If you were POTUS, how would you fix the Rust Belt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: If the Rust Belt is as bad as some of you say it is, then isn't some of that on your Savior Obama, who has been in office for the last eight years?

The only people who call President Obama "savior" are Sean Hannity bootlickers.

No reasonable person expected a sitting president to reverse a 50 year economic trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: If the Rust Belt is as bad as some of you say it is, then isn't some of that on your Savior Obama, who has been in office for the last eight years?

The only people who call President Obama "savior" are Sean Hannity bootlickers.

No reasonable person expected a sitting president to reverse a 50 year economic trend.

So, if the trend can't be reversed by a sitting President, then why are we asking the question of what a President can to "fix the Rust Belt"? So theoretically a President should be able to fix the region, but the great Obama gets a pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are of course pockets of wealth in flyover country but it's earned it reputation overall; Obese, welfare, uneducated, sluggish economy, endless abandoned towns.

you really have no idea what you are talking about....

Two decades of brain drain. Every smart and/or rich kid in the Midwest b-lines to Chicago or the coasts at 18 or 22. The Rust Belt has zero chance because year by year it becomes a higher concentration of hopeless people.

Maybe, but they usually come back. Most of my friends have, and hopefully I will soon follow. They are hardly "hopeless" people. They return because it is a great place to raise a family, way better than DC. I am a native, and I know more than some self-proclaimed sociologist sitting behind a keyboard. Try not to sound quite so angry and bitter. What did the people in flyover country do to you? Oh, yeah, some of them didn't vote for your girl Hillary. Get over it!

I have a sincere question. They leave because there are no jobs, then what do they go back to?! You are saying majority go back, I am just trying to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are of course pockets of wealth in flyover country but it's earned it reputation overall; Obese, welfare, uneducated, sluggish economy, endless abandoned towns.

you really have no idea what you are talking about....

Two decades of brain drain. Every smart and/or rich kid in the Midwest b-lines to Chicago or the coasts at 18 or 22. The Rust Belt has zero chance because year by year it becomes a higher concentration of hopeless people.

Maybe, but they usually come back. Most of my friends have, and hopefully I will soon follow. They are hardly "hopeless" people. They return because it is a great place to raise a family, way better than DC. I am a native, and I know more than some self-proclaimed sociologist sitting behind a keyboard. Try not to sound quite so angry and bitter. What did the people in flyover country do to you? Oh, yeah, some of them didn't vote for your girl Hillary. Get over it!

I have a sincere question. They leave because there are no jobs, then what do they go back to?! You are saying majority go back, I am just trying to understand.

Geez. Why do people think that there are "no jobs" anywhere but in DC? Obviously people who live there have jobs and people who move back have jobs lined up. They are not all starving and on welfare. Good Lord! I am a lawyer and all of my law school friends are still in the Midwest, and they all have great jobs. As do my friends from undergrad who were business majors. There is something that exists mostly outside of DC called industry/business and it has actual jobs for people. I know that it is a difficult concept for some of you that people can work in jobs that aren't somehow related to the government.

[Anonymous]

To PP above, the question was why they leave in the first place...but anyhow, your reply is insightful in the way in which it highlights how the job that there are (and I have friends there who are very successful) are those that require higher education OR those that provide services to thise with higher education (aka 'service jobs) and they are mostly in urban centers in the midwest, not in rural areas.
These are not the manufacturing jobs of old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP above, the question was why they leave in the first place...but anyhow, your reply is insightful in the way in which it highlights how the job that there are (and I have friends there who are very successful) are those that require higher education OR those that provide services to thise with higher education (aka 'service jobs) and they are mostly in urban centers in the midwest, not in rural areas.
These are not the manufacturing jobs of old.

Well, some people like me leave not because they don't have job opportunities at home, but because they want to experience living somewhere different. In my case, though, I've now been there, done that and I am planning to go back. Being away has been an interesting life experience, but it has also made me realize all of the advantages and offerings of my hometown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Geez. Why do people think that there are "no jobs" anywhere but in DC? Obviously people who live there have jobs and people who move back have jobs lined up. They are not all starving and on welfare. Good Lord! I am a lawyer and all of my law school friends are still in the Midwest, and they all have great jobs. As do my friends from undergrad who were business majors. There is something that exists mostly outside of DC called industry/business and it has actual jobs for people. I know that it is a difficult concept for some of you that people can work in jobs that aren't somehow related to the government.

All your friends are probably happy but at the end of the day they chose the safe route, they were too scared to go too far away from home, intimidated of the competitive coasts. Fearless go-getters funnel to the coasts because they crave competition and need to be around the highest concentration of smart people. It's tough to talk to people from back home because they just don't get it — they never will. They live in a bubble, they have never left the bubble. Call us snobs all you want but those of us who moved at least have something to compare flyover country to. The ones who never left have no idea what's out there.

[Anonymous]

The only people who moved back are people that never really made it. Their career sputtered, their parents were still paying some bills, their dating life was shitty. The people who make it on a coast wouldn't take double the salary to move back. Outside of academia, flyover country is bottom tier folks without the talent to leave or make it anywhere else. That's a stigma that's tough to shake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people who moved back are people that never really made it. Their career sputtered, their parents were still paying some bills, their dating life was shitty. The people who make it on a coast wouldn't take double the salary to move back. Outside of academia, flyover country is bottom tier folks without the talent to leave or make it anywhere else. That's a stigma that's tough to shake.

Really? Do you know all of them and what their motivations are? Or are you just taking the lazy route and operating off of stereotypes because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do otherwise? You have no idea what you are talking about, but I am sure that is a common thing for you. Plenty of successful people move back for various reasons that don't include not "making it." Not everyone's goal in life is to suck off of the government. Some people don't need the government to "make it." And please, if I could just laugh for one minute at the notion that someone would move to DC for a better dating life. At least in flyover country, you can find a real man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Geez. Why do people think that there are "no jobs" anywhere but in DC? Obviously people who live there have jobs and people who move back have jobs lined up. They are not all starving and on welfare. Good Lord! I am a lawyer and all of my law school friends are still in the Midwest, and they all have great jobs. As do my friends from undergrad who were business majors. There is something that exists mostly outside of DC called industry/business and it has actual jobs for people. I know that it is a difficult concept for some of you that people can work in jobs that aren't somehow related to the government.

All your friends are probably happy but at the end of the day they chose the safe route, they were too scared to go too far away from home, intimidated of the competitive coasts. Fearless go-getters funnel to the coasts because they crave competition and need to be around the highest concentration of smart people. It's tough to talk to people from back home because they just don't get it — they never will. They live in a bubble, they have never left the bubble. Call us snobs all you want but those of us who moved at least have something to compare flyover country to. The ones who never left have no idea what's out there.

Unlike the "safe' underachievers in other parts of the country, "fearless go-getters" flock to DC, where there is the "highest concentration of smart people"? Ha Ha Ha! No, fearless go getters start their own businesses, build up their own communities, and take risks. Some of the people who flock to DC are the opposite. They want safe government or government contractor jobs. And, judging by some of the idiotic comments on these threads, DC hardly has the largest concentration of smart people. And you think that the people who live in flyover country live in a bubble. Wow! The laughs just keep coming with you. The DC area, with its recession proof protective government orbit, is the biggest bubble around, as clearly demonstrated by the smug provincialism of people such as yourself. Did you ever think that maybe some successful people move back home so that their children don't have to be raised around smug elistist assholes who have a disdain for the vast majority of their fellow Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: If the Rust Belt is as bad as some of you say it is, then isn't some of that on your Savior Obama, who has been in office for the last eight years?

The only people who call President Obama "savior" are Sean Hannity bootlickers.

No reasonable person expected a sitting president to reverse a 50 year economic trend.

So, if the trend can't be reversed by a sitting President, then why are we asking the question of what a President can to "fix the Rust Belt"? So theoretically a President should be able to fix the region, but the great Obama gets a pass?

The difference, as even you must concede, is that our president elect explicitly targeted the rust belt during the campaign and said that he would reverse the trend. So, THAT is why he doesn't get a pass. Either a) he won't be able to deliver (likely) and overestimated what he is capable of doing, or b) he knows he can't and he lied (more than likely) to suck in voters gullible enough to believe his bullshit. And here we are. Smack dab in the middle of the swamp of his own making. Not only theses lies but the most corrupt bunch of elites, billionaires, insiders, and senators wives that he calls a cabinet. Change? LMFAO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: If the Rust Belt is as bad as some of you say it is, then isn't some of that on your Savior Obama, who has been in office for the last eight years?

The only people who call President Obama "savior" are Sean Hannity bootlickers.

No reasonable person expected a sitting president to reverse a 50 year economic trend.

So, if the trend can't be reversed by a sitting President, then why are we asking the question of what a President can to "fix the Rust Belt"? So theoretically a President should be able to fix the region, but the great Obama gets a pass?

The difference, as even you must concede, is that our president elect explicitly targeted the rust belt during the campaign and said that he would reverse the trend. So, THAT is why he doesn't get a pass. Either a) he won't be able to deliver (likely) and overestimated what he is capable of doing, or b) he knows he can't and he lied (more than likely) to suck in voters gullible enough to believe his bullshit. And here we are. Smack dab in the middle of the swamp of his own making. Not only theses lies but the most corrupt bunch of elites, billionaires, insiders, and senators wives that he calls a cabinet. Change? LMFAO.

So you are conceding that the sitting president wrote these people off as bitter clingers? We should all hope Trump succeeds.