Large Scale Central

War on poverty

General Discussion
#1

I copied this from an e-mail I recieved, interesting stuff

Interesting… Poverty in Our Cities.

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%

  6. 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)20hasn’t elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)…since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)…since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)…since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)…since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)…since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)…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

#2

I believe there is a group that has benefited by working to keep people poor. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two names that come to the forefront. They seem to have been awful quiet lately.

#3

Or you could look at this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2206512/

It’s based on a breakdown of voter data compared to average income by county. Here are some quotes:

[i]“On average, Republican communities have lower incomes and less education than Democratic communities. And those differences are growing as people migrate.”

“People with fewer money-making skills are moving into counties that are voting increasingly Republican. Those with higher incomes (and more education) are moving into counties that are voting more Democratic. The more lopsided the local political victory, the greater the differences in income and education.”

“the results from this year’s election show that there is certainly a geographic division in America based on class and status. Democrats won in the richest and most educated communities in the country.”[/i]

The article makes an overwhelming case that the more affluent Americans vote democrat, and the republicans are getting poorer.

I’ll add my own observations --for example, the fact that lots of wealthy places vote strongly Democratic–Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, Miami. Or the fact that Jewish Americans tend to be wealthier than non Jewish Americans–the median income for jewish americans is twice that for non-jews–and they tend to vote democratic in very large numbers. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote, for example. Seems like a pretty clear indicator, doesn’t it? Being a Democrat equals being wealthy.

Not for me, alas!

#4

Here’s a good visual representation of how the votes in 2008 fell.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lastmanout/_forumfiles/countymapredbluer512.jpg)

#5

And what does that have to do with the original post? The fact is, there are more people in my county than in the entire state of North Dakota. A majority of the population voted for Obama, stop whining! According to the article I posted, the blue parts are the most affluent sections and the red parts are the poorest and least educated. Just reporting the facts Here’s the breakdown by state:

(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statemapredbluer1024.png)

And here’s what it looks like by actual population:

(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statepopredblue512.png)

Here’s how it looks if you measure voting by county not as red or blue, but by shades of color

(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymappurpler512.png)

Here’s a link to a site with an explanation of the maps http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

#6

Tell that to the folks in Dallas, St. Louis, Phoenix, Minneapolis. Most Obama supporters couldn’t find Phoenix on a map.

#7

Tell WHAT to the folks in those cities?

Most Obama supporters couldn’t find Phoenix on a map? And you know this…how?

oh–it’s faith-based.

meanwhile

"RED STATES:

Total Number H/S Grads – 80,801,000
Total Percentage H/S Grads – 83.145%

Total Number College Grads – 24,229,000
Total Percentage College Grads – 24.932%

BLUE STATES

Total Number H/S Grads – 78,345,000
Total Percentage H/S Grads – 85.903%

Total Number College Grads – 27,522,000
Total Percentage College Grads – 30.177%"

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005153.html

But it’s only education, probably does not help you find Phoenix. What other stuff about democrats can you make up?

#8

You mean Obama voters knew he was schooled by some of the most radical Marxist in the USA? That he has yet to produce documentation proving he is a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That we even HAVE a U.S. Constitution? That HE didn’t have the experience qualification to run a Radio Shack, but HE is somehow qualified to run the USA?

Cut me a break, this was all about a popularity contest and white guilt. An American Idol moment, surely it had absolutely nothing to do with HIM being the best qualified candidate.

Most of HIS voters believed Sarah Palin was his running mate.

#9

David, I really do kind of feel sorry for you. The world is not a good place for you, is it?

Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago–that’s Constitutional law, as in “this is the Constitution and this is what it says.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “schooled” but surely you’re not bring that Ayers crap up again, are you? I mean, that stuff was constantly in the press, constantly on TV, and really, the voters don’t care about some guy who was a radical in the 60s, when Obama was eight. They just don’t care.

And then the citizen thing again! Seriously, it’s a waste of everyone’s time, but there are a lot of people–yourself included, I suspect–who would be inventing some other reason why he’s not really the president.

Isn’t it annoying when the voters don’t agree with you? I feel your pain, I really do. I thought Bush was a disaster the first time, and then people elected him again! Tough it out, buy some more guns, conservatives will be back in power sooner or later

#10

American’s, me included, do not mind loosing a fair fight.

#11

Are you suggesting Obama won unfairly?

I await your explanation of how in exactly the same way I’d await, say, a slapstick comedy.

#12

What if, just what if, Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen as required in the U.S. Constitution and as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court? What should happen? HE is spending a lot of time, money and energy to conceal his identity (so much for transparency). Why? All he needs to do is what John McCain did when this exact same issue was raised about his citizenship, provide the documentation (not a scanned, non-legal internet posting) that proves he is a “natural born citizen”.

You impress me as an intelligent man, and a patriot, surely the rule of law is important to you. All I want is his proof to be verified, now it at the level of SCOTUS and I will accept him as President, but still not like his policies. Which I assume is okay with you.

#13
David Hill said:
What if, just what if, Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen as required in the U.S. Constitution and as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court? What should happen? HE is spending a lot of time, money and energy to conceal his identity (so much for transparency). Why? All he needs to do is what John McCain did when this exact same issue was raised about his citizenship, provide the documentation (not a scanned, non-legal internet posting) that proves he is a "natural born citizen".

You impress me as an intelligent man, and a patriot, surely the rule of law is important to you. All I want is his proof to be verified, now it at the level of SCOTUS and I will accept him as President, but still not like his policies. Which I assume is okay with you.


The clerk of Court in Hawaii verified his birth certificate. Hawaii was a state at the time. So what is your claim and what do you mean by “natural born” ?
Ralph

#14
mike omalley said:
I thought Bush was a disaster the first time, and then people elected him again! Tough it out, buy some more guns, conservatives will be back in power sooner or later
Hi Mike, I never voted for Bush. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. But I may buy some more guns. Sorry to upset the stereotype. Ralph
#15

Mike,

You said - "The article makes an overwhelming case that the more affluent Americans vote democrat, and the republicans are getting poorer. "

I don’t know that being affluent is truely an opposite of getting poorer. I think the value systems of what democrats and republicans see as wealth may be quite different. I don’t know if there is enough money in the World to have me move to some heavy democratic areas. However, some people will do anything for the almighty dollar. I wonder if statistics could be found based on political leanings versus divorce, faith, family values, abortion, life? There are things that people may value far more than just making more money. I could of made considerable more money working on Ice Breakers, but the divorce rate was above 75%. I’ve also never thought of ghettos as wealthy places and yet, they almost always vote Democratic.

#16

The State of Hawaii has already certified that he was born in Hawaii. They have produced an official “certificate of live birth” (yes I know, it’s not a birth certificate) AND state officials have attested to its legitimacy. There are two birth announcements in Hawaii newspapers attesting to the fact that he was born in Hawaii. There is no real way to account for these things except for some kind of wacky conspiracy involving time travel.

But ok, let’s assume for a minute that Obama was born in another country, and that even though he was automatically a citiizen of the US because his mother was a citizen, he is therefore not a “natural born citizen.” Well, for one thing the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is really vague. It has never been defined clearly in law. Barry Goldwater was not born in the US–he was born in Arizona before it was a state. Was he a “natural born citizen?” Is a child born overseas to US parents a “natural born citizen?” The only other kind of citizen is a “naturalized” citizen, that is, someone who comes here and after some years takes the oath of citizenship. Obama was born a citizen, he was not “naturalized,” and that would seem to make him “natural born.”

Here’s the clause in the Constitution:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

That’s all it says. It does not say “born in the US.,” or “born on US soil,” and the 14th amendment says that all citizens enjoy the same rights–in fact nowhere else in the constitution is there a different set of rights for naturalized citizens–a citizen is a citizen.

The wikipedia entry on this is quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

But let’s assume–for the sake of argument–that he’s not a “natural born citizen.” He was nevertheless elected by millions of people, a majority of Americans, both the popular and the electoral college vote, who wanted him on the job, who regarded him as qualified. Do you really think the that being born on US soil makes you magically different, more or less capable? Do you really think it would be a good idea to remove the duly elected President from office on this ground? The clause in the Constitution is highly ambiguous and serves no clear purpose. Is there any rational necessity for the President to have been born on US soil? Seriously–imagine a child born in a German hospital because his father was serving in the Army. Why in the world would we want to exclude that kid? Most people don’t care. What would be the benefit, other than allowing the minority to overturn the majority?

The Constitution is remarkably vague on this point–what does “natural born citizen” mean? Even if he was not born in Hawaii, Obama was born naturally, and he was a citizen at birth.

#17
Ralph Berg said:
David Hill said:
What if, just what if, Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen as required in the U.S. Constitution and as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court? What should happen? HE is spending a lot of time, money and energy to conceal his identity (so much for transparency). Why? All he needs to do is what John McCain did when this exact same issue was raised about his citizenship, provide the documentation (not a scanned, non-legal internet posting) that proves he is a "natural born citizen".

You impress me as an intelligent man, and a patriot, surely the rule of law is important to you. All I want is his proof to be verified, now it at the level of SCOTUS and I will accept him as President, but still not like his policies. Which I assume is okay with you.


The clerk of Court in Hawaii verified his birth certificate. Hawaii was a state at the time. So what is your claim and what do you mean by “natural born” ?
Ralph

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution’s framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward

Here is some light reading for you mike. I’ve read the whole thing with a skeptical eye. Read it yourself and see if you still believe HE is eligible to be POTUS. All claims made are footnoted.

In an effort to squelch the “born in Kenya” rumors, Obama’s campaign posted an image of his Hawaiian birth certificate on the Internet. That birth certificate image was almost immediately suspected of being a forgery. The image showed evidence of being computer-generated, and it represented the limited “short form” birth record document rather than the more detailed “long form.” If Obama does have a legitimate long form Hawaiian birth certificate, it possibly does not list a father if Dunham and Obama, Sr. were (as some have claimed) not married. At that time, the custom was to omit the father’s name when the father and mother were not married. Or, the document may list a father other than Obama, Sr., or a birth place other than Hawaii. (Of course, the infant’s mother can give the hospital the name of just about anyone as the father and it will likely be recorded.) By July, 2008, there were unconfirmed allegations that the forgery had been performed by a Jay McKinnon, who describes himself as a “Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist.” [12,325,494,548]

#18

Unconfirmed, unsourced rumors? Well that’s good enough for me!

I’m not bothering with this stuff any more. It’s nuts. I’ve seen that timeline before–someone else on LSC sent it to me and I actually emailed him a detailed response. Simple conclusion? It’s really really thinly sourced. Look at the footnotes–they are almost all just right wing blogs. Check the four footnotes to the quote you provided–they are all just right-wing blogs. Nothing wrong with being right-wing, but that’s not what anybody in history is going to accept as evidence. It’s just “some guy on the internet says.” Seriously–look at the footnotes. None of them are what historians call “primary sources,” the actual documents in question. It’s just a set of guys pulling stuff out of their hats. I also think claims like this “It has been suggested that it was William Ayers who persuaded Khalid al-Mansour to raise funds for Obama’s Harvard tuition” are close to slander–suggested by who? I looked at the reference, #259, and as far as I can tell it’s just some guy “suggesting” it on his blog. That’s just not evidence

You can continue to cobble this kind of stuff together, scraping up bits and scraps an half facts that can be woven into a grand tapestry of sinister evil etc etc., or you can accept that the people will sometimes elect officials you don’t agree with, imperfect, flawed people who make decision you think are disastrous–like, say, invading Iraq–and get on with your life.

#19

I agree, some elected officials are lower than whale-dung, but I choose not to forget an oath I took to “…uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States…” Some things are worth fighting for. Sooner or later a line MUST be drawn in the sand. After G.W.Bush p.o.ed enough folks, this socialist’s path is too much.

#20
David Hill said:
In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward
Says who? Ralph