Wouldn’t “promoting the common welfare” include not spewing toxins into the environment?
Sure. I am all in favor of balanced solutions. Let me know when the environmental movement ever suggests one. It’s never happened, to my knowledge. They fight tooth and nail to make sure that economic considerations are *not* taken into account on policies they want to advance.
And did you look at the graph on coal jobs — why would people in coal country not see the pattern here and get the hell out?
I’m sure some do. But to go where and do what? The nation’s not overflowing with opportunity for manual laborers these days, unless they have special training. If your prospects aren’t great anywhere, may as well stay close to family and hope things turn around a bit.
Hillary was going to ramp up efforts at retraining workers while Trump is cutting those same federal programs.
I haven’t seen anything about Trump cutting retraining programs. However, if he did, that would be OK with me, because this is something that needs to be done at a local level. High schools have avoided trades education for years because of identity politics; nations like Germany and even Canada are not shy about starting to separate the college-track from the trade-track students starting in middle school. But we prep every kid as if they’re going to go to Harvard, ignoring both their motivation and ability. No wonder our dropout rate is 2X that of Europe.
And, thankfully, there are droves of good paying jobs which are available to those with a specialized associates degree, and good community college systems, again thankfully, are responding well to the challenge.
Maybe it’s not about preserving jobs but rather it’s about preserving a culture. Hence, Make America Great Again.
There you go again. Because you don’t want to think deeply about motivations of the “other side”, you just default to a racially-related explanation. Makes things nice, neat, and easy, eh? And you never have to challenge your own beliefs.
As for your comments about identity politics and class envy politics, it’s easy to not highlight identity when you are the majority- it’s the norm for in-group.
Shrugs. Last time I checked, the Constitution was for “Americans”. The racism that appeared in that document were amended out long ago. In 2017, there are no legal barriers to any American doing anything they want in this nation. Economic barriers remain, and the government has instituted programmes, like affirmative action, needs-based scholarships, etc., to rectify those barriers when they exist.
So, tell, me, what is the political justification for highlighting identity? I’d argue that there’s none; it’s just used by one party to dog-whistle those groups to come vote for them.
The Kochs, the Murdochs, the Trumps — they don’t have an identity? How about rich, privileged, white guys?
I’m not arguing that identities don’t exist. I’m arguing that identity politics is cynical and counterproductive.
And it’s beyond dispute that Americans are in fact blind to income inequalities.
Well, if it’s beyond dispute, show me the data. Otherwise, you’re falling prey to logical fallacy:
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the…
However, let’s sharpen the pencil on that a bit. If your argument is that (a) Americans don’t realize that income inequality exists, I’d say that’s bunk. HOWEVER, if your argument is that Americans are (b) RELATIVELY UNCONCERNED about income inequality, then I’d agree with you.
Care to pick one? Or perhaps add a third option?
The tired line that Dems hate the rich needs to be put to bed. (Maybe I should say Republicans hate the poor — there, we’re even).
I have never seen the GOP demonize the poor. I’ve seen the DEMOCRATS demonize the poor — just did, a lot, when it came back that the poor (well, not the lowest class poor, but the next to lowest) flipped their votes in certain states and elected Trump; and I’ve seen the Democrats demonize the rich (well, the rich that arent Democrats) aplenty.
So, you’ll excuse me if I suggest that we’ll “put that line to bed” when you stop saying it.
Please do send along that graph about lessening income inequality during boom times — haven’t seen that happen in the last 35 years as far as I can tell. Last time that was true was in the ‘50’s when we had much higher tax rates. And had strong unions. And had little automation.
“Little automation” is the relevant point, there. The first true automation started in the late 1960’s with the IBM 1130, which had the ability to control simple manufacturing tools from a FORTRAN program run with punch cards.
The 50’s had high tax rates which nobody paid, so that stat is not germane to the discussion. It is seldom mentioned, but true, that the rich actually paid about the same in taxes at the end of Reagan’s term than at the end of Carter’s, although the top marginal rate had dropped from 50% to 28%.