Top Ten Cities With High Poverty Rates

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="Partial"]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/mark...ion_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:



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:



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

Ad hominem attack. Par for the course.