Connection between democratic leadership and poverty

[Phil Ayesho]

As to the definition of insanity...


Take a look at the papers...

Today, Wall Street is officially ended.

Republican "free Market" ideals resulted in the S&L crisis of 89, The Energy market crisis of 2001, the Mortgage crisis of 2007 and now the collapse of Wall street.

And yet they still chant the mantra of the free market....

How many times do republicans have to utterly fail, how many times do they have to screw up the entire economy, before they learn their ideas are unworkable and stupid?


OR-
How many times do small government/ fiscal "conservatives" have to vote in republicans- only to find the republicans INCREASE deficits, INCREASE the national debt, INCREASE the size and scope and intrusive power of government... before they realize that Republicans are NOT gonna support smaller government and fiscal conservatism? ( every single republican president since Nixon)

IF- after the recent disaster ( the fourth republican lapse in accountability since Bush 1) the recent failure in the middle east, the total failure to address real national disasters and real national concerns...
...and this last insult to intelligence... the Private sector proving beyond any doubt that they are incompetent to manage their own businesses- standing in line for the GOVERNMENT to save them...

AND the topper of them all- the total dissolution of American brokerages...

If after all of that, conservatives STILL back republicans...?


That's even worse than insane... its delusional.


If you want fiscal responsibility and moderation... if you want leadership that can learn from their mistakes... if you want government reigned in to its Constitutionally defines limits...

Then you sure as hell don't want to vote for a republican.

 

[deleted15807]

It's party BEFORE country every time.

 

[atomicTIGER]

As to the definition of insanity...


Take a look at the papers...

Today, Wall Street is officially ended.

Republican "free Market" ideals resulted in the S&L crisis of 89, The Energy market crisis of 2001, the Mortgage crisis of 2007 and now the collapse of Wall street.

And yet they still chant the mantra of the free market....

How many times do republicans have to utterly fail, how many times do they have to screw up the entire economy, before they learn their ideas are unworkable and stupid?


OR-
How many times do small government/ fiscal "conservatives" have to vote in republicans- only to find the republicans INCREASE deficits, INCREASE the national debt, INCREASE the size and scope and intrusive power of government... before they realize that Republicans are NOT gonna support smaller government and fiscal conservatism? ( every single republican president since Nixon)

IF- after the recent disaster ( the fourth republican lapse in accountability since Bush 1) the recent failure in the middle east, the total failure to address real national disasters and real national concerns...
...and this last insult to intelligence... the Private sector proving beyond any doubt that they are incompetent to manage their own businesses- standing in line for the GOVERNMENT to save them...

AND the topper of them all- the total dissolution of American brokerages...

If after all of that, conservatives STILL back republicans...?


That's even worse than insane... its delusional.


If you want fiscal responsibility and moderation... if you want leadership that can learn from their mistakes... if you want government reigned in to its Constitutionally defines limits...

Then you sure as hell don't want to vote for a republican.

Very true--what Bush is doing with the bailout situation is exactally how Communist states are begun. He is so dumb he just doesn't understand history at all. And McCain he comes out and at least that he knows nothing about economics..I give him credit for admitting that he's stupid.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I disagree

Okay- but I just demonstrated that you qualify as insane... ergo your disagreement is immaterial.

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.

ASK THE POOR... republicans do not do anything for them.

And republicans are for smaller government? Really? On what evidence can you possibly make that claim?
Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 ALL increased the size and scope of federal government.
The only part of government they reduced was government oversight over private sector greed and graft... and you see where that has gotten us, right?

ALl republican presidents have INCREASED federal spending, Increased pork barrel spending, incresed the size of deficts and increased the national debt.



So, you read a bumper sticker saying they are for smaller government... yet you are too insane to notice that their ACTIONS do not match their sales pitch?

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

Demonstrably false. Economic statiistics going back to the Depression show clearly that the REAL income and wealth of the poor and middle class ALWAYS sees its greatest growth under Democratic administrations.

The majority of the wealthy also see somewhat better growth under Democratic leadership. Only the top 2% of the already wealthy see better increases in wealth under republican leadership- and that is MOSTLY due to Republicans leadership allowing MORE corruption, graft, and illegal activity on the part of the wealthy.

Under republican leadership- from Bush 1 on, the Poor get significantly poorer and real middle class wages stagnate or fall.


So... really... bone up on reality and not the Bizarro world propaganda the republicans feed you.


I used to vote for republicans... but I have been paying attention to how well their promises match their actions... and they don't.

They are liars and charlatans and con men...

And the Best mark for any con man is the Mark who refuses to believe that he has been conned.


That makes you, Mark.

 

[B_starinvestor]

When you take information from another site it is common courtesy to cite your source so we can all judge it's veracity. Otherwise you are just speaking out of your ass.

Poorest cities all have Democratic mayors - snopes.com

Oops. I thought the source was in OP. My mistake.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

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.

Dude, the tagline on the website you got this info from is... and I quote, "Beatdown on the arrogant left". Seriously. You're fuckin' kidding me, right? You think anyone is going to take these comments to heart if the source blatantly exposes its bias like that? But let's truly analyze this statistic you posted. You're basing yet another empty-winded Democrat attack based on an article that surveys only 10 cities, not even realizing that this doesn't even represent 1% of the total number of cities in our nation. Not only that, only 6 of the ten cities listed make the top 50 in population and with the exception of Philadelphia, NONE of them make the top ten.

So basically, you gathered a small bunch of cities where the population of all the states combined can't even come close to the top 3 cities (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago)... exploited some weird factoid about how they only have had Democratic leadership, and want to twist it into some kind of rhetoric that will somehow prove that Republicans ,who over the last 30+ years made it a point to ignore or avoid issues that affect the inner cities, will do better amongst the poor? You have to do better than that.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you work for Trinity.

 

[deleted15807]

How about this one...the world's largest debtor nation has had Republican presidents for 19 of the last 30 years. Public and private debt is now $39 trillion. The nation is poor and living well beyond it's means.

 

[Industrialsize]

Dude, the tagline on the website you got this info from is... and I quote, "Beatdown on the arrogant left". Seriously. You're fuckin' kidding me, right? You think anyone is going to take these comments to heart if the source blatantly exposes its bias like that? But let's truly analyze this statistic you posted. You're basing yet another empty-winded Democrat attack based on an article that surveys only 10 cities, not even realizing that this doesn't even represent 1% of the total number of cities in our nation. Not only that, only 6 of the ten cities listed make the top 50 in population and with the exception of Philadelphia, NONE of them make the top ten.

So basically, you gathered a small bunch of cities where the population of all the states combined can't even come close to the top 3 cities (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago)... exploited some weird factoid about how they only have had Democratic leadership, and want to twist it into some kind of rhetoric that will somehow prove that Republicans ,who over the last 30+ years made it a point to ignore or avoid issues that affect the inner cities, will do better amongst the poor? You have to do better than that.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you work for Trinity.

But who does TRINITY work for?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

But who does TRINITY work for?

That's too scary of a thought.
I'm gonna have to look at your dirty photos now to restore happy thoughts to my mind. :wink:

 

[deleted15807]

This weekend's 'Trinity ???' thread is down the memory hole. Never existed.

 

[B_starinvestor]

The majority of the wealthy also see somewhat better growth under Democratic leadership. Only the top 2% of the already wealthy see better increases in wealth under republican leadership- and that is MOSTLY due to Republicans leadership allowing MORE corruption, graft, and illegal activity on the part of the wealthy.

More corruption, graft and illegal activity on the part of the wealthy?

I look at scandals that involved Enron, Lucent, Adelphia, Tyco and some others. There - cheating and fraud were involved, and I concede that. Innocent people ended up being wiped out by a few rotten eggs at the top of the food chain. Solution: Sarbanes-Oxley.

This crisis in the mortgage/banking/broker/investment industry is not the result of greed or an evil conspiracy by the republicans. It's simply the result of a new product being available - we could go on for decades over who is responsible for the products - and people having a great need/desire for the product.

Now - let me put this in another context. Theoretically, assume Joe is a banker. Low to middle income man, Carlos, comes into his bank. Joe takes his financial data. No savings. Good work history. Renter. Carlos asks Joe if he can get him approved for a loan. Joe types info into underwriting system and Carlos is approved for a no-money-down mortgage. Carlos asks: Am I approved? Joe says yes, you are approved. He finds a house and gets into it with a loan from Joe's bank. Once in the house, Carlos discovers the ancillary expenses that go along with the house are more than he bargained for. He forecloses.

Who is responsible for this foreclosure? Joe? Evil republicans? GWB? Secret back-door deal between republicans? What if Joe told Carlos that he wasn't qualified - then what would you call Joe or his bank? A racist? Keeping the poor man down?

Contrary to your belief system, republicans are not responsible for everything that goes wrong in our economy. You imply that I am insane because I post pro-republican. However, you are spewing utterly hate-based anti-republican sentiment with every furious keystroke; blaming everything from the death of Wall Street to measles on the republicans.

Is that what you consider sane, rational thinking?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Contrary to your belief system, republicans are not responsible for everything that goes wrong in our economy. You imply that I am insane because I post pro-republican. However, you are spewing utterly hate-based anti-republican sentiment with every furious keystroke; blaming everything from the death of Wall Street to measles on the republicans.

No, we think you're insane because you use a story that surveys less than 1% of the nation's cities and come to a twisted conclusions that Democrats are bad for poor people just because these cities haven't had a Republican mayor over the last several decades.

Is that what you consider sane, rational thinking?

See above.

 

[B_starinvestor]

So basically, you gathered a small bunch of cities where the population of all the states combined can't even come close to the top 3 cities (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago)... exploited some weird factoid about how they only have had Democratic leadership, and want to twist it into some kind of rhetoric that will somehow prove that Republicans ,who over the last 30+ years made it a point to ignore or avoid issues that affect the inner cities, will do better amongst the poor? You have to do better than that.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you work for Trinity.

Vinyl - my post didn't set out to prove that Republicans would do better amongst the poor. My post simply set out to prove that, in that particular example, the Democrats are in charge in the 10 worst poverty-stricken cities in the US. In numerous other posts on this forum, references are made that Republicans continually extract more wealth from the poor and middle class, and make the poor even poorer. It would stand to reason, then, that in republican strongholds, there would be small amounts of wealthy people and growing numbers of poverty.

However, those claims don't seem hold much water when the 10 worst cities (in terms of poverty) are not run by republicans. They are run by democrats.

 

[mitchymo]

Can someone tell me exactly how many cities there are in America?....In the uk there are around three dozen which would make a 10 in 10 corellation pretty damning but surely there are so many cities in the US that such a correlation is purely coincidence....perhaps a list of the top 30 may reveal the latter 20 to be all republican mayoral seats....and what about the best performing cities in this correlation...if they have democrat mayors then it would seem this thread is more than a little bias perhaps in favor of the OPs political persuasion?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Can someone tell me exactly how many cities there are in America?....In the uk there are around three dozen which would make a 10 in 10 corellation pretty damning but surely there are so many cities in the US that such a correlation is purely coincidence....perhaps a list of the top 30 may reveal the latter 20 to be all republican mayoral seats....and what about the best performing cities in this correlation...if they have democrat mayors then it would seem this thread is more than a little bias perhaps in favor of the OPs political persuasion?

There's over 3000 cities in America. The city being the most populous on the OP's list Philadelphia with more than 1.4 million people as of 2005. Of course, this doesn't compare to cities like New York (8.1 Million), Los Angeles (3.8 Million) or Chicago (2.8 Million). And many other cities mentioned in starinvestor's OP don't even crack over 500,000.

All of this makes a study about 10 a little ridiculous to trumpet over. Especially since one of the cities in question is Miami, one that has been hurt tremendously by lost tourism, destroyed businesses and people moving away due to the crazy hurricane season they recently went through and the current real estate crunch. And I should know, for I've been going to Miami at least 2-3 times a year for the past 8. Or are Republicans trying to blame the Democrats for creating Hurricane Ivan & Katrina now?

However, those claims don't seem hold much water when the 10 worst cities (in terms of poverty) are not run by republicans. They are run by democrats.

Considering the state that American is in now with record unemployment, lower annual incomes and a continued real estate market crash, we can see why the top ten cities in poverty are so high. But is this really due to Democratic rule? Was it the same way just 8 years ago before the Bush Administration came into rule? Before you answer, how about we look at a summary regarding poverty from the US Census soon after the last Democrat left the presidency? Poverty Takes a Deep Dive In Central Cities (10/9/00)

Again, give us more detailed analysis that stretches over many years. Prove to us that the same 10 poverty stricken cities now were also the same back in 2000? A decade before? Show some REAL stats, instead of exploiting one really open ended one. And please, not from a site that claims they're beating down the arrogant left.

 

[b.c.]

Why do we waste time with ridiculous posts based on phony premises and flawed theory, I don't know. Admittedly it's hard to resist responding to the blatantly asinine.

The premise of this post is that the 10 cities noted are relatively poor because of their democratic leadership.

Or could it possibly be that their leadership is decidedly Democratic because cities with a higher number of people who fall in the middle to below average income level favor a Democrat ideology, by a vast margin, over the Republican ideology that favors the wealthy?




DUHHHHHHH!!

 

[stratedude]

Dude, the tagline on the website you got this info from is... and I quote, "Beatdown on the arrogant left". Seriously. You're fuckin' kidding me, right? You think anyone is going to take these comments to heart if the source blatantly exposes its bias like that? But let's truly analyze this statistic you posted. You're basing yet another empty-winded Democrat attack based on an article that surveys only 10 cities, not even realizing that this doesn't even represent 1% of the total number of cities in our nation. Not only that, only 6 of the ten cities listed make the top 50 in population and with the exception of Philadelphia, NONE of them make the top ten.

So basically, you gathered a small bunch of cities where the population of all the states combined can't even come close to the top 3 cities (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago)... exploited some weird factoid about how they only have had Democratic leadership, and want to twist it into some kind of rhetoric that will somehow prove that Republicans ,who over the last 30+ years made it a point to ignore or avoid issues that affect the inner cities, will do better amongst the poor? You have to do better than that.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you work for Trinity.

I guess my question regarding this is - How far down the list of the Poorest cities in America do you have to go before you reach Republican leadership?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Contrary to your belief system, republicans are not responsible for everything that goes wrong in our economy.

Naw. Only the major meltdowns.

 

[Notaguru2]

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

You need a statistics class... your sample is flawed.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

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

I'm going to quote this post.


Just look at it.

Look at it.

He says he's not saying correlation=causation, then implies that exact thing.