Democrats for the poor?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, May 15, 2007.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Explain to me why the Democrats say they are for the poor? I live in south central Pennsylvania and live in a 2 bedroom apartment with a full backyard, driveway, full basement, including a room in the basement, full bath, and huge kitchen… all for $600 dollars a month. By all means I live in a very Republican area. All of our local, state and Federal reps are Republican. In Maryland just south of here that’d cost me closer to $2000. I moved here from Maryland (Liberal state) or as we like to call it The Socialist Republic of Maryland. When I moved out, I couldn't find a studio apartment in Prince Georges County (Only 2 miles from scenic south-central DC, the ghetto area of all places) for less then 700 dollars. Drug dealing and drive by shootings wasn't my thing. I decided to look more rural. Now I live in a very Republican area in PA, there is no poverty, no poor people, and if they are they don’t live like it. My sister visited from California (Liberal state) and mentioned how cheap everything is here in Pennsylvania, and how expensive things are in CA. We went to Massachusetts (Probably the most liberal state) last summer, and my cousin lives essentially in a closet and pays about $1200 rent a month. That’s considered cheap up there! So I ask this if the Democrats seem so “For the poor people” why are liberal states so expensive? If by poor they mean 1200 dollar rent for a closet, or an 8% sales tax then yes they are for the poor people. Last I checked though, poor means LITTLE MONEY. But of course you all know, if you aren't poor already, the Democrats will make you that way!

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    This is a rather poor way of taking (yet another) jab at liberals. The cost of living is very high in the north east because there is a lot of great education and job opportunities. I could ask why are republican states so low on the general IQ testing scores, but that would be unfair because it assumes A: that all people in given state are republican and B: all republicans are dumb.
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    1. California is not in the Northeast, and 2. There is no proof that low IQ has to do with any state. That little list that came out around the 04 Election was proven faulty.
  4. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Well, if you're going to say it was proven faulty, I'm not going to believe you unless you provide a link to this.

    Your post is only a few inches from being pointless though because this argument is rather silly. You didn't answer the part of my post about the Northeast having a high standard of living and education (not to mention a lot of economic action), so what do you think about that? It's simple, the places that cost the most to live generally have more going for them. So if you're going to assume that all expensive places are inhabited by liberals, I think it's safe to assume (by your logic) that they've got more going for them.
  5. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Or maybe anyone with the time can sit down and make a list of numbers to hide the facts and say its true. Or better yet, did you know 56% of statistics are made up on the spot? Either way can you provide me a link stating this list is true? Didn't think so...

    How is it silly? I made a valid point. Cost of living is much higher in these states and the big East coast cities as opposed to more conservative states. Is it any coincidence that these more expensive states are also liberal? I know what you can do. If you don't like keeping your money why don't you go live in Maryland or Massachusetts? If they are so economically friendly. I personally like to keep what I earn, and buy the same products for cheaper; therefore I live in PA, where it is cheaper. I was making less in MD for doing the same job! I get paid more here. I don't know if you've ever been to south central DC or Philly. Philly is a tumor on Pennsylvania. If these so called "economic action" cities have so much going for them why are they riddled with poverty, homeless people, drugs, crime, and just downright run down and dirty. I can't think of any one of these major metropolitan areas that have a Republican representative, mayor or any elected official, can you? What do these cities and states get for electing the same Democratic officials over and over again, we’ll as you can see all of the above. I’ve also been to both Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Both very Republican cities and I couldn’t find an ounce of dirtiness, or bums lying on the streets. They are very clean and up-kept. I used to live out there when I was younger; They are also much cheaper to live in then the east coast cities. What I’m trying to get at is the Democrats say they are for the poor, but these states and cities have been riddled with poverty and decline for decades. Yet they are the most expensive. Explain why that is?

    Oh ya... and as for the link.... here you go :yes:
  6. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    It seems as if this is a compare and contrast of urban vs rural areas, rather then liberal vs conservative areas. Regardless, such comparisons aren't much more then meaningless generalizations made with insufficent data. In my experience folks I know who've moved to more liberal cities make a lot more money, and that seemed to more then make up for the high cost of living.
  7. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    You're mentioning microcosms rather than any overarching theme. Maryland and Massachusetts have higher per-capita GDP's than Pennslyvania, Maryland is highly urban, as is much of Massachusetts. Rural Pennslyvania? It's rural. You pay less because it has less direct proximity to stuff.

    The rural poor seem to vote Republican (largely extrapolated as a social conservative-economic liberalist devil's bargain in What's the Matter with Kansas), and they're still poor, and have been for decades. Maybe they're making a bad decision? Seems to be.

    The democrats are for the urban poor, the rural poor tend to be socially conservative and vote for Republicans for non-economic reasons, due to a Maslowian prioritization.
  8. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

  9. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Again would you want to work for less in one state that in another state pays more for the same job? You seem to like dodging my questions.

    Boston isn’t too horrible, I’ll give you that. It’s expensive though. My cousin works retail there, which pays the same rate if not a hair more then what the same job goes for in PA. Yet housing is much cheaper in PA. She struggles to get by paying 1200 rent. Now go out to the out skirts of Philly once. You don’t need a rocket scientist to tell you that Philly has been in decline for decades, same with DC. I live around this general area; I frequent both cities quite a bit. I’m not making generalizations; I’m simply stating what I see. I mean just 2 minutes from the US capital is the ghetto. Horrible potholes in the road, bums on the street, people sell drugs in broad daylight; I mean Christ sake people have bars on their windows. You don’t see this is Phoenix or Salt Lake City.

    And you tell me I get snippy....

    I was a TEENAGER when I was out west, before I really got into politics. I made observations and compared them with east coast cities when I moved out east. You can’t tell me for one second that east coast cities are conservative and cities like Phoenix and Salt Lake City are liberal.

    If that statement we’re true DC would be the cleanest city in the United States. Most people who live in these areas work for minimum wage, and don’t have a college degree. Here are some statistics from Philly I got on Wikipedia. As you can see unemployment is 11% much higher then the national average. I’m assuming higher paying jobs go to people with college degrees. Well according to the stats here 82% of people are at a high school level in Philly, which means they have mediocre jobs at best that might pay minimum wage or slightly more, and they still live in a place that MORE expensive to live. Which is why I really question why the poor seem to favor the Democrats? When more democratic areas seem to have higher rent, retail prices etc… and the majority of people make the same if not a few dimes more an hour then the same person of a rural town that I live in.

    City of Philadelphia

    Under age 20
    65 years +
    Population in poverty
    Median family income
    High School graduate
    Bachelor’s degree/higher ed
    Unemployment rate
    Cars per household
    Occupied housing units
    Owner occupied housing
  10. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    No, you're answering a question that was never asked. However, I'll answer it now. Yes, I'd rather live here in Massachusetts not because I'm left-wing (which I'm not) but because it's very nice out here and the opportunities are much more plentiful.

    You are still doing an incredible job of ignoring the explanation!

    Liberal cities, at least the ones you've mentioned, have a lot going on. Let me repeat this in case you skip over it again, those places are expensive to live because they have a lot going for them such as high quality education, highly mobile economy, and lots of opportunities for good jobs.

    It's very easy logic to understand. Land that has more activity, higher opportunities for work and school, and a higher standard of living is naturally going to cost more to live in and around. If you want to make your thread sound like more than a covert sniping operation on the left side, perhaps you should be asking why democrats tend to live in better places and nicer areas. The funny part is that when it comes to greed, republicans are the stereotype often used, yet the democrats are being attacked for their financial power here. Amusing indeed.

    Also, you are once again using only two cities against many. This isn't a very great way of going about things. If I show you two republican teenage boys who don't get in or do drugs, should I assume that another group of six democratic kids who do drugs and can get in trouble are accurate representations of their political idealogies? If you answer yes, then don't bother responding.

    Doesn't make the discussion any better, right? I assume my point was proven.

    How does this address what I said? If anything, this strengthens my point that you were not seeing clearly. Now we know that these claims are from your memories possibly long ago and that you're bias in one direction.

    Yet again, you're using the same two cities and I think I know why. The way you're sticking to these cities suggests that you're most familiar with them, so I'm guessing they're the only two cities you feel safe defending. See, people think clearer when it comes to things they care about and have less problems generalizing and oversimplifying things they don't, thus you'll defend the specific conservative cities you know from personal experience and attack those you don't know but have been told are left wing.

    I'm telling you from my personal experience that several of the places you listed as liberal and filthy (again, a cute way of insulting the left) are quite the opposite.

    I'm only going to explain this to you one more time. In areas with more money, more education, and higher quality of life, land value skyrockets and forces companies to pay less and land owners to raise prices.

    How is this so hard to get?

    Also, how do you get 82%? I'm just curious because I can't see it. Perhaps it's just me, I had to wake up early today and I haven't gotten back to sleep yet. I see 33% are high school grads, which means 67% are not at high school level.

Share This Page