Historically speaking, why does the south vote against their interests all the time...

>he thinks Maryland is a white state
oh my sweet summer child

After the Civil Rights Act was passed, the Republican party focused on ideology to attract voters and started pandering about values to get votes. Look up the Southern Strategy and the establishment of the Christian political identity that happened in the 1970s, OP.

That was my point. WV is dumb despite being white, Maryland is educated despite the large minority population, they're both outliers but in different ways.
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/13/actually-mr-trump-iowa-is-one-of-the-smartest-states-in-the-union/?utm_term=.4d2b7424e61f

Paying state workers more increases government spending, forcing the government to raise funds that would be more efficiently spent by the free market.
More government intervention would only decrease the quality of healthcare services and increase costs, as well as providing ample opportunities for pork, which is most likely why your Democrat candidate wants it. The fact that you don't realize this shows you as either uneducated or, more likely, a falseflagging Europoor, in which case you should fuck off our internet.

>muuuh southern strategy
Stop peddling this meme.

oklahoma and kansas aren't very smart or care about education, and they're mostly white. the latter iirc has only a 4 day school week now but most people don't include kansas in the south.

however, the voting against interests problem also extends to the midwest where most people are white too

Are you saying it's in midwestern interests to vote blue? Have you forgotten who signed NAFTA?

>the only thing that anyone ever votes for is economic self-interest

Here's a tip OP: People vote for things aside from their own balance sheet. If I asked you who you voted for and why, I can guarantee you that you'd give me quite a new non-monetary reasons. Maybe you like a candidate's stand on the environment, or you like them because they (and you) don't believe that the government should be a massive welfare dispensary, or maybe you voted for them because they were or were not of the same religious and cultural background as you.

And even if monetary interest WAS the only thing getting peoples' votes, why are you assuming that someone who wants more money for themselves to spend as they choose rather than more money given to the government to spend is somehow voting against their own interest?

How is it a meme? It was a well-documented strategy the Republican party planned and carried out. Here's a direct quote from Nixon's political strategist:

>From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats

It is a meme to claim it was in any way significant in gaining the formerly Democratic votes. They haven't really "switched" until the 1990s.

We're doing pretty well here, and every single Hispanic hates communism.

T. Florida

I was going to say this but point out that all the textbooks are picked by a political organization that tries to advance their agenda with dirty tricks like buy the worst books you can find that say common core on the cover and then claim common core is a liberal conspiracy to make everyone dumber.

Because they fight to preserve Fat Inheritors of wealth like thatJewish man Trump while their bridges collapse and hospitals close down.

>If you're poor or sick or disabled, if you can't help yourself, god can't help you.
Bullshit, Jesus healed the sick and lame and asked nothing for it.

Kansas is sixth, surprisingly.

>pay state workers more
Lost my vote there

The south tends to be for smaller government in general. They'll take the downsides so long as they aren't beholden to beauracracy.

Southerners are socially conservative, and will always vote for their values over gibs.

Run as a social conservative pro-lifer while promoting infrastructure and welfare and you will dominate the white AND black vote.

T. Norf Carolinian

Question: why do you think you're more qualified to say what the needs of the voters are? If they choose to prioritize piety, that's their prerogative

If the democrats wanted everything they want now but without minorities and immigration and other liberal bullshit I'd vote dem 100% of the time

The south were plagued with weak men, they could never get into a good time.

>historically speaking, why does the south vote against their interests all the time?
They don't, the south has grown exceptionally well since ww2 due to low taxes and pro business policies.

It's easy to have low taxes if Blue states are paying up to 35% of your state budget for you.

wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Not him but when it comes to infrastructure, the people are fucking stupid. You know that old Simpsons episode where the Bear Patrol (which didn't really DO anything, but let's put that aside for now) was widely liked until they realized it cause a 1 dollar tax increase (as Lisa said, it's the smallest tax increase in history)? But at the same time don't want to give it up, leading to this Mayor Quimby exchange

>are those people getting louder or stupider?
>both sir. They don't want bears but they also don't want to pay more taxes.

That's the reality of the public. They want infrastructure improved, but they don't want to pay for it.

>they're all neoliberal reagan types
>nobody actually talks about hurting minorities
Pic one.

>More government intervention would only decrease the quality of healthcare services and increase costs

That's only the case in single-payer systems. People seem to think that in universal healthcare, private insurance goes away and the state runs everything, but only 3 countries in the world do that (Canda, Cuba, and North Korea). In every other country with universal hc, what it has is the public option which is essentially just our medicaid system available to more people. If anything this causes insurance companies to lower their rates because when they have to compete with something that's free (outside of taxes obviously), then they no longer have a monopoly.

Canada*

Nice try retard but urban and suburban schools train idiots like you to talk about how evil white people are and then back the retarded pet "people of color" who attack whites in the street.

It was a 5 dollar tax increase but Lisa was still right.
youtube.com/watch?v=JtgvWZuyYKc

>forcing the government to raise funds that would be more efficiently spent by the free market.
What free market? Everything in this country's private sector is run by monopolies, which is anti free market because they remove competition. The thing the government ironically was supposed to prevent from happening through TR's trust-busting.

>"Lol idiot southerners voting against their interests"
>Southern politicians take advantage of government gibs to steal rust belt jobs
>"pls stop"

>against their interests meme
>implying you know what the south wants

I know what everyone but the rich wants. For the lower and middle classes to have NO taxes on them and to tax the everliving shit out of the upper class, the way our country was pre-New Deal. Even Trump said, the rich are the one group in society that can actually afford to pay high taxes.

Maybe they prefer to fail on their own merit than to get government handouts.
Pride can make people very stubborn during hard times, the southerners have lots of pride.

>Maybe they prefer to fail on their own merit than to get government handouts.
Then why is like half of Mississippi on welfare, including the white population?

DA SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN :DDD

>Why doesn't the South vote Democrat and therefore against their own interests
I hate liberals so much

>Gerrymandering is okay because gerrymandering is okay because gerrymandering is okay becau...

I'm not rich and I don't want that.

>Taxing the rich will immediately solve the obesity, meth, opioid, and wage stagnation issues
>Meanwhile the people who you vote in to do so will also shut down your mining job for the """environment""", and support the same party that wants to tear down all your statues and force you to compete with Mexicans who are being abused by neo-liberal elites
>So you can be abuses too
Wew

The simple fact is that the more money is in the hands of the common man from his paycheck, the more options he has in life.

>Liberals don't gerrymander
Pfftt

Ironically they also have the cons of big government too.

The biggest employer in that part of the country is the military-industrial complex, that aint exactly the private sector.

>the common man

Nice spook

>The biggest employer in that part of the country is the military-industrial complex
Do you unironically believe this?

>one thing people will like means that it fixes everything
No it means it fixes one thing, there is no fix-all in systems this complex.

Except taxing the rich doesn't go into your pay check, it goes the the government. Wages won't increase if you tax the bourgeoisie, what happens is that they leave the country and invest in areas of the world that employ quasi slave labor like they have been doin for decades. If you want to increase wages, stop Mexicans and other illegals from abusing the visa system so that we can shrink the labor pool and force real wages to increase by minimizing the ability of immigrants to send remittances back to Mexico or anywhere else.

Surplus value is a meme btw

It's the biggest employer in the world, and the reason it can't be downsized is because it has jobs in every state. One state makes body armor, one making plating for humvees, one makes shells, etc. You literally can't shut it down without bankrupting like half the country.

>Except taxing the rich doesn't go into your pay check

No but ZERO TAXES on yourself does

We have private insurance in Canada

>what happens is that they leave the country and invest in areas of the world that employ quasi slave labor like they have been doin for decades
Pre-globalization we didn't let companies do that.

Do you have any idea how debt financing works? Forcing the upper class to pay for all taxes under a heavy statist and federalized system would collapse the whole economy.

We would have a stock market crash akin the 1929

>Forcing the upper class to pay for all taxes under a heavy statist and federalized system would collapse the whole economy.

It's how our economy worked for most of our history. America was not some free trade paradise, prior to the 1940s it was one of the most rabidly protectionist, tariff-loving, tax the rich nations on the planet, and had been that way since its founding.

Problem is, we have already opened Pandora's box on that one. Luckily we have Trump who ran on the promise of ending globalization and refused to sign the TPP, but that doesn't mean our economy hasn't progressed into the globalist world market along with everyone else.

The only thing that can be done is soft core protectionism

For most of our history economic crashes were also pretty common. People bring up the Great Depression a lot but that's mainly because it was in living memory. We used to have so many that just google "Panic of" and watch the autocomplete give you like 20 different dates.

>muh mining jerb
automation is taking it away. On one hand you rant about poor oppressed workers and then you want to go back to working for 18 hours a day opening coal seams

>America was not some free trade paradise, prior to the 1940s it was one of the most rabidly protectionist, tariff-loving, tax the rich nations on the planet, and had been that way since its founding.
>How to spot a nigga who knows nothing about the revolutionary or gilded ages

Wew lad , the problem in this country was that we were too lenient on Industrialists who kept almost all of their money. Unless you just know.nothjg about Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt etc

We never had a history of taxing the rich, and even when they did they always find loopholes with their armies of lawyers

>What is retail
>What is healthcare
>What is finance
>What is local and state government
Holy shit you are stupid.

What you or other people perceive as being "in their interests" is not clear cut and always colored by ideology

>Automation is taking it away
Automation is being used by employers to displace the working class and force wages to stagnate by having to compete with machines. Jobs are jobs you Yankee moron, lol. When you run on the promise of shutting down what puts food on your child's plate, how do *think* that is going to be perceived?

And yes amongst all the hate poor white southerners get
>Fuckin redneck scum
>Don't you just hate poor white southerners?
>Yeah did you see that film where poor white southerners all fuck their sisters and smoke meth?
>Lol
Fucking northerners, you have no sense of self awareness

It's either this, or "compassionate conservativism" which is "Churches should provide the social safety net, and be paid with using your tax dollars." It's very fitting that when people are cast into the hell of capitalism, homelessness, they are also cast into the hell of Christianity as well. Thou shall be saved, sinner, through labor and faith!

They're being sarcastic.

Here's what I don't understand about protectionism... doesn't it just help you at work, but then hurt you when you go to Walmart after work? Where is the actual benefit?

No, automation in mining means you don't need actual fucking miners you autistic shitstain. All jobs don't have the same criteria Jimbo. You had the opportunity to learn a trade skill with the help of the government and instead chose to stick to mining coal.
Then you get asshurt the rest of the country is laughing at you.

I don't like Trump but he was right in his statement on Mexico. They practice protectionism and we don't, which means it screws our economy more than theirs on that specific deal.

Case in point: Huey Long

>and we don't

But how would protectionism help us? Like I said, what I don't understand is... wouldn't protectionism just mean people get paid more at their jobs, but then have to spend more to buy things?

Not on those specific deals, no. He was talking about the automobile industry there.

>Labor isn't scarce
Sometimes I forget I'm talking to a bunch of NEETs who don't understand how rural labor markets work

The basic idea is that the company will have to keep their prices the same because the public at large won't accept a major price hike and go elsewhere, drying up the business in general.

>Labor is important in heavy duty mining in the current year for a resource that is declining in use world wide.

That doesn't work when super chains drive out all the competition, like I said in

But wouldn't protectionism mean that all companies would have to hike prices in order to maintain the same profits, which means that there would be nowhere for the public to go actually get stuff at lower prices, and because protectionism would be putting more money in their pockets at work, they would now be able to afford to pay more?

>But wouldn't protectionism mean that all companies would have to hike prices in order to maintain the same profits
The idea is to keep prices the same even if that means lowering corporate profits.

>and because protectionism would be putting more money in their pockets at work, they would now be able to afford to pay more?

That's really only an issue if both are raised at the same rate or if prices raise at a higher rate than wages. Historically it's the opposite where wage rates increases are higher than price hikes.

Why would companies lower their own profits?

Lack of choice in the matter

>Historically it's the opposite where wage rates increases are higher than price hikes.
If that's true, what is the mechanism that explains it?

You mean do the benefits in real wages outweigh the increases in the CPI? It does for consumers, but not for employers overall but that is just by measuring for purely materialistic merits. Businesses want to pay people less and have them consume more , as a general rule. What increasing real wages at the cost of increasing the CPI (reminder that this also occurs on a global market, so the CPI and prices of different goods won't go up all around just for certain goods) will do is force a domestic market to become more prominent. Robert Putnam would probably argue that decreasing consumption overall and raising wages would lead to increases in social capital through this mechanism (probably)

Because companies know if they raise it TOO much people won't pay for it

Why would they have a lack of choice in the matter? What's the mechanism?

>Labor isn't important for the mining , transportation, processing, and usage of a certain resource mined
No, also it's not been decreasing at all. Maybe in first world countries but while we are trying to develop Asia and Africa it's still in extreme amounts of usage

So you are saying virginia is 3rd world tier?
got it.

Generally what causes price hikes isn't wage increases but changes in inflation.

It's always true that there's a price point above which consumers can't pay, but why specifically would protectionism cause wages to increase more than prices?

>Not understanding the transportation an extraction parts of the equation
Yeesh, and you liberals complain about how hypocritical it is for the South to be against the welfare system while.thry take so much of it, yet you clearly can't understand how important these kinds of jobs are in the US.

these jobs are being priced out by the free market. Instead of actually retraining for new jobs you keep whining about liberals and keep collecting their cheques

Interesting. I'll have to think about this more. Generally, what I'm getting at is, I'm trying to figure out whether there's any reason to believe that protectionism isn't just a disguised form of welfare that redistributes wealth without improving the economy as a whole. And if it is just welfare, then why not just give economically suffering people welfare directly rather than hope that protectionism will do the trick?

Cont. And, of course, I'm not even sure protectionism would be effective as welfare given the possibility that prices would increase as much as wages. So the second question is whether wage growth actually would outstrip price growth.

>Muh 1950s tax rates
The rest of the world was rubble. So the US govnt had a captive tax base