dmp
Well-known member
The Germans were in dire straights by 1930, some Americans may, be but the vast majority are comparatively rich.
I agree with the main point.
Wealth inequality played a role as well as unemployment in the 1930s. One of the strongest arguments for progressive tax structure to combat wealth inequality is political stability.
Counties that went for Trump contribute only 36% of the US economy. The well-circulated graphic attached shows how much Federal assistance Rural pro-Trump States consume (data is 4 yrs old, but presumably the trend continues - obviously the red/blue on states like Wisconsin are out of date). Rural populations are additionally subsidized in some states (like Wisconsin) by "sharing" the local taxes to pay for services. It's also been commonly reported how Trump voters have less education, lower incomes and lower future job prospects.
Even though the country as a whole doesn't look too dire, a lot of Trump's voters are looking at a pretty grim reality.
And as the country's debt load gets more burdensome, the people dependent on these subsidies are going to be worse off. Social security will decrease benefits automatically as it becomes insolvent unless politicians come to the rescue - the number of people on disability spiked after 2008.
Somehow electing a privileged billionaire as your savior seems a little misguided, but he said all the right things to get their support.
Looking at the misinformation of the past few years and the result, I am less optimistic.I don't think that a more savvy aware public could be hoodwinked today