Voters await economic revival in a part of pro-Trump America

[denverbill]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Denver Post

PRAIRIE DU CHIEN, Wis. — She tugged 13 envelopes from a cabinet above the stove, each one labeled with a different debt: the house payment, the student loans, the vacuum cleaner she bought on credit.

Lydia Holt and her husband tuck money into these envelopes with each paycheck to whittle away at what they owe. They both earn about $10 an hour and, with two kids, there are usually some they can’t fill. She did the math; at this rate, they’ll be paying these same bills for 87 years.

In 2012, Holt voted for Barack Obama because he promised her change, but she feels that change hasn’t reached her here. So last year she chose a presidential candidate unlike any she’d ever seen, the billionaire businessman who promised to help America, and people like her, win again.

..................


Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/06/pro-trump-america-waits-economic-revival/

---

Best article I've read about the reason for the Democrats defeat in 2016. Trump duped these people because they had given up on Democrats supporting workers and ordinary people, and had a prayer that maybe Trump would be an 'outsider' who would save them. We will all pay the price for their misplaced belief for many years to come. Our choice now is whether to keep being the 'pro-business' but socially progressive party, or whether to rid the party of the free-traders who think letting manufacturers move their jobs to China and Vietnam and sell their goods tariff-free is a great idea. I support free-trade among relative equal partners, but when China and Vietnam and Mexico have pathetic minimum wages and deplorable environmental laws, they are not equal partners.

[Trust Buster]

1. Upgrading her education level is her only salvation.

[denverbill]

2. Agreed. Publicly financed post-secondary education is needed.

[cstanleytech]

8. That would help some but not all as there are only a finite number of jobs to be had and once

the saturation point for a specific job type is filled you are going to have people out of work again regardless of their education level.
I think the best way to really get more people employed at higher paying jobs is to do a massive infrastructure spending bill and cut the defense spending as its helping the 1% sock away more of the tax payer money than it is helping the economy and the american people as a whole.

[denverbill]

33. Well our employment situation is really not all the bad right now.

The alt-reality crowd may question the unemployment numbers but they are the best since the Y2K employment of 1999-2000.

There is no doubt we need more infrastructure investment. And in my opinion, it needs to be paid for ENTIRELY by the people who benefit the most from it. And that ain't the 99.999%.

[cstanleytech]

35. By employed I mean with jobs that pay better than 10 to 12 dollars an hour and

are a dead end as far as being able to actually build a life and later retire.

[denverbill]

38. I think we are on the same page, sir.

IMO, anyone who works, or who wants to work, should be able to be able to partake of the 'American' dream of owning their own house, paying for their health care, and retire in relative comfort, not luxury necessarily, but certainly not poverty. Whether they drive a bus, saw lumber, process immigrants, work at a retail store, whatever. If all retailers, sawmills, government employees, and bus drivers made decent wages, had decent health care, had 401k's/pensions, I'd be very happy. I don't ask it for myself since I've been relatively lucky in that I've had almost no long breaks in employment or adverse financial situations that could have killed my savings.

[Merlot]

5. Upgrading her minimum wage job to $15

is a better idea. Not everyone is cut out for or even wants higher education.

[Trust Buster]

6. Nope. She would still struggle at $15/hour. We have known for decades now that a high school

education alone will not be adequate in this more competitive world. Those that refuse to upgrade their skills will continue to hurt regardless of what man is sitting in an Oval Office.

[Merlot]

9. She would struggle less

And there are jobs that don't need higher skills - manual labor, janitor, store clerk, etc.

[cstanleytech]

13. Thats only a temp fix and we will be back where we are eventually as long as Congress controls

the minimum wage.
A better way might be to attack the wage problem via the taxes that corporations and companies pay, hike the taxes to say 60% but the higher the % of citizens a company employees that earn x% (lets say 400%) over the poverty level the lower the taxes the corporations and companies pay.
Hell if a company pays all its employees a wage that they can live on and also afford to invest say 30% I wouldnt even object to zero for their taxes.

[riversedge]

18. Gov Walker said NO to increase in min. wage. stuck at 7.25 in WI for years now.

[Megahurtz]

45. I totally agree up the minimum wage to $15

The "get an education so you are worthy of earning a higher wage" has always been an highly offensive Republican talking point.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. It's an old and tired story at this point, it was all revealed in the 90s

with the book "America: What Went Wrong?" and really, it goes back to
the 1890s and even to the founding of the Republic. Banks push lending,
people borrow, then can't pay. Shay's Rebellion, the farmer's Populist Party
in the 1890s, easy credit in the Roaring 20s, and on and on.

Trump will offer nothing but Privatization and borrowed money. This is the
flip side of Big Government and borrowed money, and it's the same as Big
Banks and the S&L Crisis, or the Housing Bubble.

[denverbill]

10. Bankers caused the crash of 2008 for sure.

But this article, imo, is more about the people who were impacted by globalization than those who lost their homes in the great bank giveaway of 2008. And the shitty thing is the wealthy got reimbursed by the government for their losses and illegal underwriting, while the poor lost their homes.

Trump campaigned as a savior of the working class because every other party has abandoned the working class. Not every Democrat mind you, but most Democrats and EVERY Republican.

[hibbing]

4. This article was on the front page of my local fishwrap

I'm getting tired of posting this, but I'll say it again,wait until the next round of tax cuts for the ruling class comes along and see how many Democrats vote for them. Those will certainly help people like them.


Peace

[Flatpicker]

7. I never remember

Trump actually saying that he planned to help these people.

He inferred much, but never actually said it. A lot of people projected their wants onto this guy.
Guess that's what a good salesman does. Give you just enough and you fill in the gaps.

It's really sad. He never actually "took" them. They took themselves. He was just the canvas they projected onto.

[denverbill]

14. Yes I think in many ways you are right.

IMO, people instinctly knew Republicans favored corporations, but they also knew the Clintons and Obama favored NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP.

Trump constantly bragged about making better trade agreements, but anyone with an iota of common sense knows that millionaires and especially billionaires, don't become rich by helping others. They become rich by helping themselves.

[cstanleytech]

25. To be fair I think the Clintons made the best call they could with the trade deals.

After all trade is the lifeblood of many successful countries and it always has been, protectionism though historically tends to bite the countries that try it in the ass which is what I suspect will happen if Trump gets us in a trade war.

[denverbill]

29. I will, respectfully, disagree.

In all honesty, in 1992, both Bush Sr, and Clinton supported NAFTA, much to the chagrin of unions. Perot, a billionaire independent, strongly opposed it. I supported Perot in 1992, right up until he abruptly withdrew from the race, then got back in. I later heard, that Bush's campaign had threatened to release scandalous information about one of his family members which made him announce his withdrawal. I personally think we'd be better off if Perot had won and NAFTA (with Mexico anyway) never existed. I ended up voting for Clinton in 1992 but regret it now.

[cstanleytech]

32. I think if you had voted for Bush either directly or by voting for Perot that you would

have ended up regretting it just as much as I suspect that most people that voted for Trump or someone else to protest Hillary will end up regretting that decision as well.

[denverbill]

37. My recollection, which may be wrong:), was that Perot was quite close to the lead at points.

I'll defer to anyone who has weekly poll results but he was damned close at some points, if I recall correctly.

He might have won if he hadn't abruptly withdrawn and got back in.

You may be right in that he was a billionaire business and billionaires don't get to be billionaires by caring about other people, but 'the giant sucking sounds of jobs going to Mexico' was his virtual trademark statement, and it's proven true as most people knew it would.

[msongs]

11. Too bad for her. Her messiah is a fraud. Nt

[Jakes Progress]

12. You keep telling yourself

that you and Bernie had nothing to do with giving us trump.

Just avoid mirrors.

[denverbill]

15. And you keep telling yourself that more of the same is the answer.

[Jakes Progress]

17. Sure. Sure.

Bernie could have stopped trump by giving up the adulation. He couldn't do it.

But if you trashed Clinton, as he did, you are just as guilty. But you know that, don't you? So you scour the internets looking for excuses for dumb mistakes and simplistic thinking. Good luck with that when trump gives control of the internet to someone like murdoch.

[denverbill]

23. Why are you a Democrat?

[Glamrock]

22. Jesus Christ man.

We nominated the most unpopular politician in modern history knowing full well the vast right wing propaganda machine would tear her to pieces. Talk about avoiding mirrors.

[denverbill]

27. +1. Althought 99.99% of the stories about her were bullshit, they've campaigned against and

impugned her since the 90's.

It was 'her fault' that Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants on FFS

[Glamrock]

31. Hey man, I'm not arguing that. We knew that it was all bullshit.

I proudly voted for her in the general. Unfortunately, for a huge part of the population, her name is synonymous with corruption. That's just the way it is. If that wasn't the case Jill Stein wouldn't have mattered, the emails wouldn't have mattered, and the primary scuffles wouldn't have mattered. She'd have trounced the most vile, unqualified candidate in history.

[cstanleytech]

28. Why do you think the people that voted for Trump would instead have voted for Bernie had

he won the nomination? Hillary still won more total votes than Trump and yet she still lost.

[Glamrock]

36. All I can speak to that question is my own experience.

I know at least 15 Republicans who voted for him in the primary (you can vote in either in Indiana). And I know people are going to tell me that it was ratfucking. But I know these people. 7 have told me in the last three weeks they'd have voted for him in the general if they could. I couldn't get these people to even listen to why they should vote for the Hill, try as I might. Temperatures flared as soon as I did. Would he have won? I don't know, his favorability rating was much higher. As was O'Malley's. She'd have been a great president of that I'm sure. But I had a bad feeling she'd lose when she won the nomination. I wish my gut had been wrong.

[cstanleytech]

46. To be honest I think she could have won had Comey not decided to do what he did for whatever

bullshit reason he gave, the timing of it hurt her because she didnt have any time to really address it and fix it so Comey is a complete and utter mothefucker.

[Glamrock]

48. Agreed.

But I will go to my grave believing that because of her unpopularity, she couldn't overcome it. The vast majority of the uninformed electorate lapped up Comey's bullshit enthusiastically because they'd been hearing about how awful she was for twenty years.

[NanceGreggs]

43. That "most unpopular politician ...

... in modern history" won the nomination, and then won the popular vote by almost 3,000,000 votes - and that was after the RW propaganda machine tore her to pieces for decades.

Doesn't sound like she was as "unpopular" as some would have us believe.

[Glamrock]

47. Nance, with all due respect....

Was she popular enough? Is she residing at 1600 Pennsylvania? I don't like it either, believe me. As I said, I was proud as hell to cast my vote for her. But, all the excuses for why she lost could have been overcome had it not been for her unfavorability ratings. 20 years of right wing bullshit took it's toll. There's no question about that. All I'm trying to say is that, when the stakes are as high as they were, perhaps we shouldn't nominate someone who's so disliked by such a large percentage of the population.

Personally, I think this is the biggest take away from the election. I said it once, and I'll say it again, had her favor ability ratings not been in the toilet, she'd have overcome Stein's bullshit, the email bullshit, and Comey's bullshit. I don't even blame her campaign for the loss, not that they didn't make mistakes. But, again, she lost by a very slim margin. We knew about the voter suppression, we knew the bullshit that would be slung at her, had she been a more popular candidate, that shit would have been overcome rather easily.

[NanceGreggs]

50. You just labelled her ...

... "the most unpopular politician in modern history".

So the question remains: How did someone that unpopular win the popular vote by that wide a margin - and in spite of all the bullshit you've pointed out?

[Glamrock]

51. Well she was running against the most vile, unqualified candidate we've ever seen, for one.

And you know I'm not labeling her, look back at her numbers during the election. This is not me bashing Hillary. I'm just using the numbers. No candidate before her in modern history had such unfavorable numbers (with regard to the two main parties). That's a fact. Sure, those numbers had been fed by bullshit since she was FLOTUS. But that doesn't change the unfavorability ratings she had at the time of the election. That's all I'm saying.

[NanceGreggs]

53. No, actually ...

... that's not "all you're saying".

I'm going to have to assume that you can't answer the question as to why the majority of voters voted for someone who was - according to you - so very, very unpopular.

[Glamrock]

54. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Nance, but yes I did.

My answer to your question was who she was running against. And yes that is all I'm saying...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/03/us/elections/trump-and-clinton-favorability.html?_r=0

[NanceGreggs]

56. Uh, no.

If she was the "worst candidate in modern history", she would have lost to anyone she ran against - because they'd be "more popular" than the worst, wouldn't they?

[rpannier]

57. Her negatives were higher than any candidate apart from Trtump in modern presidential history

So in that sense, yes she was the most unpopular politician in modern history
She may have won the popular vote, but she couldn't beat someone whom people also detested
When Comey undermined her campaign it was something she couldn't overcome precisely because she had such high negatives
As to RW propaganda machine - yeah it did. We were all assured by her supporters that she could deal with it and would overcome it. She didn't in the one place that counted, the electoral college
It sucks. It's not even funny for the most part. But she did have high unfavorable ratings

[NanceGreggs]

59. She won the nomination handily.

Apparently those "negatives" didn't deter the majority of the party from wanting her as their nominee.

[Tatiana]

16. I wonder if these people considered the fact that their Republican governor

may have had something to do with their economic situation, as well?

Wages are going to go down. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they passed a bill lowering the minimum wage.

We are probably headed for an economic recession.

[denverbill]

20. I don't know.

I live in Colorado but work in Wisconsin. I think Wisconsin has suffered a lot due to the loss of jobs in the lumber industry to Canada. In my opinion, it's because it's cheaper to make lumber in Canada since companies don't have to pay for health care. So companies in the US as are a competitive disadvantage. It used to be a huge industry here where lots of kids without the aptitude for college could make decent incomes. It doesnt exist anymore thanks to NAFTA and the lack of national or state sponsored health care in Wisconsin.

[LakeArenal]

19. The sad part for me...

The disappointment that Obama didn't give us what he promised so I will vote for the folks that prevented Obama from getting us what we wanted.

[denverbill]

21. Yes I agree, but I think it goes beyond Obama.

Wisconsin lost jobs due to NAFTA which was Bill Clinton's baby. Don't think that Hillary didn't suffer here due to that.

[Tatiana]

26. Yes. The "politics of resentment."

The Republican strategy worked. Voters blamed Democrats for the results of the Republican obstruction.

It's a bitter pill to swallow. When Democrats had power, they should have rammed single-payer down their throats, even if it was without a single Republican vote.

Now these Trump voters seem to be saying, "Our life is miserable, so we're going to make everyone else miserable too!"

Deplorables.

[LarryNM]

24. A Minimal Living Standard would do better

A person who can not pay down their debts is not a free person. Remember FDR's Four Freedoms. Don't know how many people you could get to ever go along with it as our culture is so "jobs" indoctrinated. The increased approach of artificial intelligence and more may not leave the usual political time to make such decisions.

[Phoenix61]

30. Eighty percent of maufacturing jobs were lost to automation

This trend is only going to increase. Those high-paying factory line jobs are never, ever coming back any more than the horse and wagon is ever coming back. Increasing the minimum wage increases disposable income for those workers and that money will get spent. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations has been tried several times and it never works. The wealthy spend all they want already and corporations don't hire people until there is demand for the services or product they offer. Paying people a living wage will create that demand.

[cstanleytech]

34. Tax cuts to the corporations can work but you need a big fucking stick

along with that juicy carrot otherwise the corporations will take the carrot and fuck you over.

[EllieBC]

39. These people would benefit from some of the programs we have here.

It seems like every social welfare program in the US has crazy strict means testing. So in addition to health care you need other programs. Like the Canada Child Tax Benefit. While it goes by income and family size (and if each child is over or under 6 years old), a family with 3 children with an income of $75k a year still get a decent monthly payment. You can play with our calculator here:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits-calculator/

Democrats need to push and push hard for a variety of programs that help a variety of people. Education programs for those who want to go to college. Programs to help families so they aren't drowning. Health care. Keep coming up with programs and selling them and make sure more can benefit. And sell them well. Be able to answer the "how is this going to work" questions.

[Bleacher Creature]

40. I hope they brought extra socks and underwear.

It's going to be a LONG wait.

[Hulk]

41. Damned gullible fools.

Don't hold your breath, idiots.

[LonePirate]

42. I suspect they will be waiting for a long time, at least four years.

[OldRedneck]

44. George Wallace

I'm 72 -- many of you young folks don't remember George Wallace. I was a college student in Alabama in the 1960's. I was almost tossed out of my small Alabama state college when the Dean of Students learned that I was spending my weekends demonstrating in Birmingham and that I had been at the conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery march.

When I read stories such as this one about the poor, downtrodden, angry Trump voters, I'm reminded of something George Wallace said.

First, some background. Wallace was a judge in the 3rd Alabama Circuit. Southern cultural practice was to NEVER refer to a black man as "Mister" -- no matter what the black man's accomplishments, he was always referred to as "boy" or by his first name. A prominent black lawyer in Wallace's circuit once said "George Wallace was the only judge who called me 'Mister.' "

In 1958, Wallace ran in the Democratic primary for governor of Alabama. Because the South was 99.9% Democrats, the Democratic primary results were the general election results. Wallace's main opponent was state attorney general John Patterson, who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. Wallace lost the nomination by over 34,400 votes.

After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race? ... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."

In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted a hard-line segregationist stance and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election in 1962. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."

When we Democrats talk about income inequality, job retraining, education as necessary for economic development, the importance of labor unions, diversity, shared values, and all our other progressive values, the Republicans talk about guns, God, Muslims, and "welfare queens." And we lose.

Remember: Intelligence is a bell curve . . . and half the people are below average.

[Initech]

49. That ain't happening. Ted Cruz wants more money to go to the upper 1%.

And the last thing these motherfuckers need is more money.

[Kablooie]

52. If I were in the same situation I might have voted for Trump too.

Well, actually, probably not because I could see it was all bullshit but I can see where they are coming from.
They feel they have nothing to lose so might as well try a desperate hail Mary.

Unless someone finds a way to help them they will continue to be a bigger and bigger wildcard in elections as the living standards drop for an ever increasing portion of the population.

This clearly should be on the Democratic agenda and not just for more government support.
There needs to be some serious thinking about how to restore independence to these communities.

Both parties have been Controlled by the upper echelon of the financial pyramid and have ignored the bottom base. Trump, even though he's Republican, was the only candidate saying things they wanted to hear so he got their votes.

We will continue to get demagogue as leaders unless this problem is seriously attacked.

[olddad56]

55. if a person lives in the great state of Wisconsin, and if voted for Walker for gov and ....

Donald Bannon for president, I have no sympathy for that person's situation.

[JI7]

58. did she vote for Russ Feingold ?

[jpak]

60. They will be disappointed.

yup

[pansypoo53219]

61. never mind the GOP killing unions willy nilly & jobs in china, S.A. etc.......

[OKNancy]

62. locking

this is not breaking news . this is analysis of news and commentary; plus it's over 12 hours old.