Possible for Trump to move federal agencies to "flyover country"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire discussion is rather silly and Exhibit A of just how uninformed "flyover country" is about the federal government.

Every department has locations all over the U.S. and millions of federal workers live outside of the DC metropolitan area. It's the reason that shutting down the government was such a stupid and reckless move, and why even talking about randomly closing or moving agencies is completely asinine. The federal government of the United States is holding up the economies of hundreds of communities, both large and small, all over the country and the globe.

If people in flyover country want some respect, it would help a great deal if they stopped acting so effing stupid. I'd say you'd be ready to go to war with any foreign entity that wanted to dismantle our government the way it's been proposed here and by soon-to-be appointed leaders, but even that most basic patriotism is in doubt these days.

You are incorrect about being uninformed and uneducated; however, the insufferable attitude towards small town America that's being expressed in this thread is played out by too many liberals who live in DC and are employed by federal agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Did you read any of the many posts about how most of the federal government is outside of DC (86% of employees!) and it makes no sense to move all of the centralized headquarters functions away from one location or do you just like to repeat your tired old narrative about smug bureaucrats no matter what that actually say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Did you read any of the many posts about how most of the federal government is outside of DC (86% of employees!) and it makes no sense to move all of the centralized headquarters functions away from one location or do you just like to repeat your tired old narrative about smug bureaucrats no matter what that actually say?

Facts don't matter to Trump supporters. They will just keep on jackhammering with their strawmen and delusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Whatever! I could sell my home here tomorrow and live like royalty in my home town.

What a lot of you do not understand are the couple of points a PP made. First, the vast majority of jobs are outside the DMV. So you wanna cut 25% right off the top? Fine, but it is going to hurt those areas more that cannot absorb the job losses like the DMV can.

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis - maybe Knoxville or Chattanooga. No one is moving to Memphis and all of the other cities are doing ok. So, the places the agencies would likely move are major metro areas or developed smaller cities where this already some things happening.

Finally, my job does not "need" to be located in DC. Most of my "clients" are in field offices anyways and I am on the road 25%-50% of the time. But based on metrics studies done before I started, DC is the most cost effective place to officially "deploy" me because off all the transportation options and its central location regarding my clients. If this is a serious notion and not "spite," I would be interested in seeing the efficacy analysis for such a move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire discussion is rather silly and Exhibit A of just how uninformed "flyover country" is about the federal government.

Every department has locations all over the U.S. and millions of federal workers live outside of the DC metropolitan area. It's the reason that shutting down the government was such a stupid and reckless move, and why even talking about randomly closing or moving agencies is completely asinine. The federal government of the United States is holding up the economies of hundreds of communities, both large and small, all over the country and the globe.

If people in flyover country want some respect, it would help a great deal if they stopped acting so effing stupid. I'd say you'd be ready to go to war with any foreign entity that wanted to dismantle our government the way it's been proposed here and by soon-to-be appointed leaders, but even that most basic patriotism is in doubt these days.

You are incorrect about being uninformed and uneducated; however, the insufferable attitude towards small town America that's being expressed in this thread is played out by too many liberals who live in DC and are employed by federal agencies.

I haven't read the entire thread but I have my doubts about just who is expressing an "insufferable attitude towards small town America."

Anyone who gets a paycheck from the federal government knows the truth of what I posted above. As I said, every agency has presence all over the country and everyone who works in and around DC knows this. Moreover, every agency serves flyover country and workers in them know more about these places than you do.

The insufferable attitude posters are trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis.

Grand Rapids (MI), Nashville, Madison (WI), St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo ... all great places for federal agency HQs. 8)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Did you read any of the many posts about how most of the federal government is outside of DC (86% of employees!) and it makes no sense to move all of the centralized headquarters functions away from one location or do you just like to repeat your tired old narrative about smug bureaucrats no matter what that actually say?

We are not ignorant of the facts. It's the smugness. Can you not express your ideas without demeaning people from small towns, middle America, fly-over country, or however else you describe non-DC American citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With 7 of the 12 richest counties in the US surrounding DC, Trump should work on decentralizing this vulgar concentration of bureaucrat wealth by moving federal agencies to the middle of the country. Example: Dept. of Education to Betsy Devos's hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich. That alone would lock up Michigan as a red state in 2020.

The agencies can slash bloat and wages in the process (lower cost of living in flyover country), it would be a boom for non-coastal economies, and policies would likely better reflect real America versus insulated coastal elite outlook.

And what would this cost? I mean, the government already has buildings and infrastructure in place. What will it cost to replicate?

The government just rents from someone elsewhere.

--a fed in the flyover country (well, sort of)

Most government offices are in GSA facilities.

So what? We rent from GSA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages of smug bureaucrats worried about their Beltway home value. Don't worry guys, there are Whole Foods and Trader Joes in flyover country. And with the Ivy League using geographic affirmative action, your little tikes will have a better shot at Yale via the rust belt!

Did you read any of the many posts about how most of the federal government is outside of DC (86% of employees!) and it makes no sense to move all of the centralized headquarters functions away from one location or do you just like to repeat your tired old narrative about smug bureaucrats no matter what that actually say?

We are not ignorant of the facts. It's the smugness. Can you not express your ideas without demeaning people from small towns, middle America, fly-over country, or however else you describe non-DC American citizens?

I'm flying home to the Midwest with my family this weekend, I have nothing bad to say about my hometown or region. I agree that people should t use the derrogatory term "flyover country" to describe where I was born and raised. I'm not a smug bureaucrat, perhaps you're reading too much into the majority of these posts with logical arguments about how to structure the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you wonder why HRC lost Michigan. All those dumb fuck UofM grads. And MSU may not be Ivy, but it graduates some smart people. Chicago and Northwestern are 150 miles away.

God you people are assholes. And oblivious to that fact.

And, it does happen that quite a few of those people who went to the almighty Ivy actually came from the middle.

I'm one of them. But it's still a really stupid idea to move the fed agencies out. Transactions costs on it are huge, you would lose your best employees because we are the ones who would have no trouble finding jobs that allow us to stay where our families are rooted and our spouses are employed. It's nothing but spiteful stupidity.

Agreed. The smartest and best would just find something else to do rather than live on fly over country (many of us fled to D.C. From those shitholes after college). There would not be enough educated or experienced people outside the area to effectively run the government.

Keep in mind. They almost bankrupted the auto industry and made it the rust belt because of their inability to adapt and change to the market needs. Sounds like another kind worse kind of swamp to me.

+1 - we all worked hard and got out of those places, why send people back to cultural and educational black holes? Bring down the whole country to the lowest common denominator.

such a sad, truly deplorable way of thinking

+1 I can't believe the self-loathing. Must be tough to go through life hating your origins so much...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you wonder why HRC lost Michigan. All those dumb fuck UofM grads. And MSU may not be Ivy, but it graduates some smart people. Chicago and Northwestern are 150 miles away.

God you people are assholes. And oblivious to that fact.

And, it does happen that quite a few of those people who went to the almighty Ivy actually came from the middle.

I'm one of them. But it's still a really stupid idea to move the fed agencies out. Transactions costs on it are huge, you would lose your best employees because we are the ones who would have no trouble finding jobs that allow us to stay where our families are rooted and our spouses are employed. It's nothing but spiteful stupidity.

Agreed. The smartest and best would just find something else to do rather than live on fly over country (many of us fled to D.C. From those shitholes after college). There would not be enough educated or experienced people outside the area to effectively run the government.

Keep in mind. They almost bankrupted the auto industry and made it the rust belt because of their inability to adapt and change to the market needs. Sounds like another kind worse kind of swamp to me.

+1 - we all worked hard and got out of those places, why send people back to cultural and educational black holes? Bring down the whole country to the lowest common denominator.

such a sad, truly deplorable way of thinking

+1 I can't believe the self-loathing. Must be tough to go through life hating your origins so much...

Again, I think posts like these are sock puppeting trolls.

There's resentment of the ignorance that voted for the dismantling of our government but the majority of the federal workforce lives in and serves areas outside of DC. The work of government goes on no matter who controls Washington. The very idea that people who spend every day trying to solve problems in these places would also call them hellholes not deserving of that work is just not credible.

There's an effort here to create an impression that Washington should be punished because Washington wants to punish the country. It's false and purposely destructive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis.

Grand Rapids (MI), Nashville, Madison (WI), St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo ... all great places for federal agency HQs. 8)

Based on what? I have lived in three places on your list. They are fine places to live. I am just not sure you gain much by uprooting Federal agency HQs and sprinkling them throughout the country. I just do not but the notion that people who live and work in these agencies are tainted just because they live in DMV. People come from this area from all over the country and bring varying perspectives to the job. In my unit of 12 people, only one is a DMV native. The rest of us are from places like the ones you named. Because of the varying perspectives, we are able to make policy that tries to be responsive to the issues in those places. We are from those places and we know them. Do you really want a Dept of Ed where people from South Central Michigan are driving educational policy for the rest of the country. Nothing wrong with them as people - I am one of them. But their views on public education are different than those than people in Mississippi might have. The best thing about DC is that it does draw people from different backgrounds and walks of life.

[Anonymous]

Rick Perry should move Dept. of Energy HQ to Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second, say an agency relocates to Michigan. You think it is moving to Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor or Howell? It would move to Ann Arbor, Detroit or maybe Grand Rapids or Lansing - all within 2 hours from the biggest city in the state and cities that are doing ok or on the upswing. You wanna move the agency to Tenn? Sure ain't moving the agency to Humboldt or Kingsport. It would be Nashville or Memphis.

Grand Rapids (MI), Nashville, Madison (WI), St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo ... all great places for federal agency HQs. 8)

Based on what? I have lived in three places on your list. They are fine places to live. I am just not sure you gain much by uprooting Federal agency HQs and sprinkling them throughout the country. I just do not but the notion that people who live and work in these agencies are tainted just because they live in DMV. People come from this area from all over the country and bring varying perspectives to the job. In my unit of 12 people, only one is a DMV native. The rest of us are from places like the ones you named. Because of the varying perspectives, we are able to make policy that tries to be responsive to the issues in those places. We are from those places and we know them. Do you really want a Dept of Ed where people from South Central Michigan are driving educational policy for the rest of the country. Nothing wrong with them as people - I am one of them. But their views on public education are different than those than people in Mississippi might have. The best thing about DC is that it does draw people from different backgrounds and walks of life.

DC is so great because the wealth is so concentrated. That wealth is funded by American tax dollars. Time to spread the wealth, make flyover country great again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, if the government moved their offices out to other states, they wouldn't be moving them to a cornfield. They'd be moving them near a city with shopping and transportation infrastructure and in many cases near major research institutions- so Columbus, Ann Arbor, Madison, Boulder, etc. those areas are already blue. I'd be fine moving to any of those areas and while there are highly educated folks there, NASA is unlikely to find someone else with the same experience and education.

But these places still aren't the talent hubs you think they are. My sister owns a tech company in Ann Arbor, and for a lot of their specialized tech talent they hire remote employees because even in Ann Arbor they can't find the talent they need. The UofM grads who want to work in tech move to SV.