WHO's policies deal best with poverty?

with just 49 days to go until the 2008 presidential and general election, things are getting downright bile-filled out in the ether.  democrats accuse republicans of lying.  republicans accuse democrats of lying.  independents are just trying to figure out who will best represent them in the coming four years.

although it MAY be anecdotal, there is some indication that the conservatives in this country are getting motivated for mccain/palin.  i'm talking not merely "get drunk and vote for mccain", but actually working the phones, pounding the pavements and hammering on the keys - keyboards that is - to rally the country to elect john and sarah.

we have all seen the trend in recent days of the independents moving away from obama into camp mccain.  but while this is bad new for obama, in and of itself, it is not all good news for mccain.  you see, mccain can't win without the enthusiastic advocation of the conservatives and based on recent trending, it appears he's getting just that.

my regular readers - if i have any - surely know how i feel about polls and how worthwhile they are.  they're not.  it's fun to watch them, but i'm not really writing about the polls, but rather about the atmosphere in the country right now.

my blogging acquaintance, mustang, put up this poston friday.  he's easily one of the most articulate bloggers i've read and puts a great many "real" reporters to shame as well.  this is an article on "political equanimity" and he's spot on in his analysis:

"Asked when American politics started getting nasty, Rudy Giuliani opined that it began during the 2000 elections. I disagree. I think it began during the Federalist Debates after the start of the Constitutional Convention. My point is Americans have always disagreed with one another along an entire range of issues that affect them personally. One-third of our colonial forefathers were completely disengaged from the revolution, but of course, there was a risk to sitting along the sidelines, too. There still is."

there's more at mustang's place and it's well worth the read if you're so inclined.  as i said, i believe he is spot on his this analysis.  and it was this that got me thinking.

in my blog visits to mustang, brooke, z, defiant infidel, angel and others, i see messages of both hope for the future (primarily because they can now get behind mccain with the palin pick) and frustration.  in the comments at many of these sites i see the twisting and vileness that we are also seeing with the political ads and the mainstream media, at large.  the main charge by the liberals, based on the blogs and comments i've seen, is that the republican economic and other policies do not work for the people.  that it is because of the republican policies that the country is in a downward spiral.

yes, the economy has slowed down, but it's not because of republican policies.  if republican policies are so damaging, why is that the ten most poverty-ridden cities in the country are firmly in control of the democrats?  and why is that the most poverty-ridden segments of our society are firmly in the camp of the democrats when it comes to voting?  no seriously, i'd like an explanation for this.  let's look at the charts, shall we?

in the latest "income, earnings, and poverty data from the 2007 american community survey" report (Download census_report_2007.pdf) from the u.s. census bureau, we learn that american indians (including alaskan natives) have the highest rate of poverty by segment of society, closely followed by blacks:

 

in that same report, we also learn about the ranking of each county and city (with more than 250,000 residents) in terms of percentage in poverty per capita:

i am not addressing the leanings of the political leanings of the counties specifically, although the bulk of the top 10 counties in regards to poverty have tended to be blue in the past two elections.  however, let's look at the top 10 poverty-ridden cities on the list from the u.s. census bureau, shall we?

1. detroit, michigan has a poverty rate of 33.8% (give or take 1.4%). this is more than 4% higher than cleveland, ohio.  the current mayor pro-tem of detroit, ken cockrel, jr. is a democrat.  he took over for the disgraced and indicted mayor of nearly six years, kwame kilpatrick (the youngest mayor in the history of detroit who also spoke at the 2004 dnc convention) this week and he is also a democrat.  the last republican mayor in detroit, michigan?  eugene van antwerp, who served from 01/06/1948-01/03/1950, was a republican.
2. in cleveland, ohio, frank g. jackson, a democrat, is the current mayor.  he took over in 2006 for jane l. campbell, also a democrat.  the last time cleveland elected a republican mayor was, george v. voinovich in 1980.  he served until 1989.   the poverty rate in cleveland is 29.5%.
3. buffalo, new york has not had a republican at the helm since stanley makowski was replaced by democrat james griffin on the first of january in 1978.  the current mayor is bryan brown is a democrat; he was elected in 2005 and took office in 2006; he presides of a poverty rate of 28.7 (down from 29.1 in 2006). 
4. in el paso, texas,  john cook took office nearly three years ago replacing his fellow democrat joe wardy.  democrats have enjoyed control of this texas city since june of 2001 and have a current poverty percentage of 27.4.
5. memphis, tennessee has been held by a single democrat, willie w. herenton is october of 1991.  his tenure as the city's mayor has been marked with a great deal of controversy and corruption. the current poverty rate in memphis is 26.2%.
6. with the exception of a few months in 1996 when republican willy gort as the acting mayor, miami, florida has only elected democrats to office since 1955. they currently enjoy a poverty rate of 25.2%.
7. milwaukee, wisconsin has been solidly under democrat or socialist party control since republican sherburn m. becker left office in 1908. however, their solid standing with poverty at nearly a quarter of the city's population (24.4%) is nothing to brag about.
8. in newark, new jersey the last republican mayor, ralph a. villani, left office in 1953 and was replaced by leo p. carlin and it's been led by democrats ever since.  23.9% is the current rate of poverty in this city.
9. when democrat joseph s. clark  became mayor of philadelphia, pa in 1952, he replaced the last republican mayor since seen in the city of brotherly love.  bernard samuel left office on 07 january 1952 after serving for 11 years. the current mayor is presiding over a poverty rate of 23.8%.
10. cincinnati, ohio has been under democrat or charterite control since 1971.  since 1926 only two of the 30 mayors have been elected by the city's residents - the rest of them have been appointed by the city council.  23.5% of the residents of cincinnati are in poverty today.

it is also interesting to note that the breakdown of political control for even the ten highest poverty-ridden smaller cities is decidedly democrat as well:

 

in bloomington, indiana democrats have controlled the mayor's office since 1972.  in camden, the list in complete, but the dems have controlled city hall since at least 1956.  control of the city's government in brownsville has been with the democrats since at least 1991.  in gainesville, fl democrats have had controll of the mayor's office for at least seven years.  kalamazoo has been under the control of democrats since 1973.  the democrats have been in control of flint michigan since 1975.  in reading, pa, they have a past full of socialists and democrats and the dems have controlled the mayor's office for at least the past 10 years.  the dems have controlled city hall in macon all the way back to 1954.  in youngstown, oh, the current mayor is an "independent" with definite leftward leaning tendencies, other than that there have been democrats at the helm since 1978.  and finally in pontiac city, mi, the current mayor is a democrat; it appears that the control of the dems goes back to 1967, but i am not 100% certain of that as the information is spotty.

isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats?  how can the failed policies of the dems be blamed on the republicans when the facts bear information that is contrary?

just one last thing to leave you with.  if the socialist policies of the left work so well to get people out of poverty, why is that the highest poverty levels fall in areas that are squarely in control of the democrats/socialists?  is this really the direction we want to head with our country?

btw, if you like this post, please go vote for it here.  thanks, y'all!

Comments

[nanc]

it shows how easily a society can slide into communo/socialism - when i worked in the public service system, there were some fourth and fifth generation welfare families - not only did it work for them - they felt entitled! the left depends on this aspect, heidianne. the 10 planks of communism are at work right here in the good old u.s.a.

[Angel]

isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats? ..ha Brilliant Heidianne!..and so telling aint it!!!..will go vote now!

[Defiant_Infidel]

You are in the ten ring on each of your well made points. I recently heard an ominous comment regarding the inflow of Soros money predictably coming in Oct... and surely to fund attack ads against McCain/Palin. I agree, and I think this will occur.

But what is not taken into account (or at least not enough so... and should be given due gravity) is the pronounced and distasteful effect that the totally groundless assaults on Sarah Palin have had... and they can't even awaken from their rabid fury to see what they are doing. They are summarily duplicitous, hypocritical declarations (Angel laid it out extraordinarily well just a couple of days ago).

People who think deeply tend to recognize and understand what you have skillfully and accurately assembled here, Heidianne. The rest of them vote more from their gut... and they are unquestionably the majority. Attack ads such as those surely coming, have their effect on that gut instinct... but people are being deeply impacted by the unabashed trashing attempts against this woman who has captured almost ALL the attention lately.

Joe Who???

And those attacks have no teeth... none. They are doing, IMHO, irreparable damage to OBamBam's campaign. It must be a complete nightmare for him... much to my delight. He is being repeatedly strangled by his own unhinged idiots who would blindly follow him into a gas chamber, chanting and dancing the whole way.

And the rest of us, who have some degree of common sense, are observing this. I see huge rallying on the Conservative base side. I see many totally pissed off women who are over the moon about this unrelenting, seething series of salvos on a woman with a record of accomplishment and honor. I see numerous Democrats, still with their party for reasons unknown or explained, who have directly told me they will vote for the McCain ticket BECAUSE of Sarah Palin... just exactly like I will. They, and I, see her as keeping him in check... "honest" to his campaign pledges. They see her, as I do, as our Presidential candidate in 2012 (I can't see McCain running again then at 76 years old... nor getting the nomination with her there if he tried). They see her as returning a true definition to Conservatism... one that was all but lost a few short weeks ago... and would have been if she wasn't added to the McCain ticket.

The election is now McCain's to ruin... again, IMHO. The election is otherwise bleeding out for OBamBam... due to continued throat slashes of suicidal rage from his whacko minions. And they are still flailing away wildly.

It's a beautiful thing... :)

[heidianne jackson]

true dat! nanc - on all counts.

[heidianne jackson]

it is telling angel - so why can't so many see? thanks for the vote.

[heidianne jackson]

di, thanks for your words. i agree that angel made that point brilliantly - as ever.

joe who is right!

as a woman i'm furious about the attacks on palin. and i know others who are as well. many of them who WERE going to vote for obama are now saying they're voting mccain.

[Dora]

What you write is undeniable, but it all depends on how far you "zoom."

The poorest states are firmly republican ones. The states that take the most federal tax dollars are also Republican ones.

The richest countries in the world are pretty much all, except for the US, run by socialists.

Something to think about, no?

[heidianne jackson]

proof, my dear, dora. where's your proof? you keep saying you post links to support your premises, but i don't see any links here. or do i need a secret decoder ring to find them?

[Dora]

Sure thing.

On the federal spending side, we take the amount of dollars the state pays into the federal cookie jar, and the number of dollars it takes out:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

The higher the number, the more money the state gets per dollar put in. Notice that the states most dependent on federal money are red states, and least dependent are blue states. So basically, blue state taxpayers, when paying federal taxes, are not getting their money's worth back, and are instead subsidizing the red states.

On the poverty of red states, here is a ranking of states by % of residents below poverty level: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level

Highest % of people living in poverty:

#1 Mississippi: 21.6%
#2 Louisiana: 19.4%
#3 New Mexico: 19.3%
#4 District of Columbia: 18.9%
#5 Arkansas: 17.9%
#6 West Virginia: 17.9%
#7 Kentucky: 17.4%
#8 Texas: 16.6%
#9 Alabama: 16.1%
#10 South Carolina:

Gee whiz, the only blue "state" in there is DC. So 9/10. Everyone else is SOLID RED.

Lowest % living in poverty:

#42 Iowa: 9.9%
#43 Virginia: 9.5%
#44 Massachusetts: 9.2%
#45 Vermont: 9%
#46 Maryland: 8.8%
#47 New Jersey: 8.5%
#48 Minnesota: 8.3%
#49 Alaska: 8.2%
#50 Connecticut: 7.6%
#51 New Hampshire:

Look at them blue states go! 8/10 are either toss-up or blue states. Sad, but true.

Let's look at the richest countries:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

1
Qatar $ 80,900
2
Luxembourg $ 80,500
3
Bermuda $ 69,900
4
Jersey $ 57,000
5
Norway $ 53,000
6
Brunei $ 51,000
7
Singapore $ 49,700
8
United States $ 45,800
9
Guernsey $ 44,600
10
Cayman Islands $ 43,800
11
Ireland $ 43,100
12
Hong Kong $ 42,000
13
Switzerland $ 41,100
14
Kuwait $ 39,300
15
Andorra $ 38,800
16
Iceland $ 38,800
17
Netherlands $ 38,500
18
British Virgin Islands $ 38,500
19
Austria $ 38,400
20
Canada $ 38,400

Out of these, the only ones not being run by socialists are Qatar, Kuwait, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the US.

[z]

Thanks, Heidianne...excellent post.
I just saw a discussion about what higher taxes to corporations will do to America. NO jobs, jobs moving overseas.....disaster.
What a country, when it's run by socialists. What a shame so many people here depend on gov't instead of themselves or private relief groups.

[Jess]

As always well done Heidi, now I've got to catch up on what I've missed here the last few weeks! Jess

[The Griper]

dora,
"Gee whiz, the only blue "state" in there is DC"
when did dc become a state?

as for your comparison. it is an invalid comparison. if you want to put up an opposing view to hers, you need to use the same methodology as she did and your comparison does not.

[heidianne jackson]

dora, i find it interesting that the documentation provided by the u.s. census bureau does not tie-out to the information you've put here. according to the document i used for my comparison (you can download it from within my post) the top ten most poverty stricken states are as follow:

Mississippi . . 20.6
Louisiana . . . 18.6
New Mexico. . . 18.1
Arkansas . . . 17.9
Kentucky . . . 17.3
Alabama . . . 16.9
West Virginia . . . 16.9
Texas. . . . 16.3
Oklahoma . . . 15.9
Tennessee . . . 15.9

i'll address each one.

1. mississippi - it is true that they currently have a republican governor. it is also true that there has been a .3% decrease in the number of people in poverty since the 2006 numbers. additionally, aside from 10 years of republicans in the governorship in missippi (and not consecutively) the state has been solidly democrat at the governor's level since 1876.
2. louisiana - another state that currently has a gop governor. however, at the time of the survey, the state was run by a democrat. additionally, the bulk of the people in the state of louisiana live in it's 10 largest cities: new orleans, baton rouge, shreveport, lafayette, lake charles, kenner, bossier city, monroe, alexandria, and new iberia. the majority of these cities are run by democrats and we should also note that only the republican run cities have a poverty levels of less than 20%.
3. new mexico - i'm pretty certain bill richardson is a democrat, so that makes it a democrat controlled at the state level.
4. arkansas - democrat controlled at the state level.
5. kentucky - democrat controlled state.
6. alabama - this is a republican run state for the past 5 years. once again, the majority of the top ten cities (holding the majority of the population for the state) are run by democrats.
7. west virginia - democrat controlled at the state level.
8. texas - republican controlled at the state level. again the majority of the 10 largest cities, where a majority of the population lives, are controlled by democrats.
9. oklahoma - democrat controlled at the state level.
10. tennessee - democrat controlled at the state level.

hmmm, not quite the picture that dora paints now, is it?

[Pirate Farmer John Peachfuzz]

Ahoy there, Cap'n Jackson!

Just thought I'd put a shot across yer bow and see if'n ya needed any help repellin' boarders, yet I see your colours 'r still flying at the top o yer mainmast and the scurvy rats all seem to be drownin' in yer bilges.

Keep up the g'd work. If'n ya ever need a boardin' party, I know a port where pirates are plenty and crews 'r ready, willing and able!

Yaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!

[Americaneocon]

Cool post, Heidi: I'm especially interested to see what kind of economic development policies Democrats push at the local level.

If we drive through the downtown areas in many of these cities, what will wee see? How business friendly are they? What are the policies on the poor, minorities, and the homeless? San Francisco spent over 100 million on shelter programs for people who were not homeless. These are corrupt, big city machines with no interest in improving government and city services.

Kwame Kilpatrick got caught, but who knows what else goes on in the city halls of urban America.

[JMK]

“Let's look at the richest countries...Out of these, the only ones not being run by socialists are Qatar, Kuwait, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the US.” (Dora)
<
<
Funny story! There are NO, that is ZERO “socialist economies” among ANY of the Western European nations, the United States and Japan.

Socialism is a specific type of economy based on the foundation of the eradication of private property. Socialism CANNOT exist where private property rights (the private ownership of homes, lands and businesses) are preserved. As such, all the economies of Western Europe, the USA and Japan (along with Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines) are Corporatist – regulated economies in which governments protect established businesses and provide an array of social services). A corporatist economy, with a large welfare state, like Norway or Denmark, or until recently France, Germany and Sweden (all those have moved away from the large welfare states that had negatively impacted their economies) is NOT “a socialist economy,” it’s "a Corporatist economy with a large welfare state."

The U.S. fits into that same category as France, England, Canada, Japan and Germany all do.

So, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden aren’t “socialist economies?” Nope, they’re all as Corporatist as is the United States. Ericsson, Volvo, Nokia are ALL privately owned corporations, just like those found on the NYSE.

Well, how about Ireland?

Ireland is a market-based economy, like the U.S and most of Western Europe, its recent economic resurgence has been built on one of the lowest Corporate taxes in the world.

As to Singapore, from the CIA World Fact Book: “ Singapore has a highly developed and successful free-market economy. It enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries.”

How about Iceland?

Again, from the same source; “Iceland's Scandinavian-type economy is basically capitalistic yet with an extensive welfare system” (much like Western Europe and the United States).

What about Austria?

Nope, “Austria, with its well-developed market economy and high standard of living, is closely tied to other EU economies, especially Germany's. The Austrian economy also benefits greatly from strong commercial relations, especially in the banking and insurance sectors, with central, eastern, and southeastern Europe. The economy features a large service sector, a sound industrial sector, and a small, but highly developed agricultural sector.”

Canada, socialist???

Apparently NOT, “As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion-dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards.”

Socialism implies a government-run, or at least state-managed (not just regulated by directly managed by government officials) economy.

NONE of the above nations have a government-run economy, so you either lied or don’t understand basic economics...most likely the latter, as most people and almost no self-proclaimed Liberals/socialists understand basic economics.

Ironically enough, you know which countries actually HAVE socialist economies?

Haiti, Zimbabwe and Chile and they’re all economic basket cases.

Food for thought huh!