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.
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% 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 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.'
"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.
What I see common is that these are all high density urban areas; mostly older cities.
Services are in reach and close by so that poor can take mass transit or even walk to get their services. Buildings are older and maybe less cared for so rent is cheaper.
Urban areas can afford more social programs for the poor due to the population numbers.
Nothing Dem or Repub about it...high density older urban cities are where the poor can live best due to their limited funds and resources.
The top 4 cities listed also used to have a prosperous economy before the steel mills closed and manufacturing base disappeared. Before 1975 things weren't so desperate.
The poor have always been with us, since the dawn of time.
the rich have been with us just as long, ever since the first neanderthal got more than "his share" of the meat or hide from the (whatever), or more than anybody else of the flint, or more space in the cave.
The "War on Poverty" has been an abject failure, just like the "War on Drugs". Both of them are expensive and useless.
There have always been "homeless" people, too. Some (many?) of them are homeless because they choose to be, according to some studies. They are often the ones who camp out in the brush instead of going to the Rescue Mission for help.
Throughout history it has been impossible to eliminate the poor, no matter what schemes have been attempted. I don't think we can do any better now, other than by educating them to better their lives. Giving them anything other than education and training has proven to be a waste.
Quite often, even training them to be productive members of society has been a waste.
Yeah, I been poor. There were times we were lucky to have a pot to P in and a window to throw it out of. No running water, no electricity, a 20 year old vehicle, etc. But, with education and a moderate amount of luck, I managed to get out of that rut. 60 years later, I'm not wealthy by the standards of the United States (I sure am by the standards of OTHER countries!), but I get by.
But then, in much of the world, our "poor" would be considered VERY wealthy!
seems you missed the point, they still are until the "Great One"
Whaaaaaaaaaat, after a whole year and nearly three months of Obama being in office? Following what in some cases is a century plus of poverty? OMG, you're right. This administration is drek! Should've been able to turn these situations RIGHT around in...(counting on fingers) 14.5 months.
Proof positive that Obama was the wrong choice! McPalin would've had this all rectified MONTHS ago. (And you can see what a dent Dubya made in this situation in eight years, too.)
Here. Have a straw to grasp at. I think you've run out.
What I see common is that these are all high density urban areas; mostly older cities.
Services are in reach and close by so that poor can take mass transit or even walk to get their services. Buildings are older and maybe less cared for so rent is cheaper.
Urban areas can afford more social programs for the poor due to the population numbers.
Nothing Dem or Repub about it...high density older urban cities are where the poor can live best due to their limited funds and resources.
The other issue is that they're in areas without diverse economies. At least major cities like Boston, NYC, most West Coast cities, and Houston amount others, can take the hit. They didn't rely on a single industry to sustain the population.
As an example Detroit rolled with the auto industry. When the auto industry gets hit the city gets hit real bad as well since there is no tax base to absorb the fall.
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.
