10
   

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:59 am
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

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 e 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.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 4,499 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 09:09 am
@cjhsa,

You keep posting crap over and over cjhsa as if you think you will get a different result.
islandgirl
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 09:10 am
@cjhsa,
I caught some flack a little while back when I mentioned that their are those that choose to live in poverty and never make a go of working and starting a career. In our country we even breed children into poverty. Unwed mothers are given additional money when they give birth to additional children even when they can't support the first. Many of them never even name or know the fathers of their children. This has been going on for generations and should stop. Social Service money going to non working people who then choose and make a conscious desicion to have more children. It doesn't make sense and is bleeding our economy dry.

I have absolutely no problem with men or women going on welfare, but the welfare program program was meant as a temporary solution to help out families in their time of need while they get back on their feet again. It is not meant as a generational lifestyle of free housing and food while all of us other taxpayers need to foot the bill.

I am a Republican because rather than being taxed for all of these insane programs I like to have more say with my money.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 09:15 am
@islandgirl,
Maybe you should learn the facts about welfare then islandgirl instead of some mythical RW version of it.
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 09:19 am
@parados,
Yeah, make sure to learn those liberal talking points that make absolutely no sense unless you have a miswired brain. Like O-boy.
0 Replies
 
islandgirl
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 09:22 am
@parados,
What facts are you referring to? I didnt' list any statistics, I stated my own personal views based on what I have witnessed in my life.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 06:38 pm
@parados,
How is this list "crap?"

How do you explain it? Statistical anomaly?

Or is that the information cjhsa has posted is false - if so it should be pretty easy to disprove.

Couldn't possibly be that Democrats have made an art form of getting the votes of poor people by promising them handouts, but do nothing to actually alleviate their poverty.

I suppose right-wingers are to blame in each of these ten cities for the failure of long standing Democratic governments to at least reduce the rate of poverty so their cities at least get out of the bottom ten.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 06:42 pm
@parados,
Other than the specific players, how is your smarmy reply any different from one that might read:

Maybe you should learn the facts about welfare then parados instead of some mythical LW version of it.

Remarkable debating skills parados.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 06:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How is this list "crap?"

How do you explain it? Statistical anomaly?

No, just a pretty common cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 07:06 pm
@islandgirl,
Quote:
I have absolutely no problem with men or women going on welfare, but the welfare program program was meant as a temporary solution to help out families in their time of need while they get back on their feet again. It is not meant as a generational lifestyle of free housing and food while all of us other taxpayers need to foot the bill.


It was never meant as a system for providing kept voting blocks for a rogue political party either.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 07:10 pm
@gungasnake,
Good God, we must go to condition orange...

There is a rogue party running loose?

Does Woiya know?

Shocked Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 07:38 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
No, just a pretty common cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.


Ah yes, a logical fallacy.

So what are the other possible explanations for the correlation?

Without a more compelling explanation it's hard to sustain an argument of Cum Hoc.

The ten American cities with the highest poverty rates have a long and steadfast history of Democratic governance, and you would have us believe it is uncorrelated.

While correlation may not unerringly imply causation, it very often does.

In any case, I'm happy to accept that rather than sustained Democratic governance causing high poverty rates, high poverty rates causes sustained Democratic governance. Presumably, if Democratic governance was capable of reducing poverty rates it would do so and pave the way for Republican governance.

As I've already suggested, I'm sure that you and (was it?) parados are prepared to argue that somehow right-wingers are the actual casue of the correlation, but I think we need to hear something more than "True that!"

You may not agree with it, but the argument that there is a correlation between Democratic governance and high poverty rates is hardly irrational.

It may not be that Democratic governance promotes poverty (although I would argue that is the case), but the correlation certainly doesn't require a jump to reach the conclusion that Democratic governance doesn't reduce poverty rates.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:01 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How is this list "crap?"

How do you explain it? Statistical anomaly?

Or is that the information cjhsa has posted is false - if so it should be pretty easy to disprove.

Couldn't possibly be that Democrats have made an art form of getting the votes of poor people by promising them handouts, but do nothing to actually alleviate their poverty.

I suppose right-wingers are to blame in each of these ten cities for the failure of long standing Democratic governments to at least reduce the rate of poverty so their cities at least get out of the bottom ten.





How long have these cities been disadvantaged? Prior to the dates mentioned? hmmm
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:13 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
How long have these cities been disadvantaged? Prior to the dates mentioned? hmmm


Good question!

Perhaps the originator of the thread will do the research.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I somehow doubt that.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:17 pm
@Intrepid,
Then I may have to.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Oct, 2008 08:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
States with the highest poverty rate -

1. Mississipi - Republican governor
2. Louisiana - Republican governor
3. Texas - Republican governor
4. Kentucky - Republican governor
5. Alabama - Republican governor



States with the lowest poverty rate
1. New Hampsire - Democratic governor
2. New Jersey - Democratic governor
3. Hawaii - Democratic governors 1974-2003
4. Vermont - Howard Dean governor for 12 years before a Republican

What conclusion do you make of those statistics Finn? Democrats cause poverty in cities but Republican cause poverty in states? There is certainly a correlation. (I wouldn't argue it means anything really.)

Quote:

As I've already suggested, I'm sure that you and (was it?) parados are prepared to argue that somehow right-wingers are the actual casue of the correlation, but I think we need to hear something more than "True that!"
I never said that. The list of mayors is crap in that it really doesn't mean anything. The list of governors is also crap in that it doesn't mean anything. But since you think the mayoral list has meaning what is the meaning of the governor's list?





0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 01:55 am
@parados,
Quote:

You keep posting crap over and over cjhsa as if you think you will get a different result.

NO.
Its really very good.
U just lack the intellectual strength to understand it.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 01:57 am
@islandgirl,
Quote:

What facts are you referring to?

Leftists just mindlessly emote, Islandgirl.
U cant take them seriously.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 02:41 am
Since Herbert Hoover, every Democratic president has had a better record of job creation than any Republican president.

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

Yet a (fortunately decreasing) number of people still think electing a Republican president this year is somehow magically good for the economy.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/25/2020 at 06:03:16