Kind of a limited simplistic explanation for a complex problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ref=rss_latest
"Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?
But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908."
Kind of makes you wonder why it is the Dems continue to get elected in these cities.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Kind of a limited simplistic explanation for a complex problem.
translation:
"Well shit, here we are all talking about how we should kick the Reps out of DC for the inept manner in which they have run the country over the past 8 years and then Superfreak points to cities that have been under Dem control most of the past 50 years that are the worst run cities in the country and so now we shall pretend that there are more "complex issues" other than leadership that could have caused the abject poverty of these cities. It can't possibly be that we should kick the Dems out too. It must somehow be the Reps fault."
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Translation:
"I still cannot think of a response to the fact that out of the top ten cities most stricken with poverty, 8 have been run by democrats for at least the last four decades. I have no idea how to respond, so I will therefore try to shift the discussion with silly insults about your intelligence."
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
umm doesn't Miami vote republican for guv and for Bush 2 times ?
Poor, urban people tend to vote Democratic. Surprise, surprise.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
yeah and loss of industries and jobs in some areas have nothing to do with it at all does it ?
Just the fact of having Demoncratic mayors ?
Pretty pitiful SF. Simple explanations for simple minds.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
USGED STRIKES AGAIN!!!!
The stone that the builder refused
Will always be the head corner stone
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
LMAO... nice little emo spooge.
So you think these cities should continue to be run by the party that has continually screwed its people over because you maintain that the Reps are worse? If the Reps are worse, why is it none of the cities run by Reps are in the top ten with regards to poverty?
That said, no question the Reps in Congress from 2000-2006 were a bunch of fiscally irresponsible morons (as have the Dems from 2007-current). But national politics does not always correlate to how the parties run in individual cities.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
If you think that the Republicans are going to win in any major cit you're a moron. They have a tad bit of a chance to capture the executive but they will be dealing with an all Democratic council. This is like asking "Why doesn't Massachusettes vote for McCain"? Because they're liberals you fucking doofus. BTW, what about Mississippi, the poorest state in the nation, with an all Republican executive?
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
Listen my good little emo....
I did not say I thought Republicans would win any major city. I asked why the idiots in the major cities would continue to elect a party that has proven incapable of helping them escape from poverty? How many decades must pass before they try a new strategy?
As for Mississippi... no one gives a shit about Mississippi.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Bookmarks