posted
I recently came across an article concerning the poorest cities in the US. I'm wondering about the validity of what he is claiming in the article when another article talks about the ten richest and ten poorest states. Of the ten richest states, only two (Alaska and Virginia) are not blue states, while of the ten poorest states, none of them are what I would define as blue states (most of them being pretty strong red states). What are your thoughts?
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The editorial is junk. Beck is trying to make the claim that a correlation between high poverty and Democratic leadership in a few cities proves that the Democrats in office are responsible for perpetuating poverty. It's just as reasonable to assume that cities with other persistent causes for poverty tend to elect Democrats because of a perception that the poor are better off with Democratic leadership. (Or that it is a coincidence.)
I mean, it doesn't even provide good anecdotal support for the suggested alternative. There ought to be at least one good example in there of a Republican mayor turning around poverty trends that existed under Democratic leadership (with specifics about how this was accomplished). But there isn't.
I'm not an expert, but I think it might be possible to push people out of poverty. Unfortunately Beck utterly fails to show that it has happened under Republican leadership, even though he's trying to make that case through a bad parody of analysis.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is making the claim that doing the same thing over and over again with same people is going to end up with the same results. So why do these people keep getting reelected?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He is making the claim that doing the same thing over and over again with same people is going to end up with the same results. So why do these people keep getting reelected?"
Maybe whoever is doing the voting doesn't have ending poverty as their primary goal. Maybe they do, maybe they should: but plenty of people are elected with platforms that aren't all about poverty.
Even if Beck made the case that the Democratic leadership had promised and failed to improve the poverty problems in their cities (he didn't) he'd still have to go one better and show that Republicans have done better in similar circumstances in order for there to be a clear argument for changing the leadership in order to address poverty. Again, I'm not making the reverse argument, I'm just pointing out that the argument Beck was making wasn't supported, at all.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky Do they keep electing republicans?
Honestly, I don't really know. It was a throwaway comment. I don't judge Beck's column substantial enough to really put any effort into.
---
edit:
Honestly, this is actually an issue I care quite a bit about (not just because I live in Philly) and it annoys me when people like Beck take their normal moronicly superficial approach to complex issues like this in order to try to score polical points.
I will say this. The Philadelphia area (city + suburbs) actually has a pretty high income level. The disparity between the city of Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs is driven by a complex mix of factors, both current and historical.
Part of this is definitely that the popular will of the majority has led to people being elected and a variety of other things that seem to have been to detriment of the financial welfare of those in the city.
It'd be a mistake, though, to try to make this analysis "Well, they elect only democrats. Republicans would fix it." That's breathtakingly stupid.
quote: Honestly, I don't really know. It was a throwaway comment. I don't judge Beck's column substantial enough to really put any effort into.
I knew you hadn't and wouldn't because you already will not believe the premise. Why look up anything that might refute your beliefs? It's just easier to say Beck=Wrong.
quote: Republican states are actually even poorer than we thought. Didn't you hear? If you have less than 5 million, you're poor.
I did hear, and he was making a joke and if you want to keep in the similar area, why don't we look at the income levels for all 57 states?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, I have working brain cells and an above 5th grade education. Thank you for noticing.
I did not say I noticed that. I was saying that you dimissed this out of hand without actually reading the article and considering the point he is making. Philadelphia is a prime example. Philly has only elected Democrats since 1952. Back then Democrats were elected to help clean up Republican controlled Philly which by and large they did until Rizzo took office in 1980 and things started downhill rapidly again. Green tried to make things better again but didn't take a second term because of the stress to his family. Next was Goode who not good at all considering the MOVE fiasco and his other illfated dealings. Rendell got elected and attempted to turn the city around by lowering corporate and individual taxes, cutting waste, and generally following conservative principles. Street should be recent enough for you to remember what he was like. So Democrats acting like conservatives, or at least fiscal conservatives, make inroads to turning Philly around while typical Democrats wreck the city. I am sure you will have a glib response but you might want to think about Philly's history. Back in the 40s and 50s Republicans controlled the city and it was a mess. Democrats were elected and brought and kept gaining in power. Today Democrats control the city and Philly is a mess. Perhaps it is time to lessen the current politician's grip on Philly just like was done in the past.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure why you think you think what you wrote supports your premise. But, if I'm being honest, I'm not actually that curious as to why.
--- edit: As I said, this is something that I'm interested and actually actively involved in.
Your "Democrats = Bad. Republicans = Good." seems like a waste of time to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not entirely sure why you think you think what you wrote supports your premise. But, if I'm being honest, I'm not actually that curious as to why.
posted
The poorest people are often the most religious. The Republicans court the Christians. There's your reason for poor states electing Republicans.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or its a snowball effect, voting Republican makes you become poor which makes you more religious which makes more likely to vote Republican which makes you poorer ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rich republican's don't have to vote. They pay people to convince the poor ones to do it for them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
