Reply With Quote
what bull , from TSA, of course
http://www.scragged.com/articles/dem...isaster-cities
Some time back, CNN quoted a politician and asked who said it:
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
Every politician talks about poverty because it's become a serious issue - regardless of morality, our many en lement programs are taking our society down. There is also a human cost. The US Census Bureau says that nearly a third of the residents of Detroit and Buffalo live in poverty as the government defines it. This is such a waste of human potential that both liberals and conservatives agree that Something Should Be Done.
Nobody claims to be pro-poverty, but if you ask for solutions, ideas break down along party lines. Liberals want to increase taxes to give more to the poor, conservatives want to create opportunities and nudge the poor into jobs by cutting welfare as Pres. Clinton did.
Liberals and conservatives have thundered rhetoric at each other for years, but we finally have some facts. CNN gave the US Census rankings for cities with the most poverty and showed how long these cities have been run by Democrats:
Poverty
Rank City Democrat Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907
Five of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.
Correlation is not Causation
The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it. Fortunately, sociologists and economists have studied some of our older cities long enough to figure out what's going on. We now know why Democratic policies lead to poverty.
Two Harvard economists described the "Curley Effect," named after Mayor James Curley of Boston who was elected to Boston's Board of Aldermen in 1904 despite being in prison on a fraud conviction when the election was held.
Mayor Curley showed Democrats how to win elections by taxing productive people and channeling the proceeds to less well-off groups. This bought Irish votes. As taxes went higher, productive citizens who tended to vote Republican fled to the suburbs, which tipped the balance further and further in favor of Democratic candidates.
In cities like Baltimore and Detroit, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 or more. Is it any wonder that they've become single-party cesspools with no hope for change?
Driving productive citizens away may be good politics but it isn't good economics. 100 years ago when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, Detroit was the "place to be" for ambitious entrepreneurs. Tens of thousands of blacks were drawn from the South to fill well-paying jobs in the industrial North. After years of liberal misrule, Detroit has fallen so far that "black flight" has become common and major parts of the city are turning back into wilderness.
Baltimore hasn't suffered quite as badly, but it, too, shows the damage done by Democratic policies. In 1950, Baltimore's median income was 7% above the national average; in 2011, after 48 years of Democrat misrule, it's 22% below.
Boston, where the Curley effect originated, was in worse shape in 1980 than Baltimore is now, although it never got as bad as Detroit or Newark. In 1980, Boston's population had fallen 30% in the preceding 30 years and its crime rate was higher than Baltimore's today. Now, Boston is booming and crime has dropped.
What turned it around? Did Republicans take over city hall? Not exactly; state voters trimmed the excess taxes and productive people moved back in.
Massachusetts voters finally had enough and adopted a Proposition which forced Boston to cut taxes by 75%. Just as California's Proposition 13 cut taxes enough to revive San Francisco and Oakland, people returned to Boston. Its population rose 10% since 1980 and its crime rate is now 25% lower than Baltimore's.
Alas, tax reform seldom comes from within. In Baltimore's election last Sept. 13, the in bent, who'd promised an inconsequential tax cut of 2% spread over 9 years, won re-election just as a classic big-city Democrat won the Mayor's office in Washington, DC.
Turnarounds in Boston, San Francisco, and Oakland couldn't come from within because the Democratic political machine had too much muscle after so many years of robbing the cities and driving away affluent voters. It took statewide initiatives to slash tax rates so that the cities could survive.
These turnarounds happened in spite of the best efforts of the Democratic political machines. The positive effects of slashing tax rates after years of boosting taxes "to benefit the poor" and the staunch Democrat opposition to such proven common sense demonstrates that the Curley effect is alive and well.
Taxing the productive to buy votes from government employees and the unproductive is good politics - it supported Democratic machines for decades on end - but it wrecks societies where Curley machines become entrenched. Even though Democrats raise taxes in the name of helping minorities and the less well off, the latest census showed that minorities are leaving high tax states for places with lower taxes and fewer social programs but more jobs.
By the way, the quote about forcing the poor out of poverty which opened this article? It was from that arch right-winger Benjamin Franklin.
The trouble, as Franklin clearly foresaw, is that most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. The heavy lifting of growing up, taking responsibility, and doing it yourself is just too much work for anyone to do it if they don't have to, as any parent knows.
what bull , from TSA, of course
Correlation is not Causation
The fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it.
Excellent rebuttals from both of you.
i spent a month in el paso one day.
Obviously true.
So the article says no.
OK.
It's about what we usually get from you...but if you seriously want to debate this then do a little research about both cities and how foreign trade agreements like NAFTA doomed cities like Detroit...
I'll give you Detroit but you can't claim all other cities also went down the ter due to outsourcing can you?
I'm more interested in discussing the Curley Effect.
Several of those cities suffered because of the departure of American manufacturing. You can't really blame that on democratic or republican politicians.
seems like it in the summer.
The Detroit economy was all manufacturing...yes, manufacturing jobs were lost in all cities, but not at the same propensity as those which were lost in Detroit...it, and poor decision making by the few US auto makers that stayed..while the Japanese invested billions on making their cars super reliable the US auto manufactures continued to tailor to a shrinking demographic...
same is happenning down here with the american australian branches, continue to build big muscle ugly fkn cars nobody wants to buy, only reason these clowns still in business is because of govt handouts and fleet cars keeping them in business, while the general consumer has move on to more fuel efficient and reliable cars...
with the exception of El Paso and Miami, they're all rust belt, cold-belt cities that got hit by corporate (Repug/CoC)-driven globalization, destruction and/or export of jobs, and migration to the sun belt states.
iow, the article is right-wing bull propaganda, a LIE that Palin-brained idiots like vy and tsa suck down as Bible-truth (itself a bunch of marketing spin and fairy tales).
Republicans destroy states, the Republican south is the poorest region of the country.
Right-Wing Media Twist The Facts On Right-To-Work States
Studies Show Right-To-Work States Have Lower Wages And Benefits
• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions. [EPI, 2/17/11]
And Right-To-Work Laws Do Not Always Boost Economic Growth
Oklahoma "Saw No Improvement In Its Unemployment Rate After Passing Right-To-Work ... The Number Of New Companies Coming Into The State Fell By One-Third In the Decade" Since The Law Was Passed.
Unfortunately, Oklahoma saw no improvement in its unemployment rate after passing right-to-work: its manufacturing sector shrank dramatically, and the number of new companies coming into the state fell by one-third in the decade following adoption of the labor statute. And multiple statistically scientific analyses have concluded that right-to-work has utterly failed to enhance job growth in the state.
"Right-To-Work May Undermine Economic Growth By Restricting Consumer Demand."
If states rely on wage-cutting right-to-work laws as a strategy for attracting outside manufacturers, they would undermine wage standards in both manufacturing and other industries, which could inadvertently hamstring job growth by restricting aggregate local economic demand.
"There Is No Significant Difference In Capital Formation Or Employment Rates" Between States With Right-To-Work Laws And Those Without Them.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...t-to-wo/179798
the only advantage in right-to-work-for-less states is more profit for the employers.
"It’s no secret that a major component to democratic policies is to enlarge the number of citizens that rely on government handouts. This is accomplished by depressing the economy, creating new en lement programs or by changing qualifying requirements for en lements already in place. Regardless of the approach and the “save society” rhetoric, it always boils down to taxing productive members of society and then redistributing that money to the less productive or to the outright unproductive.
Those that receive something for nothing, in theory, get used to their situation. They want it, or better yet for the politicians, they need it to continue and will then re-elect the re-distributors. There’s no saving society. How can there be if you’re intentionally depressing the economy to create more dependency? That is a sales pitch. And there’s no genuine attempt at improvement for the individual and his or her situation. Again, how can there be when you re-define or create new programs that allow for or actually promote levels of unproductive behavior? It is money shuffling and nothing more. You and I know it as buying votes. This is all well and good for the politicians but over the longer term, buying votes creates significant problems for society."
It's no secret that this is partisan drivel. Its full of the tpyical buzz words and ideological nonsense.
en lement
rely of government
they want to depress teh economy
tax productive members (job creators)
redistribute money
something for nothing
improvement of the individual
buying votes
You might as well jerk off for as much insight it provides for a 'conservative' or anyone else for that matter.
Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and St. Louis are/were a part of the Rust Belt.
This is like Boutons saying the Republicans strive to create a permanent underclass.
Its the extreme elements in both parties that demonize the mainstream.
All of the rhetoric that eschews "we know what you really want evil bas s", would lead to a dysfunctional country. I refuse to believe that whole parties really want a dysfunctional society.
Here is some Harvard drivel for you.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gla...y_effect_1.pdf
do you have ANY evidence to the contrary from Repug propaganda, bills, laws?
America IS a dysfunctional country, and the 1%/VRWC/Repugs don't give a .
You would have to work hard to find a lot of Democrats that disagree with that.
Sorry, but that isn't a "right wing" idea, and to think that Democrats disagree with it is a giant strawman.
Such logical fallacies are, however, par for the course in most conservative op-eds about Democrats.
Demonize, demonize, demonize.
What I as a Democrat favor:
Welfare as a temporary assistance. I favor the work and training requirements for getting it.
Food stamps. Again, if you don't keep people fed it is hard for kids to develop normally, especially pregnant women.
What needs to be added to the mix:
Daycare to allow more people to work.
Paid sick days to allow people to call in sick when then need to and not lose income.
Better education in poor areas. Triple pay for teachers in poor schools, probably on the order of quintupling that.
Better access to trade schools, and college for poorer kids, with additional programs to shore up the academically weak.
All of this is geared to getting more people to work and for better pay.
Already read it.
It doesn't quite support the OP's thesis as much as you think it does, sorry.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...nd-effect.htmlThe fact that all of our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it.
and
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html
Take your pick which one you want to drop that statement into.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
