Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More educated population and more exposure to culture and diversity leans liberal. (And I said leans as I know that there are those that lean right that also fit that...it just favors the left a bit more)
The system in place has nothing to do with the current president anymore than it has to so with the last president. I am all in for free market...…… why do you think we would need to increase property taxes? Let the market take care of it. If there is money in rural broadband then someone will provide it. I agree on pensions...……. as long as it goes across the board. Let ALL city and state pension funds deal with their own shortfalls. I'm not a republican so none of that partisan rhetoric bothers me.
Don't insult cities while taking our tax dollars. Those farmers are getting hundreds of billions of tax dollars while charging us for the food they grow. I don't care how rural areas fund their infrastructure, whether it's property taxes, tolling roads or something else but stop making cities pay for the rurals. Trump has thrown plenty of money at rural broadband:
Democrats go to school, get an education, live in cities and suburbs, make money and pay taxes. Rurals, who are over represented electorally, then demand we give them BILLIONS of our tax dollars while saying they oppose socialism. It's a complete joke.
Why are most cities in this country that are medium sized or larger run by Democrats?
As population density increases, individualism becomes less practical and efficient than operating in a way that focuses more on the collective. In general, to live in a city means having to share your existence and space with a lot of other strangers, and I think learning how to adapt and share space with others primes people to not be solely focused on themselves.
Also, in cities, all levels of the socioeconomic ladder are visible to all. You can't forget the most destitute, because you're stepping over them every day to get to work. You can't be oblivious to the ultrarich because they're flaunting their wealth left and right. In the suburbs, you're pretty much only exposed to those in the same approximate socioeconomic class as you are, so the imbalance of wealth isn't as visible. In cities, it's constantly in your face day in and day out. I guess those factors affect how they vote.
Let's find out if that's true. Rather than throwing BILLIONS of dollars at less than 2% of the population, let capitalism and free markets work for farms the way it does for everything else. If Republicans really oppose socialism, prove it! Stop insulting cities while taking our tax dollars. Instead of telling us to pay for your roads, toll them. Increase property taxes to pay for rural broadband. Tell coal miners their pension was private, it failed and they need to sort that out themselves. Tell Kentucky the money spigot is over. Republicans need to prove they really oppose socialism rather than screaming it while demanding handouts.
I know farms in Missouri that made more money from insurance after a flood than they do farming. Trump can't throw money at the farmers fast enough because it's not his money.
"Farmers have relied on government assistance for decades through the Farm Bill, passed every five years and projected to cost $428 billion over the next half a decade." https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/02...cash-handouts/
Add tariff money and all the other handouts and farmers are getting about a $100 billion a year to grow food we PAY FOR.
Most of the farm Bill every year (75%-80%) goes to fund Food Stamps, free school meal programs, etc (and collecting both, which happens in many FS households, is double dipping for the same thing). Eliminate them.
Why do Food Stamp recipients have the highest obesity rates? The USDA IG report estimates that 59% of households enrolled in SNAP double-/triple (or more)-dip and get 2 to 3 times (or more) the benefits for many of the exact same meals.
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics ([overall], 46 percent versus 36 percent)."
Haha. We had the best economy in 50 years under Trump. And as far as blacks:
Lowest black unemployment in history
Opportunity zones
Met with black leaders
Prison reform
Executive order about black colleges....
That is what terrifies the Dems ^^^ because they can't win elections without the black vote. They'd rather burn down the cities and start a civil war in their thirst for power.
Funny how Dem mayors rule these rioting black cities.
Post links until you turn blue, I don't care. You're wrong on this just like you've always been wrong on this. You are using the 'supplemental poverty rate' that has nothing to do with the cost of living in most of the rural and suburban areas of California, to apply it to the entire state is ludicrous.
That is what terrifies the Dems ^^^ because they can't win elections without the black vote. They'd rather burn down the cities and start a civil war in their thirst for power.
Funny how Dem mayors rule these rioting black cities.
And Republicans can't win without old white people and Dear Leader's support with that group just dropped 10%
Post links until you turn blue, I don't care. You're wrong on this just like you've always been wrong on this.
I'm not wrong. Answer the question... California has the 5th largest economy in the world, and at the same time... one of the highest poverty rates in the US. WHY income inequity on such a massive scale in a blue state that can easily afford much better income equity?
"It is well known among economists and other social scientists that large cities have disproportionately large shares of highly educated workers, and the trend has been growing in recent decades. The correlation between city size and education is also well known. But what draws educated workers to large cities? Economists have found two kinds of relative advantages that big cities offer to the more highly educated: “production amenities”—that is, gains in productivity, which translate into higher wages; and “consumption amenities”—both natural benefits, such as good weather and scenic beauty, and endogenous benefits, such as a sophisticated transportation infrastructure, first-class restaurants, and a greater variety of goods and services."
And we know that people with college degrees are more likely to vote Democratic. In the 2018 midterms:
According to exit polls, 61 percent of non-college-educated white voters cast their ballots for Republicans while just 45 percent of college-educated white voters did so. Meanwhile 53 percent of college-educated white voters cast their votes for Democrats compared with 37 percent of those without a degree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
