The proposals to cut Medicare and wage assistance come from the governor.
It's been occurring for 20 years.
True. Economic and technological changes have largely been unfavorable to the rural environment. In the example I've been using, small hospitals are unable to afford modern diagnostic equipment, do not have the traffic to afford an emergency room, and cannot meet the requirements of or provide the traffic necessary to support specialists.
There's a way to crank up the rural economy, but it would involve dealing with the regulatory straitjacket with which rural resource industries have been virtually murdered
In some cases yes. In others they've been driven under by new competition with cheaper labor or cheaper extraction costs or an environment better suited to farming or ranching.
None of that ameliorates the effect of budget cuts on these who've remained in the rural environment and are attempting to survive.
Arnold's globalist handlers won't permit that
It remains to be seen what Arnold will do about the regulatory environment...or how much he can do given the attitude of the populace and the federal government. As far as I can tell he's an environmentalist and is not willing to sacrifice it for short-term gains.
...so don't cry to me about rural hospitals as if you care
Scrap away the veneer of education and you're nothing but an ill-mannered, short-tempered, self-important pig...as I suspected.
In your case, there's nothing to scrape away; just a standard, unabashed whinning, begging, sloven tax-eating parasite.
Um, Medicare is a Federal program. Arnold can't touch that. So far, his "cuts" have been a pittance.
Economic and technological changes have largely been unfavorable to the rural environment.
Because liberals like you love to demand freebies from rural industry so that you'll let them use their own property. You want parks, you want open space, you want watershed management, and no matter how stupid or counterproductive the provisions are, you sponsor the use of police power to force compliance. When they go broke, you arrogantly wave your hand and call it "economics."
How's it working? I suppose you liked those fires in LA? Now that the Forest Service is trying to prevent people from rebuilding their cabins I'll bet you're celebrating! More forest for Larry! You like those higher prices for lumber? Sierra Pacific does, now that their competition is dead. Higher housing prices for Larry!
In some cases yes. In others they've been driven under by new competition with cheaper labor or cheaper extraction costs or an environment better suited to farming or ranching.
It's cheaper elsewhere because of the restrictions your ideological ilk have put on them. Ranchers and farmers have been stomped with bogus claims pursuant to the ESA just as much as miners and forest landowners. Now they're being set up with the Clean Water Act. Then there are matters of "social justice" in the cost of their labor. You make them pay more so that you can feel good about the working conditions the workers voluntarily accepted. I'll bet you buy Mexican produce too.
In some cases, developers want that land, and have to put the farmers in positon to make a distressed sale to turn a profit into a windfall. They love contributing to liberal causes. In other cases, competing industries don't want that land in production because they love artificially high prices and so do you. Your ideological friends in the State bureaucracy and racketeering NGOs are gleefully willing to comply. So is Arnold, who took a cool $2.5 million in campaign contributions from the likes of Kaufman and Broad. More crappy slums of the future with a fat price tag.
The problem is that, were all that land available for development, housing prices would fall and neither you nor the developers want that. It cuts your profits on screwing those rural landowners and allows the prices of existing homes to fall! You can't have that and neither can the banks. So, how to maintian the shortages? Greenbelts? Conservation easments? Guess what? On the latter, the big foundations holding the development right can still build, later, when prices rise enough. You won't be able to do a thing about it either.
Oh those loggers and ranchers were polluting the watersheds! As much as the mud sliding off the San Gabriel Mountains? They were harming endangered species! As much as a 1700° fire with no refugia? So, who will weed it now if they can't make a buck on the land? Are you going to do it?
Oh, but you advocated those policies for ALTRUISTIC reasons? Bullshit. You want your playground at somebody else's expense and you want your the value of your house to rise. You blew off the warnings from conservative landowners and use altruism as a cover.
And finally, don't make it personal. My property values are not in danger. :)
QED, and you did make it personal.
Look who's a pig! What have YOU DONE to take care of nature? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have you spent for the privilege?
Worse, you don't want to know better because it would blow your cover, an artifice of self-deception that allows your pompous crap. Avoiding_Sulla charitably called you ignorant of the consequences of your liberalism. I disagree with his assessment and he knows better. He even offered you a free book with which to cure your ignorance. You made agreements you didn't keep to back out of it. You need to maintain that selective vision and careful avoidance of the truth, which is why my posts really get under your skin.
Don't bother Freepmailing me. I won't read it.