TEN POOREST CITIES

NM Leon

NM Leon

New member
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%

6. 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 elected a 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!
 
I don't know about Miami or El Paso,
but the other 8 city's have a very strong union base with in the public and government sector.
 
El Paso doesn't have unions, just democrats. All of Texas is a "Right to Work" state.

They have plenty of illegals there though, as I suspect Miami does. They don't exactly overflow the city bank acct.
wink.gif
 
Nevada is a Right to Work state to.
Our problem is that we have California Liberals who want to keep the illegals.
 
Originally Posted By: borkoni see another pattern.............. anybody?? Buehler..Buehler..


Lots of lazy people who don't want to work?
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Why would poor folks elect a Republican mayor?

Indeed!!!

What right minded person would vote for someone that may
reduce taxes or spending when that person pays no taxes.
All they want is to make sure the entitlements keep coming,
at no expense or effort on their part..
 
Back in the late '70s, a lot of officers on our department were working on our college degrees and we conducted an experiment for our Sociology class by compiling information on the movements of our "Homeless" population...We had a fairly Liberal population with the three college/university campuses...and we were in a position to make contact and interview most of them...

We found that there were three cities in the state that were pretty "easy" with social welfare attitudes,,, Kansas City, St Louis, and Springfield....The "homeless" population used to shift around among the three until they had exhausted their benefits in each and then they would wind up in the smaller cities, like where I worked, and when those benefits were exhausted, they would move on to the next...but they were really adept at working the systems...

I would hate to think of what the results would be now...in today's economy...
 
cool.gif
A few years back when Phoenix had some big game like the Super Bowl in the city, PPD officers were found to have given bus money to many to the chronic homeless in order for them to promise to go to Tucson for the duration of the game week. Since only cash was transferred.. IT WORKED!

Naturally, Cochise County and Tucson PD were highly resentful but they 'got over it'.

Though I was with PCSO, I must confess I sent one of them back to rejoin his wife-the mother of his only daughter-who worked as an Exotic Dancer in Las Vegas! I told him if he did not get back with her and his child, he would wind up deeply regreting it the rest of his life. Best money I ever let go! Also, probably the best good turn I ever did since the Boy Scouts of America!

Good hunting!
thumbup.gif
 
Last edited:
Quote:Why would poor folks elect a Republican mayor?

For the most part the wouldn't, being uneducated enough to have bought the Dem horsepucky that Republicans want to take advantage of them.

That's why the Dems create as many poor people as possible, and do their best to keep them poor and dependant.
 
Maybe the poor are stupid and brainwashed. It is also possible that they realize which party is most likely to enact an agenda beneficial to the lower class.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Maybe the poor are stupid and brainwashed. It is also possible that they realize which party is most likely to enact an agenda beneficial to the lower class.

and which party is that HB? and where do these poor get stupid and brainwashed?
crazy.gif
 
Quote:Maybe the poor are stupid and brainwashed. It is also possible that they realize which party is most likely to enact an agenda beneficial to the lower class.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "an agenda beneficial to the lower class".

If that is taken to mean a nannyism agenda, one that will steal from others and give to you just enough to keep you alive but poor and dependant, then vote Democrat.

If to you, "beneficial to the lower class" means providing an environment that will allow you to get yourself out of poverty, an opportunity to not belong to the "lower class", in fact with a little effort and luck a shot at being rich, then vote Republican.

It depends on whether you prefer statism or individual freedom.

If you prefer statism (and servile dependance), vote democrat.

If you prefer individual freedom, including the freedom to fail, vote American...er...Republican.
 
cool.gif
There is mostly a lot of truth in that; both my parents grew up in pretty substantial rural poverty (MO,OK) and met and married right @ the start of WWII. I think Mom remained a Yellow Dog Democrat til her dying breathe, but Dad worked selling products to Banks and I think he slowly talked/sold to so many of them he became a Republican.

It does indeed appear that most of the political systems in existence are based quite a lot on the condition of the line between the proverbial "Haves and Have Nots"!

My preference is a modified Capitalist system with a very good 'safety net' but not one so great that the 'sting' of poverty dissolves in ghetto fabulous lifestyles lived by criminals who mock people who actually work.

One thing is most likely true and that is that no system will be judged PERFECT, at least in my lifetime.

Good hunting!
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
I suppose if we can just elect enough Republicans it is possible everyone will be wealthy and conservative.Of course, it is also possible that an upper class is not possible without a lower class.
 
cool.gif
That's a very interesting idea! Money, property, social status, access to the good things tend to be 'political' and not necessarily a function of ability, skill, work ethic and all those things. Recently I read someplace that even in Communist China, there are apparently about 2,000 people who live in maximum luxury but this is kept from their media and the common knowledge of the regular people.

Last week when I read a synopsis of the nuclear preparations for war and their huge costs, it was stunning to read that WE have paid for 75 different wide spread hardened Offices/Bunkers in many different areas for the President and staff to live and operate from in the event we have a REAL WAR including a nuclear exchange of major proportions. Don't recall that cost quoted, but the fact there are at least 75 means we sure don't trust anybody and have planned for this event.

Wish we could have spent all the money on the YMCA or something worthwhile and definitely more likely to be used.

Good hunting!
cool.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top