What do the Top 10 Poorest Cities in America have in Common?

[Minor Axis]

Why should I have to pay for them to get these opportunities? Am I supposed to feel guilty that they're worse off than me?

Hell, right now there is WELL under $1000 in my bank account. And I still have yet to pay this month's rent, and I have no idea how I'm gonna be able to do it. Why don't you send me some money? I'll wait on the check.

I believe in responsibility of the individual. However if you're born into a poor household, I have no problem as a child that you qualify for decent medical care provided by the state, and you get an opportunity at an adequate education, providing the means to escape to a better life. But it takes effort on the individuals part and it takes a properly constructed program.

Now if the opportunity is not taken, there really is not much society can be expected to do to fix it. Throwing money blindly at the problem does nothing to make such a person anything other than a drag on society. And I don't think an adult should be able to walk into a hospital and get medical treatment just because they are able to walk or crawl in if they have taken no steps to support themselves. I admit it's a complicated issue, but it's worth exploring for solutions.

I've been living in Minnesota for 20 years. The state offers things like food stamps if your income is below a certain level, children's health insurance if your employed but your employer does not offer affordable health coverage, in fact they offer a health program to all low income people, and health coverage for delivering the babies of low income pregnant women. And I'm talking about lots of white people here including Walmart employees. Now is this bad? Yes and no. I do not want to see women popping out babies that they can't support, so someone has to make a decision as in should the hospital take this pregnant woman in or let them have their kid at home with no medical supervision and possibly die in the process? For many conservatives it's an easy choice- the low-lifes did not make the effort to improve their lives so let them suffer the consequences. I always like to think, what would Jesus say about this?

 

[dt3]

I believe in responsibility of the individual. However if you're born into a poor household, I have no problem as a child that you qualify for decent medical care provided by the state, and you get an opportunity at an adequate education, providing the means to escape to a better life. But it takes effort on the individuals part and it takes a properly constructed program.

Now if the opportunity is not taken, there really is not much society can be expected to do to fix it. Throwing money blindly at the problem does nothing to make such a person anything other than a drag on society. And I don't think an adult should be able to walk into a hospital and get medical treatment just because they are able to walk or crawl in if they have taken no steps to support themselves. I admit it's a complicated issue, but it's worth exploring for solutions.

I've been living in Minnesota for 20 years. The state offers things like food stamps if your income is below a certain level, children's health insurance if your employed but your employer does not offer affordable health coverage, in fact they offer a health program to all low income people, and health coverage for delivering the babies of low income pregnant women. And I'm talking about lots of white people here including Walmart employees. Now is this bad? Yes and no. I do not want to see women popping out babies that they can't support, so someone has to make a decision as in should the hospital take this pregnant woman in or let them have their kid at home with no medical supervision and possibly die in the process? For many conservatives it's an easy choice- the low-lifes did not make the effort to improve their lives so let them suffer the consequences. I always like to think, what would Jesus say about this?

I agree with certain parts here. The part I bolded reminds me of something I just heard today:

Birth rate for poor triple others in state | ajc.com

Women on public assistance in Georgia gave birth at more than three times the rate of those not receiving public help, according to new U.S. Census Bureau numbers...Nationally, the rate was just a little lower.

Interesting, yet disturbing, article.

As for what Jesus would say...well, I thought you liberal types didn't want religion to influence government.

 

[KingDong]

What they all have in common is a high population of people who choose not to work, or fear to educate themselves because the social status quo states that being an idiot is not only acceptable, but expected. The lack of a Republican being voted as mayor in any of these cities is definitely a valid point, but I'm sure some of the wealthiest cities could state the same.

For the record, I am neither Republican or Democrat (or Socialist either), but I think it's really easy to blame democrats for poverty when it is the people who live in these cities that share common poverty producing ideas.

The richest cities in America have been what they are for a very long time, and the poorest cities in America can say the same. Major demographic areas have a tendency to share common concepts about how to live life, and they continually invite like minded people to join them.

It's just life, and has nothing to do with what party holds the mayoral office.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Don't these programs provide food banks and drug rehabilitation for the poor? Don't they provide financial assistance so the poor can go to college and get a degree? Wouldn't that be considered an advancement? Not that republicans wouldn't support those programs, just saying.

This is a serious question cause I don't know. I'm asking.

Those are programs that get universal acceptance, but the devil is in the details and this is where Democrats and people like Minor run into problems because they do what is politically correct or "appears" to help the poor without understanding the repercussions (or in the case of Democratic politicians, they understand, but they get more votes by making the argument that "sounds" correct).

Here's one example since you brought up education. The government guarantees certain student loand (or at least they used to). Now in another forum here comes your typical liberal moaning about tax breaks for the "rich" and that the government shouldn't be subsidizing rich bankers by guaranteeing the loans--that they should just put a "cap" on the interest rates that banks are allowed to charge students!

Well that sounds like a good idea in theory and every asshat liberal will get up on a soap box and cheer for gubment sticking it to the bankers to help poor students, but guess what would happen if the government stopped guaranteeing loans?

1. The interest rates would go up significantly making them unaffordable for the average student. Now what if the government "caps" the rate?

2. The loans would dry up. The banks simply would not make high risk loans with a low interest rate--students would not have easy access to loans.

So a solution that sounds good in theory and certainly sounds good coming out of the Demoncrat's mouth when he/she is on a soap box firing up the Minors of the world, the actual effect of such a policy would be disastrous (like raising the minimum wage has disastrous effects on the poor, but it sounds like a great thing to do).

Now there are a myriad of these types of situations where people like Minor have no clue as to the effect of what he on a soap box about. It all "sounds" good--let's help the poor and tax the rich--since most of us are not rich, and everyone agrees that poor is not good, its very easy to make an emotionally appealling argument that makes people angry. Minor is angry--very angry that there are rich people so anything that punishes the rich, he goes for it.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The more flagrant conservatives in this forum don't give a damn about the poor and especially don't want their tax dollars going for the types of programs you mentioned. Hell, they don't want to pay taxes at all.

Actually, the "conservative" types give more money to charity then liberals do. Conservatives believe in helping at the community level, not at the federal level. The federal government does nothing to "help" the poor they simply perpetuate it.

I have no problems with student aid (one of the few federal give away programs that actually returns dividends to society) or with temporary programs or programs for people that are "truly disabled" and by that I mean the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled, but look at most of the people on disability benefits and you will find people that are not actually disabled. Its too damn easy to get a doctor to claim you are disabled so the system is frought with abuse.

 

[dt3]

Actually, the "conservative" types give more money to charity then liberals do.

Didja hear about Biden releasing his tax returns, specifically the stuff regarding his charitable contributions? Apparently he believes so strongly in the government helping the poor, he doesn't feel the need to do it with his own money.

Joe Biden and American Charity by Byron York on National Review Online=

 

[Strauss]

Didja hear about Biden releasing his tax returns, specifically the stuff regarding his charitable contributions? Apparently he believes so strongly in the government helping the poor, he doesn't feel the need to do it with his own money.

Joe Biden and American Charity by Byron York on National Review Online=

In the last 10 years he has earned (term used loosely) $2.5 million and donated to charity......................wait for it..............approximately $3,900.00 over the same period of time. Just a little more than 1/2 of 1%. His generosity is overwhelming.

 

[Alien Allen]

In the last 10 years he has earned (term used loosely) $2.5 million and donated to charity......................wait for it..............approximately $3,900.00 over the same period of time. Just a little more than 1/2 of 1%. His generosity is overwhelming.

I saw elsewhere the report and could not believe it. when you take it year by year it looks worse

great way to lead by example

 

[Strauss]

I saw elsewhere the report and could not believe it. when you take it year by year it looks worse

great way to lead by example

Biden's a typical liberal, just like the liberals on this board, more than happy to spent YOUR money; tell you what you should think and what you should do to help the unfortunate.......so long as it doesn 't cost them a dime.

 

[Alien Allen]

Biden's a typical liberal, just like the liberals on this board, more than happy to spent YOUR money; tell you what you should think and what you should do to help the unfortunate.......so long as it doesn 't cost them a dime.

aw there is not need to pic on the liberals here

the evidence is out there wherever they are

 

[Minor Axis]

In the last 10 years he has earned (term used loosely) $2.5 million and donated to charity......................wait for it..............approximately $3,900.00 over the same period of time. Just a little more than 1/2 of 1%. His generosity is overwhelming.

Line him up with all the other politicians before ye judge.

 

[Strauss]

Line him up with all the other politicians before ye judge.

The other politicians aren't the vice-presidential candidate.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The other politicians aren't the vice-presidential candidate.

And the Republicans aren't hypocritical like the Liberals--they push for all these government social policies because they do very little themselves to help anyone.

 

[Minor Axis]

And the Republicans aren't hypocritical like the Liberals--they push for all these government social policies because they do very little themselves to help anyone.

And Republicans are generous givers. Got it. :smiley24:

 

[Minor Axis]

I agree with certain parts here. The part I bolded reminds me of something I just heard today:

Birth rate for poor triple others in state | ajc.com


Interesting, yet disturbing, article.

As for what Jesus would say...well, I thought you liberal types didn't want religion to influence government.

More often than not, it's the conservatives out there quoting Jesus. That's why I mention it.

When it comes to public assistance such as woman having babies, there does seem to be some dilemmas. How should it be dealt with? A low income woman is about to have a baby and goes to the hospital. Should she be turned away? Should she have her kid on the street or at home with no medical attention? In this case I'm not saying what should happen, I'm asking how do you lower pregnancy rates for women who can't afford to have kids at all? Should sterilization be an option? I'm open to ideas here.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here's one example since you brought up education. The government guarantees certain student loand (or at least they used to). Now in another forum here comes your typical liberal moaning about tax breaks for the "rich" and that the government shouldn't be subsidizing rich bankers by guaranteeing the loans--that they should just put a "cap" on the interest rates that banks are allowed to charge students!

How many issues are you going to try to roll into one? Your generalizations are inaccurate and generally without merit. And you accuse others of not having a clue?

So a solution that sounds good in theory and certainly sounds good coming out of the Demoncrat's mouth when he/she is on a soap box firing up the Minors of the world, the actual effect of such a policy would be disastrous (like raising the minimum wage has disastrous effects on the poor, but it sounds like a great thing to do).

Raising the minimum wage has never caused large numbers of small businesses to go out of business. In fact as it is today many/most jobs pay above minimum wage unless you are an illegal or migrant worker. So much for your conclusions.

Now there are a myriad of these types of situations where people like Minor have no clue as to the effect of what he on a soap box about. It all "sounds" good--let's help the poor and tax the rich--since most of us are not rich, and everyone agrees that poor is not good, its very easy to make an emotionally appealling argument that makes people angry. Minor is angry--very angry that there are rich people so anything that punishes the rich, he goes for it.

I see you've taken to attacking my views by name in most of your posts. I have never been mad at the rich and have have never promoted attacking the rich because they are rich. I'm against a government who promotes policies that benefit the rich, a tiny percentage of the citizens of this country who don't really need the help, when those policies harm everyone else.

My views are based on fairness. Trickle down economics is a huge pile of horse shit foisted on the ignorant workers of this country. Only the dummies believe in it. Those promoting it know it's a scam. Economic strength comes from a strong middle/working class, not giving the rich and large corporations every break possible while they attack the middle and working class of this country.

Unfortunately you come into this forum pretending like you are some kind of economic expert when all you're doing is spreading standard conservative philosophy, a philosophy based on greed and self interest. My hope is that most of our readers are on to your game.

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm against a government who promotes policies that benefit the rich, a tiny percentage of the citizens of this country who don't really need the help, when those policies harm everyone else.

that is liberal speak for tax the rich because they are .............. rich

seems like your mindset is that the government should decide how much money we get to keep. that is socialism. it is a persons own money to start with and not the peoples money.

frankly i wish we gutted the existing tax system and replaced it with a national sales tax. one where food and medicine and others essentials are untaxed so the poor do not get hit too bad. it would be based on consumption so you would get your money from the rich when they buy their toys and goodies. this way they decide if they want to pay the tax buy opting to make the purchases and it is not confiscated up front by the govt.

 

[Minor Axis]

that is liberal speak for tax the rich because they are .............. rich.

Progressive tax law has always viewed the rich as those who can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes. As in they can AFFORD it.

As Warren Buffet said on Sixty Minutes "Is there any reason my secretary should be paying a higher tax rate than I am?" As I remember his secretary made about 60k per year. Obviously she is paying a higher rate and he believes she should not. When you have that much money, unless you truly are a greedy bastard you should have no real problem with it. A political party who is so worried about personal wealth of the wealthy is really suspect in their ability to lead all of this country.

If you want to see a good movie, rent You Can't Take It With You if it is rentable (it's old). There is a scene where the wealthy father is more or less forced to sit down with the middle class father whom he would normally not socialize with. They discuss the economy and the Middle Class father says "What about the unemployment problem?" and the rich guy says "Oh, that's not a problem, it's just an emotional issue."

Exactly, it's not a problem when your rolling in dough.

 

[Alien Allen]

Progressive tax law as always viewed the rich as those who can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes. As in they can AFFORD it.

As Warren Buffet said on Sixty Minutes "Is there any reason my secretary should be paying a higher tax rate than I am?" As I remember his secretary made about 60k per year. Obviously she is paying a higher rate and he believes she should not. When you have that much money, unless you truly are a greedy bastard you should have no real problem with it. A political party who is so worried about personal wealth of the wealthy is really suspect in their ability to lead all of this country.

the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. this is not a progressive tax structure but a socialist one where wealth is redistributed. if we had a sales tax it gives everybody the option to determine how much tax money they want to contribute. not get confiscated.

 

[Minor Axis]

the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. this is not a progressive tax structure but a socialist one where wealth is redistributed. if we had a sales tax it gives everybody the option to determine how much tax money they want to contribute. not get confiscated.

Feel free to ignore what I just said and devote your energies to worrying about the poor rich.