This Goes Along With The Unemployment Post

[AlabamaNomadRider]

Ten poorest Cities

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI
32.5%

2. Buffalo , NY
29..9%

3. Cincinnati , OH
27.8%

4. Cleveland , OH
27.0%

5. Miami , FL
26.9%

5. St. Louis , MO
26.8%

7. El Paso , TX
26.4%

8. Milwaukee , WI
26.2%

9. Philadelphia , PA
25.1%

10. Newark , NJ
24.2%


U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007



What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) 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 electeda Republican mayor since 1954.

Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.

Cleveland, OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.

St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.

Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.

Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952.

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 different results.'




It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats
yet they are still POOR!




"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.


You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[blowndodge]

Gene, the democrats have held people in poverty, blamed the republicans, and continued to pander to the poor and tell them how much they need them in office. If nobody was uneducated or poor who would the democrats pander to? It's by design my friend. All one needs to do is look at history. Democrats have held the majority in power for 50 years and there are more poor than ever. Accident? I think not!!

[AlabamaNomadRider]

I have to agree with you Brad. The rich keep getting richer and the poor, poorer.

[pagemastr]

ANR: Your argument doesn't hold water when you look also at the richest cities and their mayors. Though I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, it was convenient and I came up with this list of mayors of the richest cities:

Ref: http://dcjobsource.com/richest.html

San Jose, CA DEM since 1983
Anchorage, AK DEM since 1975
San Francisco, CA DEM since 1964
Virginia Beach, VA ??
San Diego, CA Dem 7 of last 29 yrs
Anaheim, CA DEM since 2002
Raleigh, NC DEM since 1983
Seattle, WA Dem since 1956
Washington, DC DEM since 1961
Honolulu, HI ??
Oakland, CA DEM since 1991

?? = NA WIKI

I agree with the thinking that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but why not include the richest cities as well? Sort of like FOX news... pulling only part of the facts to create half of a story to push their agenda!

[AlabamaNomadRider]

Jack I didn't write it just posted it. Not only do the Democrats rule the poorest cities they rule the richest cities. Heck Jack, I'm not even a political guy. Don't believe in politics they're all corrupt.

[ridemslow]

Brad is RIGHT! You ever get a job from a poor person?? Also 10 people paying taxes is better than one person/company paying more taxes.. Tax cuts promote hiring, but as a whole, the Democrats just don't seem to give a sh1t about the poor, the black and the downtrodden. Food for thought. ::) Yet the black and the poor are near always Democrats...go figure. If I was to get rich, I'd hire at least 10 people so they could pay some taxes.. go think about that. ;) Can't do that on my current income and taxes.

Originally Posted by AlabamaNomadRider

I have to agree with you Brad. The rich keep getting richer and the poor, poorer.

[macmac]

I saw what was coming before I reached the explination.

When the democrates talk give away money to help the needy i always wonder when my turn was coming. Don't worry i wouldn't take it.
They speak hollow words, and i am waiting with baited breath for the wanna be helpers do nuthin's of the world to pay up!

I find in life when I help someone out stranded on the road never will the librals give me a dime. They act as if they deserve help from strangers.

On the other hand the conservitives always give me something never less than 10 bucks and I don't want it, but often loose the argument. I don't stop and help stranded motorists with any idea of profit. I stop because many times I can get them moving again. For me it is habit and the right thing to do.

I researced a lot of charities once and found most of the monies donated feeds the cause, but not the needy. 2 maybe 3 cents on the dollar reaches the intended. Just another scam.

I got to where I am for being loyal to the labor, and had AIG cheat me from surgery. And so the fat cats at AIG get bailed out? I can't begin to express the rage I feel over that.

[NRiderUSA]

Want to see facts, look at Michigan, California, New York.....any Democratically controlled state or city...... Speaks for itself on how much help they do and what their "dream world" produces... Its not speculation, its fact and proven and long term proven.

Thats where we are headed... Restituation and redistrubution.

Make opportunity to succeed not a paycheck to stay home..... seems pretty straight forward and reasonable.
But you get more votes with "Vote for me and live for free"

[macmac]

Well the new tawk is a 2nd bail out for wall street. Evidently you have to suck at what you do, and be rich to get a real bail out.

I will have to check my chrystal ball and see when they get bail out 3.

I bet those guys at wall street get bad backs from all the heavy lifting, and burns from the monitor screens. Must be tough.

[Dave]

I find this real funny. Harry Reid saying how the bail out saved Ford. What an idiot. Ford did not take any bail out money.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...aved_ford.html

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by Jack C.

ANR: Your argument doesn't hold water when you look also at the richest cities and their mayors. Though I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, it was convenient and I came up with this list of mayors of the richest cities:

Ref: http://dcjobsource.com/richest.html

San Jose, CA DEM since 1983
Anchorage, AK DEM since 1975
San Francisco, CA DEM since 1964
Virginia Beach, VA ??
San Diego, CA Dem 7 of last 29 yrs
Anaheim, CA DEM since 2002
Raleigh, NC DEM since 1983
Seattle, WA Dem since 1956
Washington, DC DEM since 1961
Honolulu, HI ??
Oakland, CA DEM since 1991

?? = NA WIKI

I agree with the thinking that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but why not include the richest cities as well? Sort of like FOX news... pulling only part of the facts to create half of a story to push their agenda!

JackC... let's just look at what you are saying here and peel-back a little more fact to see just how well this is going to support your case.

Washington, D.C. – (Well that one is easy enough. Bloated government incomes; lobbyist; and other such bloated income sources are prevalent there = tax-payer’s money in one way or another.)

Virginia Beach and San Diego – (are helped by its strong military economic base. Military areas tend to have less-extreme income distributions and retirees in the area have comfortable military pensions = tax-payer’s money)

Raleigh, N.C. and San Jose, CA – (High tech helps these two cities. San Jose, in the heart of Silicon Valley, tops the list with a median household income of $71,765. That's not a huge surprise, given that the broader area is home to technology powerhouses, including Intel, Cisco Systems, and Google. Who knows how much higher the income might be if it were not for a democrat in office.)

Anchorage, AK – (a lack of retirees helps keep median incomes higher, and the fact that there more double-income households. Wages are typically higher in this area due to the more extreme conditions one must live through to work there. In addition; Alaska remains dependent on the support of the U.S. government to remain viable = tax-payer’s money.)

Anaheim, CA – (Let’s look at per capita income in Anaheim, rather than "median-income". In the last full census it was $18,266. The per capita income in the U.S. was $21,587.

Families below poverty level in Anaheim numbered 7,739, or 10.4 percent of the population. The percentage of families in America living below the poverty line was 9.20%.

Individuals living below the poverty line in the community was 45,615, or 14.1 percent. The percentage of individuals living beneath the poverty level in the country was 12.40% Wow!! Bad news for these people.

In other words… Anaheim, CA = tax-payer’s money.

Seattle, WA – (percentage of persons below poverty is 11.8% -- again, not an overly impressive number.)

Oakland, CA – (About 15.3 percent of families and 18.0 percent of the population were below the poverty line, including 27.9 percent of those under age 18 and 13.1 percent of those age 65 or over – which equals tax-payer’s money.)

So... stating that Democrats prevail over the "richest" cities would not be an accurate statement and would be much like the "liberal-media" who have a tendency to "not let the facts get in their way of a good story or agenda".

[NRiderUSA]

Dont go confusing the Spin with Facts GL...... Facts cannot get in the way of Change... you just have to believe.... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....