Connection between democratic leadership and poverty

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Below is an intriguing connection between Democratic mayoral footholds and extreme poverty.

The 10 U.S. cities with the highest poverty rates:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican
mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.


Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results."


It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still
disadvantaged.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
So now correlation equals causality? Wonderful science.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
No. Correlation mean correlation. 10 for 10 demonstrates a meaningful relationship between two variables.

:bsflag:


The steps of the scientific method are to:
  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
You have failed on all parts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

atomicTIGER

1st Like
Joined
May 12, 2008
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Location
san antonio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Below is an intriguing connection between Democratic mayoral footholds and extreme poverty.

The 10 U.S. cities with the highest poverty rates:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican
mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.


Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results."


It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still
disadvantaged.
No offense intended--but a Mayor has little to nothing to do with the wealth or poverty of a city. For example pick a "wealthy" city--what did the Mayor do to cause this "wealth"? Nothing---the same goes for poor cities--they have no control over the financial situtation of the people. They can help a little by working to get more employers to move to area--but George Bush is going to screw the public no matter where you live so it doesn't really matter
 
Last edited:

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
:bsflag:





The steps of the scientific method are to:
  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
You have failed on all parts.

This isn't a science experiment. It is simply a list of poverty-stricken US cities, and the corresponding party affiliations of the mayors in those cities, that seems to be more than a coincidence.

But if we must use your method:

What political party has been in leadership, and for how long, in the most poverty-afflicted U.S. cities?

Background research: Please see OP

Hypothesis: The democratic party has not demonstrated an ability to minimize or control poverty, i.e. they have failed repeatedly and failed badly in the most challenged US cities

Experiment: Again, see OP

Conclusion: The Democratic Party has failed at minimizing poverty in the 10 largest US cities with the highest poverty rates
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
This isn't a science experiment. It is simply a list of poverty-stricken US cities, and the corresponding party affiliations of the mayors in those cities, that seems to be more than a coincidence.

But if we must use your method:

What political party has been in leadership, and for how long, in the most poverty-afflicted U.S. cities?

Background research: Please see OP

Hypothesis: The democratic party has not demonstrated an ability to minimize or control poverty, i.e. they have failed repeatedly and failed badly in the most challenged US cities

Experiment: Again, see OP

Conclusion: The Democratic Party has failed at minimizing poverty in the 10 largest US cities with the highest poverty rates


:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:

It would work on Fox News. No where else.

:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:
:18:
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
The OP is a functional moron.

Poor people are democratic because Republicans do not represent the interests of the poor...

Quite a stretch to make being democratic a causal factor in poverty...


That would be like saying that becoming republican makes you an asshole.

When everyone knows that BEING an asshole makes you a republican.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
The fact of the matter is without the theocrats and the plutocrats the Republican party would be no where.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No offense intended--but a Mayor has little to nothing to do with the wealth or poverty of a city. For example pick a "wealthy" city--what did the Mayor do to cause this "wealth"? Nothing---the same goes for poor cities--they have no control over the financial situtation of the people. They can help a little by working to get more employers to move to area--but George Bush is going to screw the public no matter where you live so it doesn't really matter

No offense taken. I am not referring to the "wealth" of a city; instead I'm referring to minimizing or improving poverty levels. Mayors can take steps to reduce violence, promote economic development, prepare city budgets and attack the issue of poverty. See below - an excerpt of an article from the NY Sun [sept. 19th] outlining Mayor Bloomberg's plan to reduce poverty:

Poor New Yorkers could get cash rewards if they make choices that will help them move out of poverty, such as staying in school or taking higher education courses, as part of the sweeping array of programs to reduce poverty Mayor Bloomberg announced yesterday.
Mr. Bloomberg announced the proposals along with his 32-member antipoverty commission, led by the CEO of Time Warner, Richard Parsons, a possible mayoral candidate for 2009,and the city's antipoverty tsar, Geoffrey Canada.
The cash payments plan, which was not among the commission's recommendations, would cost about $24 million a year and would be funded through private philanthropy. The mayor also said the city would seek approval to provide tax refunds of up to $1,000 for low-income families that need day care for children under age 3, at a cost of $42 million.
 

atomicTIGER

1st Like
Joined
May 12, 2008
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Location
san antonio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Republicans are for looking out for the rich--and screwing the poor. Everyone knows that. And McCain says if you make less than $5 million a year you are not wealthy. So if you make less than $5 million he is going to screw you over. I don't make $5 million or even close to that and I am about to be layed off my job--so he's really going to screw me over.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The OP is a functional moron

I disagree

Poor people are democratic because Republicans do not represent the interests of the poor...

Says who? Republicans are for smaller government - that does not mean that they do not represent interests of the poor. You are making the implication here - not me - that poor people are all democrats.

Quite a stretch to make being democratic a causal factor in poverty...

I never impied that. I did make the implication that democratic leaders haven't been able to improve it.

That would be like saying that becoming republican makes you an asshole.

When everyone knows that BEING an asshole makes you a republican

Touching.
 

atomicTIGER

1st Like
Joined
May 12, 2008
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Location
san antonio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Republicans are for smaller government?? Thats a laugh!! They are ALWAYS for more secret backdoor deals to screw us working poor. They are a secret society that does eveything possible to keep us poor and keep them rich. Republicans are the problem and always have been...Look at Regan--he is spoken so highly of..But more small bussiness failed under Regan than any other time in history--They even have college courses on his failed economic ideas--so that will never happen again
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Republicans are for smaller government?? Thats a laugh!!

Not a laugh. Look up "Republican Party"

They are ALWAYS for more secret backdoor deals to screw us working poor. They are a secret society that does eveything possible to keep us poor and keep them rich.

Was Tom Cruise in that movie?


Republicans are the problem and always have been...Look at Regan--he is spoken so highly of..But more small bussiness failed under Regan than any other time in history--They even have college courses on his failed economic ideas--so that will never happen again

Was that University of MSNBC?
 

atomicTIGER

1st Like
Joined
May 12, 2008
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Location
san antonio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not a laugh. Look up "Republican Party"
I don't have to look up anything Example: Bush has doubled the size of government in his disastorious "Terror on America"


Was Tom Cruise in that movie?
Not a movie at all--there are things being done behind closed doors that would shake this country to its knees if we knew it.



Was that University of MSNBC?
No its taught at every college in Economics 101
 

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,764
Media
14
Likes
230
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Not a laugh. Look up "Republican Party"



Was Tom Cruise in that movie?




Was that University of MSNBC?



ok I'll try to be nice about this. this whole thing about the republican party being all for a small gov't is true. The thing you don't seem to realize is that the Republican party today, and the republican party of say....10-20 years ago are totally different animals. Especially the last 7 almost 8 years GW Bush has been in office.

The republican party of today has lost its way. It has been taken over by Neo conservatives, who say they share the values of the party, but do not act that way.

Up until GW Bush, I would have considered voting republican for president, congress, etc. Since the Bush administration has been in control, the republicans have become hippocratic religious zealots who say one thing and do the opposite. They have become shadier than democrats, and frankly scare the shit out of me because of the things they do.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I am very liberal about some issues, and very conservative about many issues
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response