The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

Nor was it supposed to??? I made that comment in response to the idea that rural is where food is grown. The truth is most of the food grown in plains states needs to either be processed before eating or is grown for animal consumption. Farmers in the midwest generally do not grow produce for consumption. This is a common misconception. 

 

Please read. 

Where did I make that misconception?  I was specifically talking about meat products.  

However, I (and a lot of midwesterners) also have gardens which produces healthy vegetables and many (like me) put them away to eat all year.  Something many city dwellers can't do.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

Nor was it supposed to??? I made that comment in response to the idea that rural is where food is grown. The truth is most of the food grown in plains states needs to either be processed before eating or is grown for animal consumption. Farmers in the midwest generally do not grow produce for consumption. This is a common misconception. 

 

Please read. 

The link you provided resolves to "Page not found" on the university website.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

It's not about the food itself but the access to quality nutritional food. 

 

https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/sdoh/2/built-environment/food-access

 

Many rural areas have limited access to healthy, affordable foods. Food deserts can be found in rural areas where supermarkets or grocery stores are scarce, which directly contributes to food insecurity. These areas may instead have more convenience stores which are more likely to sell processed, shelf-stable goods rather than fresh produce. As a result, residents may have to travel to find healthy food, which can be more challenging for those without reliable access to transportation.

Rural residents who lack reliable transportation are particularly isolated, given the distance to the grocery store in rural communities and lack of public transportation options. These findings suggest the complexity of food access and its relationship to poverty and transportation.

What healthy nutritional foods do you think I can't buy locally?

[Born N Bled Red]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The link you provided resolves to "Page not found" on the university website.

 

Oddly enough, when I retested, it did for me as well. Try this one. 

 

https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/center-for-public-affairs-research/documents/policy-briefs/pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf

 

If not, here it is. 

pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Oddly enough, when I retested, it did for me as well. Try this one. 

 

https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/center-for-public-affairs-research/documents/policy-briefs/pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf

 

If not, here it is. 

pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf 1.21 MB · 0 downloads

You're linking to a report on food deserts, which is based primarily on access to grocery stores. That has literally nothing to do with your assertions that corn and soy need to processed or how food is transported. You're now trying to change your argument to be about access to quality nutritional food, which is at least on topic for the linked report, but isn't relevant to the original discussion about cost of living.

[Born N Bled Red]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're linking to a report on food deserts, which is based primarily on access to grocery stores. That has literally nothing to do with your assertions that corn and soy need to processed or how food is transported. You're now trying to change your argument to be about access to quality nutritional food, which is at least on topic for the linked report, but isn't relevant to the original discussion about cost of living.

 

This is what I posted about food in relation to cost of living. 

 

Food insufficiency

You're either expending fuel to get it or have delivered. The price at Sam's Club, Hy-vee or Walmart is the same whether you have to drive it an hour to where it will be consumed or not. 

 

- I'm not sure what you're getting at man, the lack of nearby grocery stores and the need to drive to access nutritional food is exactly my point with this.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

What if you went to rural West Virginia and explained how the coal industry would never again be the economic engine it once was, but showed them how a program of economic diversity would provide new, longer-lasting, better paying, and far healthier jobs?

 

You would lose to the candidate who lies about bringing their coal mining jobs back. 

[RedDenver]

25 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

This is what I posted about food in relation to cost of living. 

 

Food insufficiency

You're either expending fuel to get it or have delivered. The price at Sam's Club, Hy-vee or Walmart is the same whether you have to drive it an hour to where it will be consumed or not. 

 

- I'm not sure what you're getting at man, the lack of nearby grocery stores and the need to drive to access nutritional food is exactly my point with this.   

Seems like a really bizarre way to get to cost of living when actual cost of living data is available:

[Born N Bled Red]

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

To your point on Cost of Living. Here is the data

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.htm

 

• Urban households spent $7,808 (18 percent) more than rural households.
• Urban households received $15,779 (32 percent) more in yearly income than rural households.²
• Higher housing expenditures by urban consumers accounted for about two-thirds of the difference in overall spending between urban and rural households.
• Rural households spent 32 percent more on prescription and nonprescription drugs than urban households.
• Urban households spent 28 percent more on food away from home and 5 percent less on food at home than rural households. Overall, urban households spent 7 percent more on food than rural households.
• Rural households spent more on gasoline and motor oil, and spent a higher percentage of their car and truck budgets on used vehicles. In the transportation spending category, urban households spent more on airline fares.
• Although rural and urban households spent about the same on entertainment, rural households spent more on pets, and urban households spent more on fees and admissions.

 

So while yes, Urban households on average spend more per capita they NET on average nearly $8,000 more than rural households due to higher incomes. We must also take into account Urban shopping habits. Urban data is skewed due to multiple alternative shopping destinations. Target, Whole Foods, and other common Urban shopping places cost more than the dollar store and walmart and the like which are primarily the only available shopping destinations Rural people have to shop at. 

 

What's more- looking at this graph. Let's identify where Urban is spending more than rural shall we? 

 

 

Urban leads in categories most rural people really can't afford.

Personal Insurance and Pensions ( INVESTMENT)

Education (INVESTMENT)

Housing (INVESTMENT)

Food Away From Home (Luxury)

Apparel and Services (Luxury) 

 

When it comes to necessities - Rural pays more in every category but housing, which, in the city, is an investment. 

 

 

 

@RedDenver

 

Here is what was discussed for Cost of Living. 

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

@RedDenver

 

Here is what was discussed for Cost of Living. 

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here.You started from this:

3 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

That'll take more time than I have now, but I'll get you an answer. Another sound bite to add to our list of things said about rural America that wouldn't be said about other populations. This was actually said to me be someone responsible for significant philanthropic giving recently.

 

"We can give less to rural areas because a dollar just goes so much further out there."

 

Could you imagine the inverse being said, "We can give less to the projects because a dollar goes so much further there."

 

A buck is a buck no matter where you spend it. What you're really saying with that statement is that, said population "should be happy with what they get, because its better than nothing, and frankly they just don't rank high on our priority list." 

Cost of living is lower in rural areas as your own links have shown. So a dollar does indeed go further in a rural area. That's just math.

 

Someone giving money to charity is NOT the Dem party, so I'm not even sure what your post was trying to convey. It just comes across as a rant about how rural areas should get more things, it's somehow the Dem's fault that more charity money doesn't go to rural areas, and that's somehow connected to the 2024 campaigns.

[Lorewarn]

Shouldn't the right-wing response to rural folks having a hard time being poor and not having access to good food be that those rural people should just move to the city?

[Born N Bled Red]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here.You started from this:

Cost of living is lower in rural areas as your own links have shown. So a dollar does indeed go further in a rural area. That's just math.

 

Someone giving money to charity is NOT the Dem party, so I'm not even sure what your post was trying to convey. It just comes across as a rant about how rural areas should get more things, it's somehow the Dem's fault that more charity money doesn't go to rural areas, and that's somehow connected to the 2024 campaigns.

 

2 Things. 1) you are reading the quote about charitable giving in relation to the current convo about cost of living. That is out of order. That statement was made to support the initial discussion that rural red voters feel left behind by existing efforts to  address poverty and income equality. Charitable giving is part of that effort. 

 

2) If you would be unhappy with a single mother living on Welfare using her welfare dollars to pay for an item, they are not true cost of living and skew stats toward a higher urban cost of living.

 

Urban leads in categories most rural people really can't afford.

Personal Insurance and Pensions ( INVESTMENT)

Education (INVESTMENT)

Housing (INVESTMENT)

Food Away From Home (Luxury)

Apparel and Services (Luxury) 

 

 

Even if you now try to say yes, a pension and going out to eat should count as cost of living. An 18% higher cost of living does justify a 4:1 discrepancy in charitable dollars being invested in urban vs. Rural areas. 

 

Or that 

 

Highlights of This Study
•Approximately 80 percent of the landmass in the United States is classified as rural. 55 million Americans live in rural areas, some 22 percent of the total U.S. population.
•In rural areas, median family income is 25 percent lower, and the poverty rate 28 percent higher than in metro areas. Rural counties make up 95 percent of the persistent poverty counties in the United States.
•Congress, in its funding of the one federal department with responsibility for rural development – the United States Department of Agriculture – has given priority to farming support programs over rural development. Funds earmarked for rural development consistently remained at about 2 to 5 percent of that department’s total actual budget outlays between 1996 and 2002.
•USDA acknowledges that farm payments are not a substitute for rural economic development policy. (USDA’s Agricultural Outlook/October 2000 article, “How Important Are Farm Payments to the Rural Economy”)
•Roughly one out of every three dollars of federal rural development funding came from other federal departments and agencies. But in terms of overall federal spending, community development in rural counties accounted for only one-tenth of one percent of total per capita funding from 1994 to 2001, significantly less than the population figures might warrant.
•From 1994 through 2001 the federal government spent more than two times (and sometimes up to five times) as much per capita on metropolitan community development as it did on rural community development.

 

https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/BBDB12471BCA4802898B80658C283442.ashx

[Dr. Strangelove]

17 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

So... you prove my point that cost of living is higher in urban areas (with the very data/link I was going to show you! ) which shows that cost of services provided would be higher in urban areas because those goods/services just plain cost more. You also provide a chart showing that urban/rural expenditures were nearly identical in a six-year period (per capita) but, because of this data we can very easily extrapolate that urban expenditures acquire less for the same dollars because they cost more.

 

And then you say I'm not interested in a conversation. OK. Sure.

 

But none of that explains what Democrats can do to fix the problem of rural red voters not voting for them.

This conversation between you two has been interesting. But I tend to agree with Knapplc on this. White rural voters voting against their own interests (they tend to reject spending pushed by Democrats that would help their communities) is one of the most well documented aspects of Political Science.

 

Thomas Frank wrote about this phenomenon in the early 2000s when he wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He found that rural voters are much more inclined to be persuaded by culture war issues, even when it comes at their own self destruction.

 

The plight of the white rural voter is mostly caused by irreversible economics. There aren't opportunities for growth to lead to a larger tax base. They also vote in ways that ensure their demise. The white rural voter is already a tax liability - rural counties already get more than they pay. In order to win them over, Democrats would have to endulge their culture war fantasies more than Republicans, I'm not sure that's good for the country if they do. 

[RedDenver]

14 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

2 Things. 1) you are reading the quote about charitable giving in relation to the current convo about cost of living. That is out of order. That statement was made to support the initial discussion that rural red voters feel left behind by existing efforts to  address poverty and income equality. Charitable giving is part of that effort. 

 

2) If you would be unhappy with a single mother living on Welfare using her welfare dollars to pay for an item, they are not true cost of living and skew stats toward a higher urban cost of living.

 

Urban leads in categories most rural people really can't afford.

Personal Insurance and Pensions ( INVESTMENT)

Education (INVESTMENT)

Housing (INVESTMENT)

Food Away From Home (Luxury)

Apparel and Services (Luxury) 

 

 

Even if you now try to say yes, a pension and going out to eat should count as cost of living. An 18% higher cost of living does justify a 4:1 discrepancy in charitable dollars being invested in urban vs. Rural areas. 

 

Or that 

 

Highlights of This Study
•Approximately 80 percent of the landmass in the United States is classified as rural. 55 million Americans live in rural areas, some 22 percent of the total U.S. population.
•In rural areas, median family income is 25 percent lower, and the poverty rate 28 percent higher than in metro areas. Rural counties make up 95 percent of the persistent poverty counties in the United States.
•Congress, in its funding of the one federal department with responsibility for rural development – the United States Department of Agriculture – has given priority to farming support programs over rural development. Funds earmarked for rural development consistently remained at about 2 to 5 percent of that department’s total actual budget outlays between 1996 and 2002.
•USDA acknowledges that farm payments are not a substitute for rural economic development policy. (USDA’s Agricultural Outlook/October 2000 article, “How Important Are Farm Payments to the Rural Economy”)
•Roughly one out of every three dollars of federal rural development funding came from other federal departments and agencies. But in terms of overall federal spending, community development in rural counties accounted for only one-tenth of one percent of total per capita funding from 1994 to 2001, significantly less than the population figures might warrant.
•From 1994 through 2001 the federal government spent more than two times (and sometimes up to five times) as much per capita on metropolitan community development as it did on rural community development.

 

https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/BBDB12471BCA4802898B80658C283442.ashx

You're saying that 22% of the population getting 20% of the charitable dollars (a 4:1 discrepancy is 1/(1+4)=20%) is an issue? That seems pretty much right on target.

 

And even if there was a discrepancy, I still don't see the logic for the Dem party being tied to charitable giving amounts.

[Archy1221]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This conversation between you two has been interesting. But I tend to agree with Knapplc on this. White rural voters voting against their own interests (they tend to reject spending pushed by Democrats that would help their communities) is one of the most well documented aspects of Political Science.

 

Thomas Frank wrote about this phenomenon in the early 2000s when he wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He found that rural voters are much more inclined to be persuaded by culture war issues, even when it comes at their own self destruction.

 

The plight of the white rural voter is mostly caused by irreversible economics. There aren't opportunities for growth to lead to a larger tax base. They also vote in ways that ensure their demise. The white rural voter is already a tax liability - rural counties already get more than they pay. In order to win them over, Democrats would have to endulge their culture war fantasies more than Republicans, I'm not sure that's good for the country if they do. 

Thomas Frank, a Missouri Democrat who lived in the richest neighborhood in KC, then leaves to further education in VA and Chicago who then writes a book about what’s wrong with Kansas????  I thought life couldn’t get any funnier.