Democrat Disaster Cities

Democrat rule destroys cities more thoroughly than enemy bombs.

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 entitlement 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. Louis, 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?

The Democrat heartland.

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 incumbent, 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.

Mayor Curley Lives On

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.

Democratic policies are society-killers over time.  Let's hope our voters understand that in 2012.

Will Offensicht is a staff writer for Scragged.com and an internationally published author by a different name.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Economics.
Reader Comments

The problem has been identified, Democrat policies cause high taxes, enslave the recipients of the entitlement programs and cause the most productive citizens to flee the city. This is not news for anyone with a lick of common sense. It's the classic moocher class created by the government types and the producer class fleeing the scene. It is amazing to me that the liberal politicians will want to raise taxes when time and again people will either flee or find a way around the taxes.

The real problem is with the producer class not being active in politics over the last 50 years. When LBJ came up with greatest vote buying scam of the century, the Great Society, we the people sat on our hands and did not get in his face. The Weimar Republic was only 40 years removed that would show what inflation would do to a nation. It did not take a Rhodes Scholar to know that you can't have guns and butter as LBJ promised us. Does that sound like the anointed one that we have in the White House now? If we are to radically change the direction of our country it has to be in 2012 or we can pack it in. We have to have a veto proof Senate and a huge majority in the House. This mess that we are in can't be done with slashing the budget to the bone in day one. We should look at a solution like Rand Paul's of no more automatic 8% base line budgeting with an annual 1% decrease in spending. This alone would balance the budget in 7 years. Once we put that into place we need to eliminate some the government agencies that are counter to a capitalistic society, namely the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy and the Labor Relations Board. After that there needs tax reform to the core. The Fair Tax is the one tax collection system that would allow us to pay off our national debt which would explode our economy. Can you imagine what it would be like not to have to pay over 40 % of every dollar on our national debt?

Yes, the democrats have pushed us as a country to the brink and it is up to the grown-ups to straighten out their mess. It will take bold, firm in convictions leadership so we must choose wisely this year. There will be no second chances, we have to have a super majority dedicated to paying off our debt and a president who will not listen to the media pontificate about how we are starving people when we know that is hogwash. Who is the man/woman to do this? The scene is currently being set for this real leader to step forward and quit acting like a child in trying one ups-manship in the debates. would Reagan get caught acting like they are acting? I think not, he would give us his clear vision of the problem and how to solve it. He was a leader. Perhaps one of them will wake up and follow his lead, it's our only chance.

September 23, 2011 10:40 PM

Scandinavia has high taxes and social programs, but they are not (at least outside their recent immigrant ghettos) crime-ridden hellholes where the very fabric of civilization has frayed beyond repair. Something else is at work.

"The McDonalds-like uniformity is striking. A visitor who was parachuted into Newark, Camden, Detroit, East St. Louis, Gary Indiana, New Orleans, or any number of other black urban neighborhoods would be hard pressed to identify exactly where he was, but he would not have to look at a single fact to know he was in a lower-class black neighborhood."
"The Brown Dog" by Joseph Kay
tinyurl.com/3trdxf4

September 24, 2011 12:44 AM

@Ian - Gotta say this. Scandanavia hasn't got any blacks. USA does. With crime, jail, welfare, racial-based theft, black taxpayers don't cover the cost of their race. Blacks are a drain, not a plus.

Got it right - know he was in a lower-class black neighborhood. Same everywhere - Haiti, Detroit, wherever.

Nothing wrong with blacks as folks. There were lots of solid working black families until LBJ started pandering. Welfare is easier than work. It's our fault - we know better but we let 'em destroy black families.

September 24, 2011 12:59 PM

I'd like to see someone get off the kick of calling Democrats 'Democratic'. The meaning of the second word includes the notion of counting one vote per person.

September 24, 2011 11:36 PM

The democratic party WILL be the downfall of the United States of America.

April 22, 2013 11:38 PM

I think it is less of a top-down cause-and-effect than many portray it. Don't let these "communities" off the hook for responsibility for their own condition. The same lack of values and ethic in the "community" that gave them poverty, is the same that causes them to elect democrats and their false promises and politics of greed and envy and hate, whose programs further destroy those values and ethics, which further solidifies the democrat voting bloc - it is a vicious cycle. I really see no way out for any of these communities, so long as the community (the black population in particular) insist upon single-party rule. A single-party system, no matter which party, where there is no competition, where the Party Machine picks the elected officials instead of the popular vote, will always, always be inherently corrupt and solely self-serving. I doubt that party will ever be the Republican party, as the Leftist Media and self-serving "Black Leadership" has so poisoned black communities against the Republicans that there is no chance for them, but until they have a second choice, a second party with different plans and new ideas from the Democrats/Socialists, these communities have no way out of the trap they voluntarily stepped into.

August 3, 2013 3:49 PM

@jeff deyerle - What do you mean "will be"? I think that should be past tense.

August 3, 2013 3:51 PM

Kevin, your site is one of the few places online, where thoughtful, researched posts can be viewed. Since the Fourth Estate can no longer be relied upon, hats off to you for filling the void with truth and for loving your country. The fascists (and make no mistake that is what they are) seek to end our freedoms.

March 31, 2014 3:27 PM

Sweden does have higher taxes and much less slums. However, Sweden is racially and culturally homogenous, which lessens strife and tensions among people. That said, what is the last major invention or such to come out of Sweden? Socialism does have a price, its called stagnation or statism.

April 1, 2014 8:24 AM

Check your facts, Cato. Both Sweden and Norway have imported tons of immigrants from Asia and Africa and now have a crime (especially rape) epidemic on their hands.

April 15, 2014 9:02 PM

I feel confused. Since when do democrats want to give money to the poor? And republicans want to give people opportunities to get out of poverty? Really? How, with trickle down economics? We've all seen how well that works. The rich get richer and the poor can't afford to eat. Exactly how is raising the minimum wage, which is something democrats are in favor of, "giving money to the poor"? It seems to me that that would be a way for the poor to become more self-reliant, therefore reducing their dependency of social safety nets, like good stamps and Medicaid. Isn't that what everyone wants? In order to do that, corporations have to pay a living wage, which will cut into their profits. But when your workers have more money to spend, guess what, they'll spend it. The poor stay poor because, even if they have money, it gets spent. Helping the wealthy by cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy because they just hoard the excess. It doesn't get put back into the economy. So I guess I just don't understand the assertions that democrats want to give anyone anything. We just want the people who have earned their wealth on the backs of underpaid workers to start realizing that they deserve to prosper as well, and enact policies that will ensure that happens. And if those corporations remain greedy, then they need to be forced into it with national policy changes, like any company with massive profits that have a high percentage of their workers on food stamps and Medicaid be required to raise wages enough to get their workers of those programs. "No one who works forty hours a week should have to live in poverty." Bernie Sanders

I also take offense to the notion that poor people are lazy. That is a generalization, and a stereotype perpetuated by Reagan and his "welfare queens" which were totally debunked a long time ago. Most people don't want to have to rely on welfare. But when the choice is between that and watching your kids go hungry, what choice do you have? The minimum wage job that keeps you at less than full-time hours to avoid paying you benefits is not the answer. And don't even talk about college. Everyone cannot go to college and get a good paying job. Who will work at fast food restaurants and retail stores and convenience stores? Just because someone works at McDonald's does not mean they deserve to live in poverty.

September 8, 2014 12:26 AM

The problem with raising the minimum wage, Emily, is that the more it costs to have a worker, the more management will spend to get machines to do the job. The more workers cost, the fewer jobs there are. That is why so many factories moved to Mexico and China - the lower transportation cost more than made up for the increased transportation costs.

Demanding that companies pay health care if someone works more than 30 hours per week makes the workers cost more so there are fewer jobs.

September 9, 2014 7:03 PM

The problem with raising the minimum wage, Emily, is that the more it costs to have a worker, the more management will spend to get machines to do the job. The more workers cost, the fewer jobs there are. That is why so many factories moved to Mexico and China - the lower transportation cost more than made up for the increased transportation costs.

Demanding that companies pay health care if someone works more than 30 hours per week makes the workers cost more so there are fewer jobs.

September 9, 2014 7:04 PM

The underlying problem is voters lack education about their country, how it really is supposed to work, how capitalism works, they take their freedom for granted and are kept ignorant of what is happening to their country by the leftists who have largely taken over news organizations. To get really into the data, you have to dig.

Soros' Open Society Institute/Shadow Party and leftist crowd are like rust, never sleeping as they work to corrode this country's foundation to achieve some utopian paradise where they will be in charge because you're too dumb to run your own life. And they are smart enough to take over for you. Yeah.

A person who loves this country and likes things as they pretty much are will not work like rust to radically change it, will be unlikely to try to bamboozle voters, and will live their lives.

For example, leftists devise things like the Cloward-Piven strategy that is being used to sabotage and destroy our governments using overload of welfare to effect financial crisis--sound familiar? Like rust they do this over time and, like a frog in slowly heating water, you may not notice until it is too late.

You can blame blacks, as someone did above, but there is a history of racism that has been leveraged by the Democrats and leftists to perpetuate negative attitudes about the country. What I have observed is endured it. You can thank ongoing indoctrination in our schools for that. And if you dig, you will find the indoctrination was planned and had been worked on for decades.

Hillary Clinton, a devotee of the thug Alinsky (he learned from the Mob), wrote a term paper about how, with the failure of attempted change from without by leftists, the best approach is to BE the system and change it from within. President Ebola had a poster of Alinsky on his classroom wall.

You hear garbage like: no justice, no peace. What is that but the cry of a lynch mob who threatens violence if they don't like the result of a legal situation? You hear the sharing of wealth, which is nothing more than turning some into slaves for others (as apart from the funds that properly are needed to run government). Lynch mobs and slavery--something openly supported by Democrats in decades past and reviled by blacks and Republicans. Leftists use linguists to help them twist language and make it sound moral, and charge it emotionally.

The Civil Rights Act made it illegal to use racial discrimination, yet the Democrats have been passing laws that carve the country up by race. And it supports the lie that they CARE about a group. They run to any incident where a black is hurt by white, but ignore the hundreds of murders of black on black in Chicago, or the facts that white on black is a miniscule percentage of violence.

It is easier to take a check than make a check. When you are busy making a check on a real job and raising a family, there is less time and energy to protest or get involved to save your country. When the leftist union and the Shadow Party or one of its many organizations pays you to protest, gives you time off to do it, it gives the false impression the protest is a grass-roots movement because only one side is fully represented, and usually with very loud mouths.

October 19, 2014 5:26 PM

Correction to above: What I have observed is older blacks tend to see less racism than younger ones do. This is because older blacks actually endured real racism.

October 19, 2014 5:30 PM

In the table above, the city "St. Lewis, MO" should be "St. Louis" named after King Louis IX. The only French king to be canonized.

Of course, many French citizens admire the comedy of Jerry Lewis, and might prefer that spelling.

May 11, 2015 10:27 PM

There's nothing comical about St. Looey. :-)

Thanks for pointing it out. Funny nobody noticed before now! All fixed anyway.

May 11, 2015 11:00 PM

I agree with this article, but the information is incomplete. I would like to know what criteria was used by CNN to determine the poorest cities, and I would like to see the same criteria applied to show us the 10 richest cities in the US as well, with parallel comparisons.

What about cities like Seattle, who are deeply liberal, but still doing fine financially (relatively, that city is fine)? Please do some more research so we can get the whole story. It's better to support your (and my) beliefs with the whole truth.

November 4, 2015 4:16 PM

I realize this thread is over a year old, but I would like to answer Emily above.

Emily, Democrats do indeed give to the poor in order to buy votes and retain power.

This process is inherent to socialism as practiced by Democrats. The problem is, that the greater the portion of the economy which is run by government, either directly, or by regulation, the greater the percentage of people who are dependent on government for their livelihood. This is socialism. In the extreme, complete socialism controls all economic activity. Everyone receives everything from the government, and therefore they are all dependent on the government – 100% taxes, 100% handouts. In the case of limited socialism, welfare recipients, the unemployed, those on food stamps, early childhood programs, etc. etc. etc. all receive from the government what the government has taken from someone else through taxes. As this article points out, as taxes rise to sustain government handouts, job producers, and their jobs, go elsewhere, reducing the tax base and thereby reducing the absolute amount of money available to handout, thereby increasing poverty. This is the death spiral to destruction as taxes are raised more and more to provide for the poor, jobs are increasingly driven away. The only solution is to reduce the percentage of socialism (handouts), which will reduce the tax burden, which will encourage job production which will lift the poor out of poverty. – This is NOT trickledown economics. That is a phrase invented by Democrats. It is the basics of the law of supply and demand free market economics. The free market will always do a better job of creating economic prosperity and thereby give more money to the poor that any government program is capable of. – More absolute dollars to the poor, not less.

These principles apply to minimum wage – which is in effect a handout. You assume that wages would be lower without minimum wage laws. This is incorrect. I can tell you, as someone who hires workers for my farm, that given the free market, entry level workers who are honest, teachable, and hardworking will always make more than minimum wage (In my area 1.5 times). Workers who are less valuable will make less. The people hurt by minimum wage laws are the very people who are willing to work the hardest. The whole process works like this. Where wages are low, job producers move in, which in turn creates more ancillary jobs, which in turn creates a scarcity of workers which increases wages. Again, this is NOT trickledown economics, but the real principles of supply and demand which can no more be broken, over the long haul, than that the law of gravity. Only real prosperity will reduce poverty.

Another example is a college degree. When I went to college, someone who was willing to work through high school and college and save their money could put themselves through college with no debt. In fact, the average amount that could be earned through 7 years, while in school, effectively established the cost of an average college degree. However, as government money through both grants and loans has increased (again, a Democrat give away), the cost of college has risen commensuratly. For this reason, the rate of increase in college tuition has far outpaced inflation. Today, it is not possible for an average hardworking young person to pay their way through college debt free. Again, the people hurt the most are the very people willing to work the hardest. In the process, most students become socialists, that is, they become dependent on the government. and This process creates more Democrat voters, unable to bite the government hand that feeds them. Taxes increase, driving away real productive job creation, and thus reducing the value of the college degree. This again is the process again death spiral

This article well describes the inner city, socialist, death spiral, but there are thousands of other examples both in this country and throughout history.

January 1, 2016 12:44 PM

To follow up on my post above,

Emily said, “I also take offense to the notion that poor people are lazy.” Emily, I take offence at that notion as well. The problem with many poor people is not laziness, but conditioning.

The very worst impact of socialism is the effect it has on the attitudes and mental drive of anyone it entangles. People who are dependent are basically slaves and they know it. They end up thinking like slaves and thereby fail to reach their full potential. All they can do is rage against the master. Their self-reliance has been stolen. People, who have worked all their lives, look at minimum wage or any other form of government handout as and think, "Why would I ever want such a thing?” But, as this article and some comments, point out, people who are conditioned to think as dependents of the state end up looking for the largest return for the least amount of work. It has nothing to do with being lazy; it has to do with being conditioned. This is the true tragedy of the Democrat party. This is the True tragedy that afflicts inner city minority populations. True compassion for the poor is to restore personal dignity which only comes through work and self-reliance. I believe in human potential – but also in human depravity, which takes over wherever socialism flourishes. Of course family conditioning is even more significant, but the influence of socialism is significant over the long haul.

To Mishqueen above,

Washington State (Seattle) does not have a progressive personal or corporate income tax. In fact, they don’t have any personal or corporate income tax. Washington State depends much more heavily on sales tax. In addition, Washington voters have drastically limited the growth of property tax. These are major contributors to economic prosperity in Washington State. However, a look at the trend in the overall tax burden in Seattle indicates that Seattle is slowly going the way of other Democrat cities. If they continue, they will eventually enter the death spiral as well.

But the case of Seattle does illustrate how many other factors come into play. Perhaps you remember the 1970s in Seattle and the phrase, “The last one out of Seattle, please turn off the lights.” At the time, a sizable percentage of Seattle’s economy was dependent on Boeing, with Timber, tourism, and fisheries also important. The global economy and poor management decisions and poor union decisions all affected Boeing, which in turn, affected all of Seattle’s population. During the 80s, the timber industry was effectively killed by environmentalist. During the 1990s, the timber industry was replaced with growth in tourism. The growth of Microsoft also affected the whole area. The equation is complex, but the underlying free market principles of supply and demand ultimately rule.

January 1, 2016 1:37 PM

Both sides are idiots. Nobody enjoys being poor; you don't have to add to the misery of the poor to make them want to get out of poverty. What you need are either abundant jobs or abundant business opportunities -- legal ones. Which party has provided either of those?

What could help, at least for awhile, is to bring back the CCC and the WPA (with a lot less corruption, waste and bureaucracy this time) and hire all those jobless poor to replant our forests, reconstitute our topsoil, and rebuild out infrastructure. The Big Rich won't do that, and the govt. doesn't even think of it.

--Leslie <;)))>< Fish

January 5, 2016 11:53 PM

@Leslie I could not agree with you more. The lives of blacks killed in inner cities simply do not count, nor do the lives of the blacks who are not killed.

January 7, 2016 6:25 PM

"Since when do democrats want to give money to the poor? And republicans want to give people opportunities to get out of poverty? Really? How, with trickle down economics? We've all seen how well that works. The rich get richer and the poor can't afford to eat. Exactly how is raising the minimum wage, which is something democrats are in favor of, "giving money to the poor"? It seems to me that that would be a way for the poor to become more self-reliant, therefore reducing their dependency of social safety nets, like good stamps and Medicaid. Isn't that what everyone wants? In order to do that, corporations have to pay a living wage, which will cut into their profits."

This is EVERYTHING that is wrong with liberal politics. Let's start here; if democrats want to force corporations to take money from profits and put it to wages then they do in fact want to give money to the poor. They just, as with all other social programs, don't want to pay for it. They want policies that lower THEIR taxes and make "the rich" pay off the poor. The poor have NOT gotten poor, we have all gotten richer and by we I mean the entire. planet. Every metric has gone up for both developing and industrialized nations; standard of living, life expectancy, access to fresh water, indoor plumbing, starvation, hunger, nutrition, infant mortality, child mortality, access to medicine, communications and transportation. We all have magic devices put in our hands if most of us use it to send pictures of our genitals to others with the same magic devices it doesn't change the fact of that wealth. The fact SOME people benefited MORE (mostly those who contributed more) than others doesn't change that fact and is only relevant to the politicians who use that fact to pander to voters.

Profits from corporations won't pay for $15 an hour minimum wage, that would in fact bankrupt McDonalds and Walmart (who employ between them 1 out of ever 50 Americans). Here is the way to raise the minimum wage that no democrat wants to hear; pay more for goods; pay $15 for the Big Mac Happy Meal, pay $5 for the Coffee at McDonalds, pay 2x as much for sundries at Walmarts. Want jobs in America? Pay $2000 for the iphone you "have to have" not $500. Pay $10 for gallon of gas not $2. But no democrat wants to hear that reality they want to say, with a straight face, that paying people more than the market demands is any different than giving them welfare or food stamps. Every one wants their cheap and easily accessible fast food, toothpaste, gasoline and electronics, they want to order that item on amazon by overnight freight and then blame "the corporations" when they find the ways to do that at the speed, convenience and cost they demand as their right. THEN Democrats coin amazingly hypocritical catch-phrases like 'we are subsidizing McDonalds with our taxes since their employees need to get assistance" when in fact a) without those jobs "we" didnt create they'd need total assistance and b) in fact those workers are subsidizing our "right" to eat a days worth of calories with less than an hours worth of work and a 2 minute walk (a fact that would leave anyone from the 19th century and back in awe of), use magical devices that put the entirety of man's knowledge at our fingertips and communications with anyone on the globe in our ears the ability to buy any doo-dad that strikes our fancy overnight to our door and the ability to travel in a day what used to be a month long journey fraught with risk of death a scant century ago. Democrats? Pah.

September 9, 2016 6:50 PM

"Since when do democrats want to give money to the poor? And republicans want to give people opportunities to get out of poverty? Really? How, with trickle down economics? We've all seen how well that works. The rich get richer and the poor can't afford to eat. Exactly how is raising the minimum wage, which is something democrats are in favor of, "giving money to the poor"? It seems to me that that would be a way for the poor to become more self-reliant, therefore reducing their dependency of social safety nets, like good stamps and Medicaid. Isn't that what everyone wants? In order to do that, corporations have to pay a living wage, which will cut into their profits."

This is EVERYTHING that is wrong with liberal politics. Let's start here; if democrats want to force corporations to take money from profits and put it to wages then they do in fact want to give money to the poor. They just, as with all other social programs, don't want to pay for it. They want policies that lower THEIR taxes and make "the rich" pay off the poor. The poor have NOT gotten poor, we have all gotten richer and by we I mean the entire. planet. Every metric has gone up for both developing and industrialized nations; standard of living, life expectancy, access to fresh water, indoor plumbing, starvation, hunger, nutrition, infant mortality, child mortality, access to medicine, communications and transportation. We all have magic devices put in our hands if most of us use it to send pictures of our genitals to others with the same magic devices it doesn't change the fact of that wealth. The fact SOME people benefited MORE (mostly those who contributed more) than others doesn't change that fact and is only relevant to the politicians who use that fact to pander to voters.

Profits from corporations won't pay for $15 an hour minimum wage, that would in fact bankrupt McDonalds and Walmart (who employ between them 1 out of ever 50 Americans). Here is the way to raise the minimum wage that no democrat wants to hear; pay more for goods; pay $15 for the Big Mac Happy Meal, pay $5 for the Coffee at McDonalds, pay 2x as much for sundries at Walmarts. Want jobs in America? Pay $2000 for the iphone you "have to have" not $500. Pay $10 for gallon of gas not $2. But no democrat wants to hear that reality they want to say, with a straight face, that paying people more than the market demands is any different than giving them welfare or food stamps. Every one wants their cheap and easily accessible fast food, toothpaste, gasoline and electronics, they want to order that item on amazon by overnight freight and then blame "the corporations" when they find the ways to do that at the speed, convenience and cost they demand as their right. THEN Democrats coin amazingly hypocritical catch-phrases like 'we are subsidizing McDonalds with our taxes since their employees need to get assistance" when in fact a) without those jobs "we" didnt create they'd need total assistance and b) in fact those workers are subsidizing our "right" to eat a days worth of calories with less than an hours worth of work and a 2 minute walk (a fact that would leave anyone from the 19th century and back in awe of), use magical devices that put the entirety of man's knowledge at our fingertips and communications with anyone on the globe in our ears the ability to buy any doo-dad that strikes our fancy overnight to our door and the ability to travel in a day what used to be a month long journey fraught with risk of death a scant century ago. Democrats? Pah.

September 9, 2016 6:50 PM

I'm just curious. If it is not "Democrat policies" that creates this level of poverty and crime, what is it? I don't see anyone offering a legitimate competing theory.

December 19, 2016 1:01 AM

@Adam. I don't know if you're listening to these comments, but if you are, the answer to your question is simplicity itself.

1) The Great Society welfare programs promote fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is correlated with a life of poverty and crime. Married black couples have about the same poverty rate as married white couples.

2) Teachers' unions bribe Democrats to permit them to operate very high-cost dropout mills. Baltimore schools spend more than $18,000 per student. Assume 25 kids in a class. That's $450,000 per classroom. The teacher doesn't cost $100,000. Most of the other 350,000 is eaten up in bureaucratic bloat - they con't even maintain the roofs for that sum.

3) The solution I see is requiring an IUD as a condition of collecting welfare. That will cut the problem in half each generation.

Women used to say, "Not unless you marry me, and I won't marry you unless you grow up and get a job." They knew that to get a home and children, they had to get husbands. With welfare, all they have to get in pregnant, which is a lot easier.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559949/Downfall-decent-clan-What-Shannon-family-tree-reveals-social-breakdown-Britain.html shows that white families fall apart just as badly as black families when welfare pays a woman's costs.

December 19, 2016 6:44 PM

You've got it backwards. Irresponsible punks who knock up gullible young girls and then run out on them are the problem. Gullible young girls who don't think to even get protection before having sex are the problem. Bigoted laws that make it hard for young girls to bet protection, let alone (Ewww! Horrors!) abortion are the problem. In the days before Welfare, such girls could only support themselves and their children by begging and whoring. A bigoted society that accepts and arranges this state of affairs is the problem!

December 20, 2016 7:27 AM

Wishing that young men would wuit knocking up wiling women is about as productive as wishing the sky would turn green. http://www.scragged.com/articles/what-do-women-want-2---natural-selection points out that natural selection favors men who spread their genes as widely as possible; there's no way to talk them out of it.

In the days before welfare, women mostly got married because men wanted sex and they couldn't have it without marrying.

Republicans are trying to make birth control OTC: Democrats are fighting that.

The problem is Great Society welfare programs which make it possible for women to have homes and children without having husbands. It's a whole lot easier for a woman to get pregnant than to get married, particularly when Uncle sap picks up the bills.

We need to make putting in an IUD a condition of receiving welfare.

Our welfare system is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, meant when he warned Harvard graduates of:

"an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses" and a "tilt of freedom in the direction of evil ... evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent in human nature."

He also said, "In order for men to commit great evil, they must first be convinced that they are doing good."

Rank and file liberals are so convinced that their programs are good that they can't see the evil that they do, but the leadership knows full well what they're doing.

"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Spitting in the Face of Evil" at http://www.scragged.com/articles/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-spitting-in-the-face-of-evil points out, he was right on about evil. Those who do not ponder the consequences of the programs they favor have brought much evil into our nation.

December 21, 2016 11:14 AM

First, the relation of poverty in cities along city borders... is absurd. For example, both the Watts Section of Los Angeles and the West Oakland Section of Oakland tend to make the list's 'top 5' areas look great!
Second,Name some large cities that have voted the Repulican line (before The Donald); that also have some Minority intense section(s).

EDUCATION (or lack of it) is the root cause in all these impovrished areas IMHO, and the adoption of an 'anti-education' attitude is seen in these children beginning at age 6 (for boys). Whether their source is parental- and self-perpetuating, or from their peer group... doesn't matter. Fail to deal with this issue (attitude and education offerings)... and we all fail.

February 12, 2017 2:00 AM

How us it, American has this novel tier of needy "underclass". Single Parents ?
Young women ,or girls; having children born out of wedlock. Not accidentally or by chance, . But sequentially. Impossible connections ,nearly divine. producing now millions of children borne into a roller coaster of negligence, abuse, self loathing imposed or bred into by the mothers who found the star ways to heaven. The projects multi story housing. Or HUD subsidies .
A whole system within government evolved to "care and nurture " these lost souls. Charity turned to an Industry.

June 24, 2017 12:33 AM

John B. Reilly[1] 1896 - 1900
J. E. Lummus[1] (or J. E. Lemus?) 1900 – 1903 Republican
John Sewell 1903 – 1907[2] Republican
Frank H. Wharton[1] 1907 – 1911 Republican
Samuel Rodman Smith[1] 1911 – 1913 Republican
John W. Watson, Sr.[1] 1913 – January 1, 1915 Republican
Parker A. Henderson[1] January 1, 1915 – January 1, 1917 Republican
John W. Watson, Sr. January 1, 1917 – January 1, 1919 Republican
W. P. Smith[1] January 1, 1919 – January 1, 1921[3] Republican
C. D. Leffler January 1, 1921 – January 1, 1923 Republican
P. A. Henderson January 1, 1923 – January 1, 1925 Republican
Edward C. Romfh January 1, 1925 – January 1, 1927 Republican
EG Sewell.jpg E. G. Sewell January 1, 1927 – January 1, 1929 Republican
C. H. Reeder January 1, 1929 – January 1, 1931 Republican
R.B. Gautier January 1, 1931 – January 1, 1933 Republican
EG Sewell.jpg E. G. Sewell January 1, 1933 – January 1, 1935 Republican
A. D. H. Fossey January 1, 1935 – January 1, 1937 Republican
Robert R. Williams January 1, 1937 – January 1, 1939 Republican
EG Sewell.jpg E. G. Sewell January 1, 1939 – April 2, 1940 Republican
Alexander Orr, Jr. April 2, 1940 – January 1, 1941 Republican
C. H. Reeder January 1, 1941 – January 1, 1943 Republican
Leonard K. Thomson January 1, 1943 – January 1, 1945 Republican
Perrine Palmer, Jr. January 1, 1945 – January 1, 1947 Republican
Robert L. Floyd January 1, 1947 – January 1, 1949 Democratic
William M. Wolfarth January 1, 1949 – January 1, 1951 Republican
Chelsie J. Senerchia January 1, 1951 – January 1, 1953 Republican
Abe Aronovitz.jpg Abe Aronovitz January 1, 1953 – January 1, 1955 Republican
Randy Christmas January 1, 1955 – January 1, 1957 Republican
Miami Mayor Robert King High.png Robert King High January 1, 1957 – August 30, 1967 Democratic
Clark, Stephen P.jpg Stephen P. Clark August 31, 1967 – November 25, 1970[4] Democratic
David T. Kennedy November 25, 1970 – April 11, 1973 Democratic
Maurice Ferre 2009.jpg Maurice Ferré April 19, 1973 – August 17, 1973 Democratic
David T. Kennedy August 17, 1973 – November 8, 1973 Democratic
Maurice Ferre 2009.jpg Maurice Ferré November 8, 1973 – November 14, 1985[5] Democratic
Xavier Suárez November 14, 1985 – November 11, 1993 Democratic
Clark, Stephen P.jpg Stephen P. Clark November 11, 1993 – June 4, 1996[4] Democratic
Willy Gort.jpg Willy Gort June 4, 1996 – July 24, 1996 Republican
Joe Carollo July 24, 1996 – November 14, 1997[6][7] Republican
Xavier Suárez November 14, 1997 – March 12, 1998[8] Democratic
Joe Carollo March 12, 1998 – November 17, 2001[9] Republican
20080507 Manny Diaz.jpg Manny Díaz November 17, 2001 – November 11, 2009 Democratic
Mayor Regalado.jpg Tomás Regalado November 11, 2009 – present[10][11] Republican
See also[edit]

October 8, 2017 10:17 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...