Ten Poorest Cities in the US

[aztecwin]

I did not fact check this.
THE TEN POOREST CITIES IN THE USA*

*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%
5. 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!

"You cannot help the poor
by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak
by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity
by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up
by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man
by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage
by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently
by doing for them,
what they could and
should do for themselves."
--Abraham Lincoln

[Aztec89]

Now isn't that Ironic? Don't ya think?

They have no "Hope", AND, they are afraid of "Change".

[The Great Aztec Joe]

Actually the simple reality is that the Republican party is seen as the party of the Rich and Selfish. The poor need state aid and assistance, and they know that they will never get that from Republican Administrations.

We finally have socialized medicine in this country. Now that we have our foot in the door, we can grow the program. Let the rich and selfish pay for the medical care of the poor.

After all the poor will always be with us according to Jesus. Their birth rate is three times that of the Rich and Selfish. That will insure that poverty will abound for ever more.

[aztecwin]

Sept 10, 2010 8:29:08 GMT -8 The Great Aztec Joe said:

Actually the simple reality is that the Republican party is seen as the party of the Rich and Selfish. The poor need state aid and assistance, and they know that they will never get that from Republican Administrations.

We finally have socialized medicine in this country. Now that we have our foot in the door, we can grow the program. Let the rich and selfish pay for the medical care of the poor.

After all the poor will always be with us according to Jesus. Their birth rate is three times that of the Rich and Selfish. That will insure that poverty will abound for ever more.

Once again you crack me up! Keep trying!

[waztec]

I think that income inequality and our deteriorating economic condition are closely connected. In addition, I have not been able to find anyone who has been able to explain, to my satisfaction, exactly how increasing our tax rates to anything near those in the fifties results in any disastrous contraction in our economy.

The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.

Both of those conditions have changed.

So it is no wonder that we have a large number of poor cities.

There is an interesting piece in Slate Magazine that has examined the divergence in income between the various economic classes in this country. It seems to be a fairly unbiased read, but I will leave that to conservatives, because Slate is a liberal leaning publication.

www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266030/

One theory held by Larry Bartels, a Princeton political scientist, (In his 2008 book Unequal Democracy) is that during Republican administrations relative incomes for the lower economic classes grew much more than incomes for the rich.

I believe that the Republican party, in its present iteration, exists for two basic reasons: 1. To assist the well to do and corporations in their effort to obtain more influence. and 2. To help like thinking citizens realize their most fervent dream, which is to eliminate any requirement to pay taxes and contribute to the general welfare. Some of the points the author makes, but not all, correspond to my well founded opinions about Republicans.

[davdesid]

>>>The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.<<<

Back in those days there were so many deductions it's hard to remember them all. Sales taxes, gas taxes, all kinds of interest including credit card interest, etc. Those are all gone, but you guys who seem to want a return to the higher marginal rates of bygone days always seem to leave that part out.

And the words of that martyred Democratic President are always avoided for some reason:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

[waztec]

Sept 11, 2010 12:49:19 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>>The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.<<<

Back in those days there were so many deductions it's hard to remember them all. Sales taxes, gas taxes, all kinds of interest including credit card interest, etc. Those are all gone, but you guys who seem to want a return to the higher marginal rates of bygone days always seem to leave that part out.

And the words of that martyred Democratic President are always avoided for some reason:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

Uh. . .Gee, Well. . .Uhmmm, let me see. . . You may have me there!! After all that period of time was our economic zenith and an economic cycle high point. Now? Well not so much, huh?

What is the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in 2010? Why its about 35%. What was it then ('63) ? Why it was 91% !!! Well then, what was the top corporate tax rate in 1963? Why it was 52%!! Now? Well gee, its 35%! What is the capital gains rate now? 15% Was it then? Why it was 25%!


Perhaps, davdesid, just perhaps, the conditions are different now. Don't you think? The question you have to ask yourself is if Kennedy would have changed his tune or would he continue to channel the Uncle Ronnie now, given the subtle, nearly undetectable, differences between then and now.


We have ,or are very near, matching the mid sixties in something, though, I read today. Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society. So, I would humbly suggest that the rates have gone down too much and the income levels differences are too extreme.

But, no, no that can't be because Republicans don't want to pay taxes. Taxes give Republicans gas and makes them all itchy and what not. We can't inconvenience wealth, now can we. Let them go hungry, right? Unfortunately the polls are saying that there is agreement that taxes should rise.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america

[davdesid]

Sept 11, 2010 15:09:08 GMT -8 waztec said:

Sept 11, 2010 12:49:19 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>>The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.<<<

Back in those days there were so many deductions it's hard to remember them all. Sales taxes, gas taxes, all kinds of interest including credit card interest, etc. Those are all gone, but you guys who seem to want a return to the higher marginal rates of bygone days always seem to leave that part out.

And the words of that martyred Democratic President are always avoided for some reason:

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

Uh. . .Gee, Well. . .Uhmmm, let me see. . . You may have me there!! After all that period of time was our economic zenith and an economic high point. Now? Well not so much, huh?

What is the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in 2010? Why its about 35%. What was it then ('63) ? Why it was 91% !!! Well then, what was the top corporate tax rate in 1963? Why it was 52%!! Now? Well gee, its 35%! What is the capital gains rate now? 15% Was it then? Why it was 25%!


Perhaps, davdesid, just perhaps, the conditions are different now. Don't you think? The question you have to ask yourself is if Kennedy would have changed his tune or would he continue to channel the Uncle Ronnie now, given the subtle, nearly undetectable, differences between then and now.

We have ,or are very near, matching the mid sixties in something, though, I read today. Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society. That's OK Republicans don't want to pay taxes. We can't inconvenience wealth, now can we. Let them go hungry, right?

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america

If you want to advocate for a top marginal tax rate of 91% as it was in the old days, and you think those days were so cool, I think it would only be fair for you to also advocate for the return of all of those countless deductions which went away when rates were reduced.

But no.

You want to play "bait and switch".

[waztec]

Sept 11, 2010 15:21:51 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Sept 11, 2010 15:09:08 GMT -8 waztec said:

Uh. . .Gee, Well. . .Uhmmm, let me see. . . You may have me there!! After all that period of time was our economic zenith and an economic high point. Now? Well not so much, huh?

What is the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in 2010? Why its about 35%. What was it then ('63) ? Why it was 91% !!! Well then, what was the top corporate tax rate in 1963? Why it was 52%!! Now? Well gee, its 35%! What is the capital gains rate now? 15% Was it then? Why it was 25%!


Perhaps, davdesid, just perhaps, the conditions are different now. Don't you think? The question you have to ask yourself is if Kennedy would have changed his tune or would he continue to channel the Uncle Ronnie now, given the subtle, nearly undetectable, differences between then and now.

We have ,or are very near, matching the mid sixties in something, though, I read today. Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society. That's OK Republicans don't want to pay taxes. We can't inconvenience wealth, now can we. Let them go hungry, right?

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america

If you want to advocate for a top marginal tax rate of 91% as it was in the old days, and you think those days were so cool, I think it would only be fair for you to also advocate for the return of all of those countless deductions which went away when rates were reduced.

But no.

You want to play "bait and switch".

I am willing to pay more. I am also willing to lose deductions. I don't know how else to make my position clearer.

Bait and switch? Quote Kennedy when the conditions are not analogous, could be the same bait and switch you are complaining about.

[davdesid]

Sept 11, 2010 15:25:55 GMT -8 waztec said:

Sept 11, 2010 15:21:51 GMT -8 davdesid said:

If you want to advocate for a top marginal tax rate of 91% as it was in the old days, and you think those days were so cool, I think it would only be fair for you to also advocate for the return of all of those countless deductions which went away when rates were reduced.

But no.

You want to play "bait and switch".

I am willing to pay more. I am also willing to lose deductions. I don't know how else to make my position clearer.

Bait and switch? Quote Kennedy when the conditions are not analogous, could be the same bait and switch you are complaining about.

Oh, okay. I get it now.

You want to return to the confiscatory tax rates of olden days without allowing the deductions of olden days. Just can't get enough of other people's money.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[davdesid]

OBTW....

>>>We have ,or are very near, matching the mid sixties in something, though, I read today. Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society.<<<


tinyurl.com/27qkm3u

[tuff]

Sept 10, 2010 8:29:08 GMT -8 The Great Aztec Joe said:

Actually the simple reality is that the Republican party is seen as the party of the Rich and Selfish. The poor need state aid and assistance, and they know that they will never get that from Republican Administrations.

We finally have socialized medicine in this country. Now that we have our foot in the door, we can grow the program. Let the rich and selfish pay for the medical care of the poor.

After all the poor will always be with us according to Jesus. Their birth rate is three times that of the Rich and Selfish. That will insure that poverty will abound for ever more.

I don't want to take care of the poor of the world. If they can't afford to take care of their families, sterilize them. Better yet, let the f****** catholic church take care of them. The responsibility falls on the family, not the government.

[aztec70]

I love how win never wants to fact check the viral e-mails he reposts. The Lincoln quote is wrong. ;D

[waztec]

Sept 11, 2010 15:58:25 GMT -8 tuff said:

Sept 10, 2010 8:29:08 GMT -8 The Great Aztec Joe said:

Actually the simple reality is that the Republican party is seen as the party of the Rich and Selfish. The poor need state aid and assistance, and they know that they will never get that from Republican Administrations.

We finally have socialized medicine in this country. Now that we have our foot in the door, we can grow the program. Let the rich and selfish pay for the medical care of the poor.

After all the poor will always be with us according to Jesus. Their birth rate is three times that of the Rich and Selfish. That will insure that poverty will abound for ever more.

I don't want to take care of the poor of the world. If they can't afford to take care of their families, sterilize them. Better yet, let the f****** catholic church take care of them. The responsibility falls on the family, not the government.

Ignoring your bombast, which is pretty bad, we look after each other, because it is in our own self interest. We are too interconnected to ignore our poor. If you educate a kid properly, maybe he won't rob your house. I read once that human civilization began to flower when humans began to look after the old people.

Otherwise, I am sorry you feel the way you do.

[waztec]

Sept 11, 2010 16:12:26 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Sept 11, 2010 12:49:19 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>>The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.<<<

Back in those days there were so many deductions it's hard to remember them all. Sales taxes, gas taxes, all kinds of interest including credit card interest, etc. Those are all gone, but you guys who seem to want a return to the higher marginal rates of bygone days always seem to leave that part out.

Then why wouldn't you want a return to this?

I know about taxes. I enjoy reading the IRC citation that describes gas expelled forcefully through a narrow fissure (depletion). Unsurprisingly that citation has application on this board. ;D

Despite your protestations, taxes serve a useful purpose, if we chose to continue to remain interconnected as a nation. Taxes serve our self interest. I don't know what the right amount to pay is, that is certainly debatable, but you benefit more from taxation than a person of no means.

I suggest that the taxes we paid before created the infrastructure that helped keep us wealthy. Perhaps that is part of the reason why the fifties and sixties were a high economic point. Now we have an infrastructure that is falling apart and a support system that some would dismantle in their own selfish interest. May be I just see it different.

But I don't see it differently. Polls consistently show support for ending"Old Belt Buckle's" give away to the rich.

[waztec]

Sept 11, 2010 15:35:59 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Sept 11, 2010 15:25:55 GMT -8 waztec said:

I am willing to pay more. I am also willing to lose deductions. I don't know how else to make my position clearer.

Bait and switch? Quote Kennedy when the conditions are not analogous, could be the same bait and switch you are complaining about.

Oh, okay. I get it now.

You want to return to the confiscatory tax rates of olden days without allowing the deductions of olden days. Just can't get enough of other people's money.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You get nothing. And, you understood exactly what I meant. It is too bad you don't understand that your own self interest depends on the self interest of others. Keep that in mind when you are tooling along on interstate 8 and some AH cuts you off because he thinks he owns the road and is slowing you down.

Oh, but, you are very smart and you do get it.

You just don't like taxes. You hate taxes. Taxes are the hydrochloric acid drops on your skin and it burns like heck. If you could not pay taxes you would be willing to give up nearly anything.

That I get.

[The Great Aztec Joe]

Sept 10, 2010 11:01:28 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Sept 10, 2010 8:29:08 GMT -8 The Great Aztec Joe said:

Actually the simple reality is that the Republican party is seen as the party of the Rich and Selfish. The poor need state aid and assistance, and they know that they will never get that from Republican Administrations.

We finally have socialized medicine in this country. Now that we have our foot in the door, we can grow the program. Let the rich and selfish pay for the medical care of the poor.

After all the poor will always be with us according to Jesus. Their birth rate is three times that of the Rich and Selfish. That will insure that poverty will abound for ever more.

Once again you crack me up! Keep trying!

I am beginning to think that I have found a new niche in life. I am beginning to like being a Liberal.

[The Great Aztec Joe]

Sept 12, 2010 6:41:42 GMT -8 waztec said:

Sept 11, 2010 15:35:59 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Oh, okay. I get it now.

You want to return to the confiscatory tax rates of olden days without allowing the deductions of olden days. Just can't get enough of other people's money.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You get nothing. And, you understood exactly what I mean. It is too bad you don't understand that your own self interest depends on the self interest of others. Keep that in mind when you are tooling along on interstate 8 and some AH cuts you off because he thinks he owns the road and is slowing you down.

Oh, but, you are very smart and you do get it.

You just don't like taxes. You hate taxes. Taxes are the hydrochloric acid drops on your skin and it burns like heck. If you could not pay taxes you would be willing to give up nearly anything.

That I get.

All the times I have helped the Poor (Who will always be with us) I have felt good about it. In the future the government will make certain that we all get to feel good all the time!

[The Great Aztec Joe]

Remember, it is all about the quality of life for the masses.

[waztec]

Sept 12, 2010 6:51:24 GMT -8 The Great Aztec Joe said:

Sept 12, 2010 6:41:42 GMT -8 waztec said:

You get nothing. And, you understood exactly what I mean. It is too bad you don't understand that your own self interest depends on the self interest of others. Keep that in mind when you are tooling along on interstate 8 and some AH cuts you off because he thinks he owns the road and is slowing you down.

Oh, but, you are very smart and you do get it.

You just don't like taxes. You hate taxes. Taxes are the hydrochloric acid drops on your skin and it burns like heck. If you could not pay taxes you would be willing to give up nearly anything.

That I get.

All the times I have helped the Poor (Who will always be with us) I have felt good about it. In the future the government will make certain that we all get to feel good all the time!

Too bad nobody reads Readers Digest anymore. I would certainly nominate you for most interesting person! ;D