Top Ten Cities With High Poverty Rates

[Scott Campbell]

Re-posted.

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 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.

[GoPackGo]

:shock:

[retailguy]

interesting. But I'm quite positive the REAL problem is the Feds taking away funding. If they just had more money.... it would all be OK.

You can loan 'em your 401K, can't you Scott? It takes LOADS of money to implement liberal social programs.

I'm quite sure that once they're done, (these things take generations, you know), those cities will once again be the community leaders they used to be. I'm quite hopeful for Newark. It has such a rich history.

[texaspackerbacker]

So are we saying they are poor because they haven't had Republican mayors? Or they haven't had Republican mayors because they are poor?

You could make a good argument for either--or both.

[GoPackGo]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

[SkinBasket]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

What do you think they do? Crosswords?

[mraynrand]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

What do you think they do? Crosswords?

In Cleveland, yes, pretty much.

[GoPackGo]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

What do you think they do? Crosswords?


The mayor is essentially the most powerful member of the city council, the figurehead if you will. The mayor's responsibilities essentially are to carry out the wishes of the city council and the larger governmental agencies. They are not instrumental in writing or implementing policy decisions for the city. The don't even have veto power. If you read below, you'll see several examples and broader definitions of what a mayor's job is.
Mayoral Duties:
The direction and management of executive branch departments, including Public Works, Human Services, and Community and Support Services, but not including the executive activities of the independent elected officials.
Carrying out and enforcing the programs and policies established by the Council.
Enforcing the regulations, policies, and procedures of the County.
Faithfully executing the laws and ordinances of the County.
Assigning employees and work in the executive branch.
Appointing persons to serve on commissions and boards, with advice and consent.
Controlling County assets, funds, and property; preparing and presenting a budget to the Council.
Reviewing County books, accounts, and funds necessary to the executive function.
While mayors and city managers often develop and propose policies, their basic authority is to carry out the council's directives and to implement the policy adopted by councils. Commissioners serve both legislative and executive roles. The relationship of the executive to the legislative body varies by form of local government.
Negotiating and executing contracts.
Considering and adopting long-range planning.
Acting as intergovernmental relations liaison, exercising power of veto and line item veto, and attending and participating in Council meetings

I had to forward this to my wife to see what she thought.
Additionally, there are so many other factors that go into why a city is rated in the top 10 for poverty. One question to ask is, how do they define poverty, and is this the ratio of people in poverty or just the cities with the most people in poverty? If it's cities with the most people, it stands to reason that that would be true because impoverished people tend to live in the largest cities where they can find cheap housing and manual labor.

I just don't think that whoever wrote this about the mayors knows anything about how government and policy works, or even what the job of a mayor of a major city does/can't do. If anything it is the federal and state government who are most influential in policy decisions when it comes to poverty. I wonder what the national poverty rate is under our current administration versus the Clinton administration? It's just not as simple as the party the mayor of a city belongs to!

[SkinBasket]

Does that mean your wife is the mayor?

[GoPackGo]

Does that mean your wife is the mayor?

Did you even read it? My wife has a PHD and her father is a city manager for what its worth.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Did you even read it? My wife has a PHD and her father is a city manager for what its worth.

More importantly, would you classify your wife as a Democrat?

[GoPackGo]

Did you even read it? My wife has a PHD and her father is a city manager for what its worth.

More importantly, would you classify your wife as a Democrat?

yes

[HarveyWallbangers]

More importantly, would you classify your wife as a Democrat?

yes

I respect the honesty.

[hoosier]

Keep in mind that political affiliations at the local level are not always in line with political affiliations at a national level. In DC, for instance, two of the most progressive city council members run as Republicans. It's true, of course, that Republican mayors tend to run on pro-business platforms, but you can't just equate a Democratic or Republican mayor with national party objectives either.

[Partial]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

[bobblehead]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

What a quirky coincidence then.......

[bobblehead]

don't statewide policies from the governor, senators, house majority, etc impact poverty ratings? It seems like the city mayor wouldn't have anything to do with with enacting and effecting policy change.

What do you think they do? Crosswords?


The mayor is essentially the most powerful member of the city council, the figurehead if you will. The mayor's responsibilities essentially are to carry out the wishes of the city council and the larger governmental agencies. They are not instrumental in writing or implementing policy decisions for the city. The don't even have veto power. If you read below, you'll see several examples and broader definitions of what a mayor's job is.
Mayoral Duties:
The direction and management of executive branch departments, including Public Works, Human Services, and Community and Support Services, but not including the executive activities of the independent elected officials.
Carrying out and enforcing the programs and policies established by the Council.
Enforcing the regulations, policies, and procedures of the County.
Faithfully executing the laws and ordinances of the County.
Assigning employees and work in the executive branch.
Appointing persons to serve on commissions and boards, with advice and consent.
Controlling County assets, funds, and property; preparing and presenting a budget to the Council.
Reviewing County books, accounts, and funds necessary to the executive function.
While mayors and city managers often develop and propose policies, their basic authority is to carry out the council's directives and to implement the policy adopted by councils. Commissioners serve both legislative and executive roles. The relationship of the executive to the legislative body varies by form of local government.
Negotiating and executing contracts.
Considering and adopting long-range planning.
Acting as intergovernmental relations liaison, exercising power of veto and line item veto, and attending and participating in Council meetings

I had to forward this to my wife to see what she thought.
Additionally, there are so many other factors that go into why a city is rated in the top 10 for poverty. One question to ask is, how do they define poverty, and is this the ratio of people in poverty or just the cities with the most people in poverty? If it's cities with the most people, it stands to reason that that would be true because impoverished people tend to live in the largest cities where they can find cheap housing and manual labor.

I just don't think that whoever wrote this about the mayors knows anything about how government and policy works, or even what the job of a mayor of a major city does/can't do. If anything it is the federal and state government who are most influential in policy decisions when it comes to poverty. I wonder what the national poverty rate is under our current administration versus the Clinton administration? It's just not as simple as the party the mayor of a city belongs to!

Funny this little spew....it would seem that these mayors, who have been democrats for as far as the eye can see simply oversee a bunch of republicans who are actually responsible for said poverty...but what do I know, I don't have a PHD.

[bobblehead]

Keep in mind that political affiliations at the local level are not always in line with political affiliations at a national level. In DC, for instance, two of the most progressive city council members run as Republicans. It's true, of course, that Republican mayors tend to run on pro-business platforms, but you can't just equate a Democratic or Republican mayor with national party objectives either.

This makes this whole anomally even more confusing....I mean the statistical quirkiness of dems running poverty stricken citys year after year when there is in fact no correlation boggles my mind. But again, I have no PHD, so I'm probably not interpretting things correctly.

[GoPackGo]

Funny this little spew....it would seem that these mayors, who have been democrats for as far as the eye can see simply oversee a bunch of republicans who are actually responsible for said poverty...but what do I know, I don't have a PHD.

I think you missed the point of the rebuttle. Mayors don't have the power to cause poverty. Both Democratic and Republican run federal and state governments (who are most influential in policy decisions when it comes to poverty) are responsible for the failure in these cities. I agree the fact that Democratic mayors have been running these cities is very intriguing but the definition of mayoral responsibilities doesn't support it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

ah, the non elitist repub rears his head. :oops:

[Freak Out]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

[Freak Out]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

I have no idea and am curious to know if someone has some data. One would assume a big downturn in the economy played a big part in it and people never migrated the hell out.....to places like Miami. :)

[SkinBasket]

Does that mean your wife is the mayor?

Did you even read it? My wife has a PHD and her father is a city manager for what its worth.

Whoa there. I was just asking because you kind of made it sound like she might be. Nothing meant by it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

I have no idea and am curious to know if someone has some data. One would assume a big downturn in the economy played a big part in it and people never migrated the hell out.....to places like Miami. :)

Nobody (ok, 99%) from up north ever migrates to miami....north of the city, yes. But, the miami propah..not a chance. You gotta be bilingual to live in that city.

When i lived in Fl, i considered a move to that area...and quickly realized that without speaking spanish you were essentially a tourist in that town.

[mraynrand]

Unions had a hand in it too - Ford recently bought out a large number of workers in Ohio to the tune of 150K each. That was cheaper than continuing producing cars that are too expensive because wages and compensation were $72/hour (Toyota was 50 or less at the same time). Unions have a strangle hold on many of the cities listed - and won't budge. Cuyahoga county (Cleveland) has one of highest tax rates in the nation - a lot of it is due to expense of services and loss of business. And it's been a bit of a self-perpetuating downward spiral - tax rates go up, businesses leave or fold, reducing tax revenue, causing an increase in tax rates, and so on.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

THe whole things is just stupid. So many factors come into play that have nothing to do with city gov't, state gov't, etc.

That is regardless of political party.

To present this as logic..is to insult the intelligence of most people.

But, then again, if you are using Glenn Beck to formulate your arguments..perhaps you don't have much intelligence to begin with.

[texaspackerbacker]

THe whole things is just stupid. So many factors come into play that have nothing to do with city gov't, state gov't, etc.

That is regardless of political party.

To present this as logic..is to insult the intelligence of most people.

But, then again, if you are using Glenn Beck to formulate your arguments..perhaps you don't have much intelligence to begin with.

Yeah, you're probably right ..... but it is just so-o-o-o-o interesting how well the poverty thing correlates with the Democrat thing. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the poverty or the voting Democrat? Does it really make a difference?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

[texaspackerbacker]

It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

[Scott Campbell]

I think the moral of the story is that liberal thinking leads to poor results.

[HowardRoark]

The next financial crisis is already here

By George Will

VALLEJO, Calif. — Mayor Osby Davis, who has lived in this waterfront city across San Pablo Bay from San Francisco for 60 of his 62 years, says: "If you have a can that's leaking two ounces a minute and you put an ounce a minute in it, it's going to get empty." He is describing his city's coffers.


Joseph Tanner, who became city manager after this municipality of 120,000 souls was mismanaged to the brink of bankruptcy, stands at a whiteboard to explain the simple arithmetic that has pushed Vallejo over the brink. Its crisis — a cash flow insufficient to cover contractual obligations — came about because (to use fiscal 2007 figures) each of the 100 firefighters paid $230 a month in union dues and each of the 140 police officers paid $254 a month, giving their unions enormous sums to purchase a compliant city council.


So a police captain receives $306,000 a year in pay and benefits, a lieutenant receives $247,644, and the average for firefighters — 21 of them earn more than $200,000, including overtime — is $171,000. Police and firefighters can store up unused vacation and leave time over their careers and walk away, as one of the more than 20 who recently retired did, with a $370,000 check. Last year, 292 city employees made more than $100,000. And after just five years, all police and firefighters are guaranteed lifetime health benefits.


Even the City Council has at last faced facts and voted 7 to 0 for bankruptcy. "The day after they voted," Davis says, "I didn't go out of the house — I was that embarrassed."

In other states, municipalities can pay for improvident labor contracts by increasing property taxes. But Vallejo's promises were made in the context of Proposition 13, which 30 years ago wisely restricted California politicians' reach for property taxes. In 1996, the Navy base in Vallejo closed, which probably pleased some local liberals who share the anti-military mentality of San Francisco, to which some Vallejo residents commute by ferry. Liberals who, Tanner says dryly, "want Vallejo to look a certain way," were pleased when Wal-Mart moved to an adjacent town, which now reaps the sales tax revenue.


Vallejo is an ominous portent for other cities, and some states, few of which are accumulating financial resources sufficient to fulfill pension promises they have made to employees. Are you weary of the crisis du jour — subprime mortgages and all that? Get a head start on worrying about the next debacle by reading Roger Lowenstein's new book, "While America Aged: How Pension Debts Ruined General Motors, Stopped the NYC Subways, Bankrupted San Diego, and Loom as the Next Financial Crisis."


"Next"? This crisis has arrived in Jefferson County, Ala., which includes Birmingham. Like Orange County, Calif., a few years ago, Jefferson County made risky investments in a desperate attempt to achieve asset growth commensurate with the cost of an infrastructure project. When San Diego was earning the sobriquet "Enron by the sea," firefighters could retire at 50 with 90 percent of their pensions — almost full pay for not working during half of their expected adult lives.


Credit Suisse estimates that state and local governments have a cumulative $1.5 trillion shortfall in commitments for retiree health care. But it is the pension crisis that most dramatically illustrates Lowenstein's thesis about the slow accretion of power by the unions. Pensions "are a perfect vehicle for procrastination; in the financial world, they are the most long-enduring promises that exist." Human nature — the propensity to delay the unpleasant — rears its ugly head: When pension benefits come due, the people who promised them, thereby buying labor peace and winning elections, are long gone.


Vallejo's unions contend that the city is solvent enough to meet its obligations. But last Friday a court disagreed, holding that the city is eligible for bankruptcy protection. A lawyer for Vallejo says the unions will have to negotiate a "plan of adjustment." Other cities are watching, perhaps including the one across the bay.


San Francisco recently reported that 184 of its employees made at least $30,000 apiece in overtime in the first half of this year. A nurse at the county jail made $128,000 in overtime, putting him on track to top his total 2007 compensation of about $350,000. Nice work if you can get it, and you can get it in many places.

[retailguy]

Go Pack -

Your wife's analysis seems to indicate that she believes that the City Council runs the town. While I disagree to a point, and point out as well that local politics vary from state to state, Scott's original analysis could apply to the City Council as well. It would be highly unlikely that a city would vote for republican leaning council while electing a democrat mayor. Could it happen? Sure. But some of these communities have been democrat controlled for almost 100 years. Others, over 20 years.

Why is this philosophy important? You implement what you believe. You support projects that are in line with your beliefs. To have direct say-so is almost unimportant. Where does the Mayor focus his efforts? On the projects he believes in the most. What determines that? How he thinks and what he believes. If he aligns himself with that party, doesn't it make sense those beliefs are the ones he works at whilst in office?

[GoPackGo]

Retail Guy-

To a large extent the city council does run the city. They vote in policies and legislation, and without their majority vote policies will not be enacted. I agree that it is more likely that a city that elects a left leaning council also would elect a left leaning mayor. However, that still does not account for the incredible amount of variation among cities in terms of their views on handling poverty. Just as all republicans are not alike in their approaches to social inequities, neither are democrats. Simply having a left leaning council and/or mayor is not enough to single-handedly effect the rates of poverty in the city. It is much more of a federal and state-level issue, and there are just too many variables to be considered to comfortably say that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership in a city, and the poverty rate (which is undefined in this analysis, and severely compromises the conclusions one is able to draw). While an interesting argument, and an interesting topic, there is no way one can say that this conclusion holds any water. Far more interesting when it comes to political leanings and poverty is the policy our federal government puts in place to help alleviate this major problem in our largest cities. To blame a mayor and/or city council is simplifying things, and to suggest that this is one of the primary causes of poverty rates (which seems to be what many are insinuating) is irresponsible in my mind. The causes of poverty are too complex and multifaceted to pin down to any one factor.

[texaspackerbacker]

I tend to lean toward the other alternative--NOT the idea that Democrats on the mayoral or city council level chronically promote policies that cause poverty. Rather, it is a case of the same kind of people who because of their own mindset are much more likely to be poor being much more likely to vote Democrat.

Achievers, people with traditional morality, America-lovers, etc. are far more likely to NOT vote Democrat--just as they are far more likely NOT to be poor.

The other factor, of course, is that good moral black people, good America-loving black people, good ambitious black people--in some cases, anyway, are STILL likely to be swayed by their own DEPRAVED LEFTIST SLAVEMASTERS i.e. "black leaders" who so effectively keep 90% + of black people voting Democrat.

[bobblehead]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

By and large democratic policies are responsible for those things. Now you can say the mayor in particular isn't responsible...but what a quirk of statistics.

[bobblehead]

It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

More importantly once the corrupt accounting methods perpetuated under the clinton admin were reversed it had a negative impact on stock prices...yet we still had a big bull market. Moreso, stable stock prices isn't necessarily a great thing, stocks should periodically go bankrupt....except when democratic philosophy stifles competition, thus propping up weak stocks. I could go on for days on this one.

[bobblehead]

It is much more of a federal and state-level issue, and there are just too many variables to be considered to comfortably say that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership in a city, and the poverty rate

Dear Mrs. GoPackGo,


Actually the statistics bore out, irrefutably that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership and poverty...I think you meant that you can't say that it is the reason.... Again...just a quirky correlation with no basis in philosophy.

[GoPackGo]

i knew this topic would fire her up
:)



a couple more thoughts:

has the poverty rate been in the top 10 highest for the entire time that the city has been "run by democrats"? or is this a recent number?

what types of policies are in place in these cities, who proposed these policies, and how do they impact the poverty rate? if your argument is that the mayor takes on projects that impact poverty rates, it would be good to know what those are in each city, and how they have effected poverty rates (I doubt that each mayor in each city has taken on that issue to the extent that it would have any impact on poverty). Also, if for the sake of argument this analysis is in fact correct (which I highly doubt it is) could it be possible that there are more people living in poverty in these particular cities because these are the cities that provide the most social support to these people? Research shows that it is extremely hard to move out of poverty, especially if that poverty is intergenerational. So it is entirely possible that people are seeking out places where there are social policies in place that support low-income families (e.g., low cost of living, subsidized housing, etc.). These things alone would not bring a family out of poverty, but would make their lives a lot easier, therefore attracting more people living at that income level.

[GoPackGo]

It is much more of a federal and state-level issue, and there are just too many variables to be considered to comfortably say that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership in a city, and the poverty rate

Dear Mrs. GoPackGo,


Actually the statistics bore out, irrefutably that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership and poverty...I think you meant that you can't say that it is the reason.... Again...just a quirky correlation with no basis in philosophy.


Actually it is very possible that there is no direct relation, as many factors could potentially come into play that might attenuate that relation. But I do agree, in this case it simply is a quirky correlation. :)

[texaspackerbacker]

i knew this topic would fire her up
:)



a couple more thoughts:

has the poverty rate been in the top 10 highest for the entire time that the city has been "run by democrats"? or is this a recent number?

what types of policies are in place in these cities, who proposed these policies, and how do they impact the poverty rate? if your argument is that the mayor takes on projects that impact poverty rates, it would be good to know what those are in each city, and how they have effected poverty rates (I doubt that each mayor in each city has taken on that issue to the extent that it would have any impact on poverty). Also, if for the sake of argument this analysis is in fact correct (which I highly doubt it is) could it be possible that there are more people living in poverty in these particular cities because these are the cities that provide the most social support to these people? Research shows that it is extremely hard to move out of poverty, especially if that poverty is intergenerational. So it is entirely possible that people are seeking out places where there are social policies in place that support low-income families (e.g., low cost of living, subsidized housing, etc.). These things alone would not bring a family out of poverty, but would make their lives a lot easier, therefore attracting more people living at that income level.

I say again ....

She is right in the sense that it isn't the policies--there's just not that much difference on the local level in what one party can do from the other.

Rather, IT'S THE PEOPLE--THE KIND OF PEOPLE who doom themselves to poverty--that kind of people are far more likely to vote Democrat.

And then, of course, there's the black thing--the fact that their corrupt "leaders" have sold out to the left, and are so successful at keeping 90% + of them down on the liberal plantation.

[bobblehead]

It is much more of a federal and state-level issue, and there are just too many variables to be considered to comfortably say that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership in a city, and the poverty rate

Dear Mrs. GoPackGo,


Actually the statistics bore out, irrefutably that there is a direct relation between democratic leadership and poverty...I think you meant that you can't say that it is the reason.... Again...just a quirky correlation with no basis in philosophy.


Actually it is very possible that there is no direct relation, as many factors could potentially come into play that might attenuate that relation. But I do agree, in this case it simply is a quirky correlation. :)

Your missing my point...the top ten are run by democrats....that IS a direct relation (although you would argue not the cause). A statistical relationship doesn't have to be rooted in cause...simply in math. In this case there is a direct statistical relationship between the 10 impoverished cities and their mayors political party...indisputable...unless you dispute the laws of mathematics. What you mean to say is that its some cosmic form or weird coincidence that democratic policies lead cities into poverty.

[mraynrand]

There is also a bizarre correlation between the most liberal cities and the highest crime rates. But I'm certain that would all be solved if, like in the old west, everyone checked their guns at the gates to the city. No guns - no crime.

[GoPackGo]

I say again ....
She is right in the sense that it isn't the policies--there's just not that much difference on the local level in what one party can do from the other.

Rather, IT'S THE PEOPLE--THE KIND OF PEOPLE who doom themselves to poverty--that kind of people are far more likely to vote Democrat.

And then, of course, there's the black thing--the fact that their corrupt "leaders" have sold out to the left, and are so successful at keeping 90% + of them down on the liberal plantation.


people do not "doom themselves to poverty". That is the most ignorant comment I have heard in a long time, and to boot, not all black leaders are corrupt, just as not all white leaders are. Good lord people, there is much more to intergenerational poverty than a CHOICE!

[Scott Campbell]

She's going to hate Packer Rats if you keep this up.

[GoPackGo]

She's going to hate Packer Rats if you keep this up.

Better she debates with you all than with me when I get home :lol: Winning an argument with her is near impossible.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

Thanx for proving my point. In this instance you go out of you way to ask questions to question the validity/undermine the results.

Curious that you don't do that with the poverty stats. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

By and large democratic policies are responsible for those things. Now you can say the mayor in particular isn't responsible...but what a quirk of statistics.

That is the most partisan/ridiculous thing ever. Blaming the mayor for state taxes, fed policy, etc.

Don't embarrass yourself.

[texaspackerbacker]

It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

Thanx for proving my point. In this instance you go out of you way to ask questions to question the validity/undermine the results.

Curious that you don't do that with the poverty stats. :oops:

Would you like to explain that--what you said makes absolutely no sense.

Regarding the poverty stats, which ones would you like to omit?

I say again, it ain't the policies. It's the PEOPLE! The mayors have limited options in running city government. Like the proverbial blind squirrel, Ty got one right for once. State and Federal programs, regulations, funding, etc. prevent any major deviation from the norm that would cause poverty in all these cities.

The people who are in poverty, however, do have options--and attitudes and views, etc.--and ethnic and other "leaders" giving them advice/swaying their votes. In other words, the same people who make the dumb decisions and have the flawed attitudes that make them poor also cause them to make the dumb decision to vote Democrat. Hence the correlation--or are you somehow questioning that there is a correlation.

[bobblehead]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

By and large democratic policies are responsible for those things. Now you can say the mayor in particular isn't responsible...but what a quirk of statistics.

That is the most partisan/ridiculous thing ever. Blaming the mayor for state taxes, fed policy, etc.

Don't embarrass yourself.

I didn't say the mayor is responsible...I said that democratic policies are responsible for higher taxes and jobs being shipped over seas. I'm not embarassed, that kind of comment is rooted in you thinking somehow if you declare I am embarrissing myself it somehow becomes true...that comment smacks of assinine arrogance of the highest magnitude...congratulations.

Go back...read the part where I say "you can say the mayor isn't responsible" and then post something again like "blaming the mayor for state taxes blah blah...you're embarrassing yourself, not I.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

By and large democratic policies are responsible for those things. Now you can say the mayor in particular isn't responsible...but what a quirk of statistics.

That is the most partisan/ridiculous thing ever. Blaming the mayor for state taxes, fed policy, etc.

Don't embarrass yourself.

I didn't say the mayor is responsible...I said that democratic policies are responsible for higher taxes and jobs being shipped over seas. I'm not embarassed, that kind of comment is rooted in you thinking somehow if you declare I am embarrissing myself it somehow becomes true...that comment smacks of assinine arrogance of the highest magnitude...congratulations.

Go back...read the part where I say "you can say the mayor isn't responsible" and then post something again like "blaming the mayor for state taxes blah blah...you're embarrassing yourself, not I.

Ok.

You still should be embarrassed. this is the old conserv repub canard. despite being in power for most of the past 30 years and controlling at least 1 out of 3 parts of the gov...it is always the dems.

[Partial]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

ah, the non elitist repub rears his head. :oops:

And that disputes the point how? Would you, a rich kid who went to the rich school and is evidently so super duper smart want to share an opinion with the idiots who don't graduate high school?

[Partial]

Does that mean your wife is the mayor?

Did you even read it? My wife has a PHD and her father is a city manager for what its worth.

Whoa there. I was just asking because you kind of made it sound like she might be. Nothing meant by it.

That just means they're part of the problem, and rather than acknowledge the inefficiency and lack of improvement, they'd rather state they're making progress slowly but surely and that they don't have the adequate funds to get the job done :lol:

I kid, I kid, but the only social worker I know is a jaded fuck who has given up even caring/trying. They're just in it for the cozy government job and 8 weeks of paid vacation.

[Partial]

[quote=Tyrone Bigguns]It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

Thanx for proving my point. In this instance you go out of you way to ask questions to question the validity/undermine the results.

Curious that you don't do that with the poverty stats. :oops:[/quote

Tex's point is very valid, though. Take out the dot com boom and how does it look? Democrats had very little to do with technology coming together and companies scrambling to get ahead. Unless you count Ally inventing the internet.

[MJZiggy]

Social work is not easy. I know a guy who switched from social work to law enforcement so that when some dude was being an idiot he could throw him against a wall and cuff him when he needed it. Social workers can't do that...

[Partial]

To me social work would suck because you would go in their with your ideals thinking you could make a difference, only to realize how insignificant and how little impact it has.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, statistically it IS the Democrats--unless you are questioning the facts of the article.

However, that is NOT the point. The poverty level in these Dem/lib controlled cities likely is NOT caused by customary liberal stupidity and rotten intentions. Mayors and/or city councils just don't have the ability to influence outcomes like that for better or worse.

INSTEAD, IT IS THE FACT THAT THE SAME KIND OF STUPIDITY OF PEOPLE, ATTITUDE OF DEPENDENCY, DISDAIN FOR TRADITIONAL MORALITY, etc. that SPAWNS POVERTY ALSO MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO VOTE DEMOCRAT. And of course, the other factor is the sick anti-American "leaders" of those poverty-prone people DELIVERING 90% + of their votes to the Democrats.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, Democrat policies causing poverty or people in poverty voting for Democrats? I say the latter!

No response to that, Tyrone? It's your people--or more precisely, the people you PRETEND to be part of--that we're talking about.

[MJZiggy]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

ah, the non elitist repub rears his head. :oops:

And that disputes the point how? Would you, a rich kid who went to the rich school and is evidently so super duper smart want to share an opinion with the idiots who don't graduate high school?

Depends, P. Is the idiot who didn't graduate high school correct?

[Zool]

Tyrone is fake uppity.

[bobblehead]

What was poverty like in Detoilet in the 50s and 60s when one would assume the auto industry and manufacturing was going gangbusters? Has it gone south starting in the 70s? Did a Dem come in and just fuck things up because of corruption and incompetence or did the overall economy just suck?

I look at that list and see a bunch of rust belt cities that use to have manufacturing...guess that mayor is responsible for high state taxes or jobs being shipped overseas. I see at least two cities with high influx of poor immigrants (legal or illegal).

By and large democratic policies are responsible for those things. Now you can say the mayor in particular isn't responsible...but what a quirk of statistics.

That is the most partisan/ridiculous thing ever. Blaming the mayor for state taxes, fed policy, etc.

Don't embarrass yourself.

I didn't say the mayor is responsible...I said that democratic policies are responsible for higher taxes and jobs being shipped over seas. I'm not embarassed, that kind of comment is rooted in you thinking somehow if you declare I am embarrissing myself it somehow becomes true...that comment smacks of assinine arrogance of the highest magnitude...congratulations.

Go back...read the part where I say "you can say the mayor isn't responsible" and then post something again like "blaming the mayor for state taxes blah blah...you're embarrassing yourself, not I.

Ok.

You still should be embarrassed. this is the old conserv repub canard. despite being in power for most of the past 30 years and controlling at least 1 out of 3 parts of the gov...it is always the dems.

HUH? Dems controlled congress for 40 years before the gingrich revolution in '94. Republicans basically controlled from 94-06....about 12 years. Now I agree they were only worth a shit for the first 4 of that 12, but where did you get 30 years ??

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=Tyrone Bigguns]It is interesting....soooo interesting to me that the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Very interesting. What is the percentage if you leave out the Clinton years with the residual effects of the Reagan/Bush I tax cuts, the dotcom tech boom, and the Republican Congress keeping Clinton's tax and spend tendencies in line?

Thanx for proving my point. In this instance you go out of you way to ask questions to question the validity/undermine the results.

Curious that you don't do that with the poverty stats. :oops:[/quote

Tex's point is very valid, though. Take out the dot com boom and how does it look? Democrats had very little to do with technology coming together and companies scrambling to get ahead. Unless you count Ally inventing the internet.

You are an idiot. You can't just selectively remove things...should we dismiss WW2?

But, that wasn't even the point. The point i made was i could trumpet bs as well, but didn't because there are major factors that come into play. But, of course, tex doesn't ask any questions when it is a negative towards the dems, but of course asks questions when it favors the dems. What a surprise.

How does it look. Hmm..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/


Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

Game, Set, Match.

You are the biggest loser.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

ah, the non elitist repub rears his head. :oops:

And that disputes the point how? Would you, a rich kid who went to the rich school and is evidently so super duper smart want to share an opinion with the idiots who don't graduate high school?

The point, which you arent' smart enough to figure out is that Repubs criticize Dems for being elitist...they are smarter than the rest and will solve the problem.

But, once again you present anecdotal evidence as a truth. But, the stats dont' back you up.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

So troubling when the facts don't back you up. :oops:

[GoPackGo]

The fact that something like 85-90% of those who haven't graduated high school support democrats tells me everything that I need to know.

The point, which you arent' smart enough to figure out is that Repubs criticize Dems for being elitist...they are smarter than the rest and will solve the problem.

But, once again you present anecdotal evidence as a truth. But, the stats dont' back you up.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

So troubling when the facts don't back you up. :oops:

i'm so glad you bitchslapped Partial with the real stats

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Bitchslapping Partial is almost a fulltime job. They say..do what you love...now i just have to figure out how to get paid for my hobby!

[SkinBasket]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

So troubling when the facts don't back you up. :oops:

That's not a terribly representative set of numbers. The sample is 13 thousand people who voted for the House in 2006. Obviously Partial's numbers are based off stupidity, but these are almost as bad considering the argument.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

So troubling when the facts don't back you up. :oops:

That's not a terribly representative set of numbers. The sample is 13 thousand people who voted for the House in 2006. Obviously Partial's numbers are based off stupidity, but these are almost as bad considering the argument.

They are the best i could come up with in 10 seconds. Care to present some that counter it?

Argument? You mean the once presented by partial? He made the argument...no a dem/lib...we are elitists..we already know we are smarter than you guys. :wink:

Your constant criticism of polling is kinda funny.

[texaspackerbacker]

VOTE BY EDUCATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
No High School (3%) 64% 35%
H.S. Graduate (21%) 55% 44%
Some College (31%) 51% 47%
College Graduate (27%) 49% 49%
Postgraduate (18%) 58% 41%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There must be another category or something. The bad guys are ahead in all of these, YET THE GOOD GUYS WON IN BOTH 2000 and 2004. How is this little conundrum explained?

[SkinBasket]

There must be another category or something. The bad guys are ahead in all of these, YET THE GOOD GUYS WON IN BOTH 2000 and 2004. How is this little conundrum explained?


That's not a terribly representative set of numbers. The sample is 13 thousand people who voted for the House in 2006. Obviously Partial's numbers are based off stupidity, but these are almost as bad considering the argument.

[SkinBasket]

They are the best i could come up with in 10 seconds. Care to present some that counter it?

Argument? You mean the once presented by partial? He made the argument...no a dem/lib...we are elitists..we already know we are smarter than you guys. :wink:

Your constant criticism of polling is kinda funny.

I'm happy for you that you're content being as intellectually sound as Partial. It really helps your arguments.

I get it. You used numbers you thought helped your case. At least man up when you get called on it.

By the way, Partial didn't make an argument, he made a statement. You tried to make an argument out of it by posting irrelevant numbers. And I don't have a problem with the polling, I have a problem with your intentional misapplication of the poll results.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

They are the best i could come up with in 10 seconds. Care to present some that counter it?

Argument? You mean the once presented by partial? He made the argument...no a dem/lib...we are elitists..we already know we are smarter than you guys. :wink:

Your constant criticism of polling is kinda funny.

I'm happy for you that you're content being as intellectually sound as Partial. It really helps your arguments.

I get it. You used numbers you thought helped your case. At least man up when you get called on it.

By the way, Partial didn't make an argument, he made a statement. You tried to make an argument out of it by posting irrelevant numbers. And I don't have a problem with the polling, I have a problem with your intentional misapplication of the poll results.

I used the only numbers available. I googled..and that is what came up. I retried again...and it is hard to find anything. So, i didn't use numbers to buttress my argument.

If you disagree present something that shows why they are bad/wrong..or stats that contradict. I notice that you haven't..that speaks volumes.

Statement: Partial indeed made an argument...as to why he would not vote dem. Nice try, though.

[bobblehead]

[http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/


Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

Game, Set, Match.

You are the biggest loser.

I don't really disagree with your arguement, but this blurb doesn't really support it. First off dems were in control during "most" of that 72 year period which also happened to coincide with the growth and developement of the country. They tended to get booted from office for short time frames when we went into recession ergo the market wasn't doing well during republican reign.

Also I pointed out that recently clinton's market benefited from lax oversight and accounting abuse that fudged numbers offering BS returns while bush's admin actually cracked down on it and suffered the "correction" of said accounting practices.

I won't say that either side has a good faith claim to the market doing better under their policies, its more a function of other issues that happen to go on at the same time. It is also unfair to compare any market numbers from pre-1970 to any of them post 1970 due to many factors. Is it ever fair to compare the industrial revolution to the tech revolution. Can you compare the tech revolution to the upcoming biological revolution? Can you compare a company that marketed to a US population base of 100 million to a company that is marketing to a world population base of 6 billion? Can you compare a company today that is leveraging and borrowing in the new age capital market to a company years ago that had to convince people to please invest in me? I could go on for days on this little piece and the errors of the journalist who is trying to make a point in a very poor way.

I'll finish with this. I can tell you almost every time which policy will affect the market which way. I can tell you that both sides do good and bad things for the market. What I can't really say for sure is which party overall is better for the market. It just depends on what whim a bunch of politicians who really don't know jack about economics and free market capitalism decide to float that day. Sometimes an overall destructive policy will actually boost the market....not because its good for us, but because it cuts down competition in a sector thus maximizing said companies returns.

[SkinBasket]

I used the only numbers available. I googled..and that is what came up. I retried again...and it is hard to find anything. So, i didn't use numbers to buttress my argument.

Yeah. election numbers are difficult to find on the internet. One's that fit your argument anyway. Glad you were able to rustle some up. It's just too bad they don't mean anything. And the circle of life continues.

[SkinBasket]

If you disagree present something that shows why they are bad/wrong..or stats that contradict. I notice that you haven't..that speaks volumes.

I don't have to post any numbers to demonstrate yours are fundamentally irrelevant to this argument. I know it's your gig though to divert any kind of intellectual honesty around you like a rock in a stream, though, so I found a graph that's just as relevant as your numbers, but it's better because it's a picture, which is easier for Partial to understand:

http://www.fuelairspark.com/Base/Downloads/Software/XFI/Help/images/fig13-2.gif

There you go Partial. Post that whenever you need to be "right."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I used the only numbers available. I googled..and that is what came up. I retried again...and it is hard to find anything. So, i didn't use numbers to buttress my argument.

Yeah. election numbers are difficult to find on the internet. One's that fit your argument anyway. Glad you were able to rustle some up. It's just too bad they don't mean anything. And the circle of life continues.

Say what? The numbers i found are just numbers. I never presented an argument... i merely countered the partial's logic that he should vote one way because the people voting dem were uneducated.

Again, find some numbers and get back to me..until then...it is all just blah blah blah.

Don't be a sore loser.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you disagree present something that shows why they are bad/wrong..or stats that contradict. I notice that you haven't..that speaks volumes.

I don't have to post any numbers to demonstrate yours are fundamentally irrelevant to this argument. I know it's your gig though to divert any kind of intellectual honesty around you like a rock in a stream, though, so I found a graph that's just as relevant as your numbers, but it's better because it's a picture, which is easier for Partial to understand:

http://www.fuelairspark.com/Base/Downloads/Software/XFI/Help/images/fig13-2.gif

There you go Partial. Post that whenever you need to be "right."

Ad hominem attack. Par for the course. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/


Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

Game, Set, Match.

You are the biggest loser.

I don't really disagree with your arguement, but this blurb doesn't really support it. First off dems were in control during "most" of that 72 year period which also happened to coincide with the growth and developement of the country. They tended to get booted from office for short time frames when we went into recession ergo the market wasn't doing well during republican reign.

Also I pointed out that recently clinton's market benefited from lax oversight and accounting abuse that fudged numbers offering BS returns while bush's admin actually cracked down on it and suffered the "correction" of said accounting practices.

I won't say that either side has a good faith claim to the market doing better under their policies, its more a function of other issues that happen to go on at the same time. It is also unfair to compare any market numbers from pre-1970 to any of them post 1970 due to many factors. Is it ever fair to compare the industrial revolution to the tech revolution. Can you compare the tech revolution to the upcoming biological revolution? Can you compare a company that marketed to a US population base of 100 million to a company that is marketing to a world population base of 6 billion? Can you compare a company today that is leveraging and borrowing in the new age capital market to a company years ago that had to convince people to please invest in me? I could go on for days on this little piece and the errors of the journalist who is trying to make a point in a very poor way.

I'll finish with this. I can tell you almost every time which policy will affect the market which way. I can tell you that both sides do good and bad things for the market. What I can't really say for sure is which party overall is better for the market. It just depends on what whim a bunch of politicians who really don't know jack about economics and free market capitalism decide to float that day. Sometimes an overall destructive policy will actually boost the market....not because its good for us, but because it cuts down competition in a sector thus maximizing said companies returns.

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

[SkinBasket]

If you disagree present something that shows why they are bad/wrong..or stats that contradict. I notice that you haven't..that speaks volumes.

I don't have to post any numbers to demonstrate yours are fundamentally irrelevant to this argument. I know it's your gig though to divert any kind of intellectual honesty around you like a rock in a stream, though, so I found a graph that's just as relevant as your numbers, but it's better because it's a picture, which is easier for Partial to understand:

http://www.fuelairspark.com/Base/Downloads/Software/XFI/Help/images/fig13-2.gif

There you go Partial. Post that whenever you need to be "right."

Ad hominem attack. Par for the course. :oops:

http://www.fuelairspark.com/Base/Downloads/Software/XFI/Help/images/fig13-2.gif

[bobblehead]

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say dems were better. My clinton attack wasn't subtle or wrong, his administration let this crap go on right under his nose. His SEC guy ignored it, that is god honest truth. I'm not a clinton hater at all, I'm simply pointing out the truth as I see it. You never complain when I point out bush's faults (and I'm never subtle about that either).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say dems were better. My clinton attack wasn't subtle or wrong, his administration let this crap go on right under his nose. His SEC guy ignored it, that is god honest truth. I'm not a clinton hater at all, I'm simply pointing out the truth as I see it. You never complain when I point out bush's faults (and I'm never subtle about that either).

No. I was just saying that taking something like poverty...or economic success....is way to complex to simply assign to one factor.

Clinton: What did his guys do that was done differently than Reagan/Bush. IMHO..they all do this kinda stuff...not the exact thing, but they all play fast and loose.

And, imho, Reagan and dereg had a lot to do with things. I know, more gov...but, someone has to watch the foxes and the henhouse...because you and i both know that when it comes to massive amounts of cash...nobody is immune..not repub, not dem, not jew, not cath, nobody.