Aa
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Subject: What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
1. Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.
2. Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.
3. Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.
4. Cleveland, OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.
5. Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.
6. St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.
7. El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.
8. Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.
9. Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952.
10. Newark, NJ(10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting CHANGE'
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats---yet Remain disadvantaged.
"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years............and they are still poor."
hey all....Im from Detroit and what Mayor Kilpatrick did to our city is beyond shame the man is still in jail....the new mayor seems to be trying,,,he stepped into a mess just like Obama did it takes a certain amount of integrity and courage to step into somone elses screw ups....and sadly many people I personally know are losing their homes and life savings these arent poor people thes are middle class who used to work for big 3 Detroit really s ucks right now.
Lonelymom - Very interesting...thanks for posting this.
PlateletGal - I read that whole article in the link you provided. Good stuff in there. CNN is usually a very liberal network. Funny that this was on CNN...
PlateletGal - I read that whole article in the link you provided. Good stuff in there. CNN is usually a very liberal network. Funny that this was on CNN...
As always, it seems when people try to assign "cause and affect" they're usually wrong.
These cities aren't poor because they elect democrat politicians. They elect democrat politicians because they are poor.
Where would the poor in these cities be if they elected staunch republicans? Probably, worse off, programs would be cut, they'd actually many of them move somewhere else, but not a better place.
Even Jesus said it. "There will always be the poor".
Republican politicians usually aren't good for the poor - but they do often have the effect of driving them elsewhere, so it appears in the end that they've been helpful. But in fact, the poor have relocated.
These cities aren't poor because they elect democrat politicians. They elect democrat politicians because they are poor.
Where would the poor in these cities be if they elected staunch republicans? Probably, worse off, programs would be cut, they'd actually many of them move somewhere else, but not a better place.
Even Jesus said it. "There will always be the poor".
Republican politicians usually aren't good for the poor - but they do often have the effect of driving them elsewhere, so it appears in the end that they've been helpful. But in fact, the poor have relocated.
Several articles in the past few years have analyzed Democratic and Republican administrations, comparing standard measures of national economic health - production, unemployment, inflation, the stock market, etc. - and standard measures of government efficiency - amount of Federal spending, number of Federal employees, deficit reduction, etc. Remarkably, by every measure of economic health and government efficiency, the analyses show that Democratic administrations, on average, outperform Republican administrations. Anyone who is interested in looking at comparisons of economic performance and government efficiency during Democratic and Republican administrations should take a few minutes to read these articles; they are all interesting and short:
Michael Kinsley
Carol Vinzant
Kevin Drum
Dwight Meredith (1)
Dwight Meredith (2)
One economic measure these articles don't address is poverty. If Democratic administrations are associated with better economic conditions, as these articles indicate, then it's reasonable to expect this fact to be reflected in a greater reduction of poverty under Democratic leadership. To test this assumption, I examined the U.S. Census poverty data for the years 1961 through 2000. As Dwight Meredith noted in his articles, this period lets us compare 20 years of Democratic administrations and 20 years of Republican administrations. (The Census poverty data currently available actually runs from 1959 through 2004. However, if we include the Republican years 1959-1960 and 2001-2004 in the analysis, it makes the averages even worse for Republicans; thus the choice not to include those years in the analysis certainly does not bias the results against Republicans.)
Examining the Census data, what I found was this: during the 20 years of Republican administrations, each year on average the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose by 416,400, while during the 20 years of Democratic administrations, each year on average this number fell by 829,900. I then applied the analysis suggested in Michael Kinsley's article: I credited each year's performance to the previous year's administration. In this analysis, during the years credited to Republican administrations, the number of Americans below the poverty line rose 371,095 on average each year, while during the years credited to Democratic administrations, this number fell 845,421 on average each year.
The performance results also favor Democrats if we look at the poverty rate - the percent of the total population below the poverty line. The poverty rate fell on average 0.58 percent each year of Democratic administrations, while poverty rose on average 0.036 percent each year of Republican administrations. If we assign credit to the previous year's administration, the poverty rate fell on average 0.59 percent each year credited to Democratic administrations, and rose on average 0.012 percent each year credited to Republican administrations.
The period of recent history that saw, by far, the most dramatic poverty reduction was 1961-1969. Yet Republicans to this day deride Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty." What a pity for our country that one of America's great success stories - the 1960's anti-poverty effort - has been grossly mischaracterized as a failure - and that so many Americans now believe this false story about their country rather than the truth.
While it's often said that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, it does seem as if history may be a pretty good predictor of the performance of Democratic and Republican administrations. Under the current Republican administration, poverty is once again on the rise.
Public Assistance has been time limited since 1996 and the "Welfare reforms" were put into place by then President Clinton hardly a Republican. In N.Y.C. where I live there are some people who are among the working class who vote democratic that is true. But there are also many people who are poor and quite religious and conservative in their thinking and would prefer to vote Republican because of their stance on issues in regards to that such as abortion and the like. N.Y.C. now has Bloomberg who is of course a republican but libertarian leaning. The vote for the previous mayor Giuliani unfortunately had some racial issues in it but that was partially because of his stance.
As for cities overall it depends. Many are poor such as Detroit because the companies shut down all their business and relocated overseas leaving the average American worker there without a job. That is explained very well in the movie "Roger and Me". Poverty cuts across the board but when whole industries downsize thousands of workers its a good way to get it started and that was being down as a cost cutting technique way before the reccession but nothing was done to stop it. I believe a profit made by an American company should be made by America workers not some sweatshop overseas. Its exploiting both sides.
As for cities overall it depends. Many are poor such as Detroit because the companies shut down all their business and relocated overseas leaving the average American worker there without a job. That is explained very well in the movie "Roger and Me". Poverty cuts across the board but when whole industries downsize thousands of workers its a good way to get it started and that was being down as a cost cutting technique way before the reccession but nothing was done to stop it. I believe a profit made by an American company should be made by America workers not some sweatshop overseas. Its exploiting both sides.
Doesn't matter what the "rich" cities have. What happenes is you get dems who keep the people on public assistance "welfare" instead of giving them encouragement to help themselves.
Interesting is that some of the richest cities also have democratic mayors...hmmm.
Never mind... here is one of the links: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html
source ?
Interesting.............
You are reading content posted in the MedHelp Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
