in a full blown age of narcissim that is made worse by social media. A narcissistic POTUS of this nature is so far removed from previous POTUS from either party but he is reflecting the country as a who in its desire to win at all costs that we assure we will all lose in the end.

Ike was a moderate Republican POTUS who solved the border issue without blowing money on a wall yet no Republicans today see the wisdom of his policy as they are blinded by appeasing the sheep. Would the Republican Party of my youth even begin to recognize what the Republican Party is today? Same can be said of old Democrats having and identity to what their party has become.


PS, is your J K Chesterton handle a play on the Fr Brown writer C K Chesterton?

Yes, yes we have.

The loss of shame and manners starting in the 80's may have part of the blame but pandering to the lowest common denominator by social media seems the coup de grace on the path to subjugation by our new asian overlords.

quote:

---

Son of a gun, we did. Great discussion, so I want to give props to the board. Maybe this can happen more often.

After reading everybody's input, I think the board nailed it. Results in LA & KY were largely a function of the GOP fielding weak or unpopular candidates. But in VA, and also in TX, GA, and FL in 2018, shifting demographics did play a role (VA also greatly affected by federal government employees).

Good job, (almost) everybody.

---

Had Congressman Graves of Baton Rouge or Senator Kennedy run for Governor, I would have voted for them. I would have voted for Scalise as well. Again, I am an Independent who votes Republican for Presidential politics but I have in the past voted for Louisiana DEMS, Senator Breaux, Senator J.B. Johnston, Edwin Edwards vs. the Neo-Nazi David Duke (supported Roemer in election vs. Edwards in 87 election, I think he was a Yellow Dawg DEM in the election, and switched to Republican while in office) and I voted for Kip Holden for Mayor-President in BR.

In this 2019 election, I voted Republican in every election save Governor, where I decided as I have in the past as noted above, The Dem candidate was better than the Republican alternative.

quote:

---

Wealth is being increasingly sheltered by fewer people at the high end of the ladder. It's not being invested in a way that leads to job creation.

---

This is the real tragedy. I don't care how rich you or anybody else is. The wealth that would have been reinvested back into the local US economy has instead been used to relocate operations to foreign markets.