Top Ten Cities With High Poverty Rates

[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 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.

[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.

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.

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

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. [/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.

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 ??