OT: Great article by Glenn Beck

[andrenym00]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/ ... index.html

Commentary: The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."

What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.

Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?

But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.

No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.

Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.

For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.

As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.

But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?

I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.

We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.

Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.

Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark

[Slamm Goodbody]

#1 - This guy is a hack.
#2 - I've heard and read some of this moron's commentaries and if you read carefully, he makes no points. What's the bottom line on this - elect a Republican and poverty will go down? He didn't make any points about poverty dropping in other chronically poverty-ridden cities and their turning around with new administration. That makes this a politically charged attack piece with no solutions.
#3 - This guy is a hack.

[Slamm Goodbody]

Also - the problem in these cities with poverty rising at rapid rates isn't even mentioned in this B.S. piece - NO INDUSTRY. Detroit, Buffalo, and both Ohio cities in the top 4 are at the forefront of the cities suffering the worst from industrial flight to cheaper nations with lower overhead. I'm all for trying to solve the poverty question, but his argument is simplistic and asinine.

Removing corrupt leadership? GREAT idea. No problem with that whatsoever, but what this guy does repeatedly is couch his logic in partisanship and then cry that he's not being partisan.

HACK

[madvillian]

Yea, poverty in these cities has nothing to do with globalization, the loss of middle class jobs, the brain drain of college grads moving to elsewhere, the growing devide in wage gains vs inflation -- and everything to do with Democratic mayors.

I guess by this logic San Fran, Seattle, Denver and L.A. should all be falling by the wayside as right.

Glenn Beck is a **** idiot. Another anti-intellectual on the right masquerading as a policy expert.

[duetta]

Benjamin Franklin lived in an America where there was a shortage of labor, and hence, where workers were in charge of their own destinies. That's hardly the case today - as alleged conservatives continue to support immigration policies that further dilute the earning potential of legal American workers, and trade polices that encourage the export of American jobs, for no other reason than greed. Greed is the true gospel of the conservative movement. Greed governs all of their actions. I got mine is their mantra. The problem is that "I got mine" eventually leads to "I'll take yours" and ideas like dictatorship of the proletarian. Or the attitudes of the kids who used to rob on the subways in the 80s, and describe it as "getting paid".

Greed ultimately begets nothing but greed - and eventually, revolution.

[Slamm Goodbody]

I'm not an alarmist or isolationist - I understand that globalization is the logical evolution of the economy - but to ignore the BIGGEST point in why these cities are suffering proves how little this guy knows. These cities have to diversify their economies so they become hubs for a new service. Albany has being doing that with technology by siting new chip-processing consortiums and high-technology facilities in the city. Virginia turned the corner with domestic military production facilities. The biggest sector that should be utilized is energy production and conservation, which all the cities listed above can invest in for strong rewards. It can be done!

[Brownsville's Finest]

Benjamin Franklin lived in an America where there was a shortage of labor, and hence, where workers were in charge of their own destinies. That's hardly the case today - as alleged conservatives continue to support immigration policies that further dilute the earning potential of legal American workers, and trade polices that encourage the export of American jobs, for no other reason than greed. Greed is the true gospel of the conservative movement. Greed governs all of their actions. I got mine is their mantra. The problem is that "I got mine" eventually leads to "I'll take yours" and ideas like dictatorship of the proletarian. Or the attitudes of the kids who used to rob on the subways in the 80s, and describe it as "getting paid".

Greed ultimately begets nothing but greed - and eventually, revolution.

Benjamin franklin wouldn't know anything about poverty

[movingon]

yes, let's force the poor out of poverty, good idea!

Can you make clear for me exactly what this guy is trying to say? That we stop welfare then the poor will lift themselves out of poverty? Dude, if I saw you on the street I'd jack your wallet for taking food out of poeples' mouths. You should be ashamed for posting reactionary garbage like this. Don't you have a soul? Have you never known any poor people in your life or are you just an incredibly callous individual. Do you read "Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844" and yearn for the good old days?

[aluball17]

I officially dub thee andrenym00 -- Fox News ... wear your new nickname in good health.

[andrenym00]

I think he makes a fair point. Look how well handouts have worked in Africa.

[andrenym00]

yes, let's force the poor out of poverty, good idea!

Can you make clear for me exactly what this guy is trying to say? That we stop welfare then the poor will lift themselves out of poverty? Dude, if I saw you on the street I'd jack your wallet for taking food out of poeples' mouths. You should be ashamed for posting reactionary garbage like this. Don't you have a soul? Have you never known any poor people in your life or are you just an incredibly callous individual. Do you read "Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844" and yearn for the good old days?

That's not what he was trying to say. Never did he mention welfare. Please read again.

[Luv those Knicks]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html

Commentary: The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."

What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.

Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?

But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.

No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.

Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.

For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.

As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.

But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?

I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.

We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.

Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.

Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark

What a bunch of garbage. Thank you for posting that, I appreciate the reminder of how stupid concervative collumnists can be.

[Luv those Knicks]

I think he makes a fair point. Look how well handouts have worked in Africa.

Sir, you just made my ignore list. You are entitled to your opinion, but I refuse to let you vomit your recycled ideas on a basketball forum that I enjoy reading. This forum is better without you.

and,
I hope your stupidity works out for you. Maybe 500 more posts and you'll convert 1 voter.

bye.

[stuporman]

So his point is what? No help for anyone who is poor helps them overcome being poor? Yet I bet he thinks tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the poor by rich business owners creating minimum wage jobs that aren't enough money to survive in America. It'll keep them off welfare but not making enough money to even pay for the childcare let alone rent, food and utilities. The rich company owner makes more money on each minimum job that the person working it does. Then to boot the corporate welfare state expects tax breaks themselves. Add that to how they push their Republican puppets to bring on an amnesty for illegals to further dilute the job pool and drive down wages through cheap laborers.

On the other hand liberals think they are helping people by handing them money and food stamps every month with no stipulation to go out and work. If they do work they are cut off from help and in a worse state than if they didn't work. Broker than before and having strangers raise their kids possibly molesting and abusing them. Democrats also favor amnesty on the basis of human rights except they don't give a rats azz about the humans here who are legal citizens and their rights as they get undercut by people who broke the law coming here. They don't give a rats azz about the rights of the people who went the legal route to citizenship. They don't give a rats azz about the people who have to foot the bill as millions of illegals flood hospitals and public services without adding anything to society except more babies to take care of. Plus after those babies grow up many of them hate America, Americans, our way of life, our culture, our language and wind up committing crimes against us and the country in the name of Aztlan.

That's where the Conservatives come back in because that feeds into their prison system and police state. More fear mongering to make you believe you need them, the government, to protect you. It also feeds the liberals and their ideas that it's all the guns fault and if there were no guns you'd be safe from all the criminals. Both seek more controls on society, more poking into your life through nanny laws and terrorist laws. More ways to extract every last cent from you through taxes or fees, fines and regulations. Whether it be more laws regulating every breathe you take, more cameras on every corner, more government spying on citizens or telling you what you can or can't put into or do with your own body. Enough is enough.

So is anyone seeing my point? The partisan politicians on both sides play ping pong with Americans through the hysterical media to slowly erode away everything our forefathers fought for. Only to send off our sons to fight for their profits under the guise of American interests wrapped in more fear mongering. Or allow untold millions into the country swelling the 'poor' to unimaginable numbers that the government will have to protect you from or we the legal citizens will have to take care of as they devalue our wages, steal our property and destroy our quality of life.

Wake up America. Stop taking sides in this petty he said, she said politics of self interested media fed circle jerk. Think for yourselves!

Finally ban people from this board who do nothing but post partisan threads and add nothing about basketball.

[VinnyTheMick]

This guy doesn't even debate points, he just sticks to the republican talking points. Like that fool who went on Hardball & didn't even know what Neville Chamberlain did wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

[Luv those Knicks]

So his point is what? No help for anyone who is poor helps them overcome being poor? Yet I bet he thinks tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the poor by rich business owners creating minimum wage jobs that aren't enough money to survive in America. It'll keep them off welfare but not making enough money to even pay for the childcare let alone rent, food and utilities. The rich company owner makes more money on each minimum job that the person working it does. Then to boot the corporate welfare state expects tax breaks themselves. Add that to how they push their Republican puppets to bring on an amnesty for illegals to further dilute the job pool and drive down wages through cheap laborers.

On the other hand liberals think they are helping people by handing them money and food stamps every month with no stipulation to go out and work. If they do work they are cut off from help and in a worse state than if they didn't work. Broker than before and having strangers raise their kids possibly molesting and abusing them. Democrats also favor amnesty on the basis of human rights except they don't give a rats azz about the humans here who are legal citizens and their rights as they get undercut by people who broke the law coming here. They don't give a rats azz about the rights of the people who went the legal route to citizenship. They don't give a rats azz about the people who have to foot the bill as millions of illegals flood hospitals and public services without adding anything to society except more babies to take care of. Plus after those babies grow up many of them hate America, Americans, our way of life, our culture, our language and wind up committing crimes against us and the country in the name of Aztlan.

That's where the Conservatives come back in because that feeds into their prison system and police state. More fear mongering to make you believe you need them, the government, to protect you. It also feeds the liberals and their ideas that it's all the guns fault and if there were no guns you'd be safe from all the criminals. Both seek more controls on society, more poking into your life through nanny laws and terrorist laws. More ways to extract every last cent from you through taxes or fees, fines and regulations. Whether it be more laws regulating every breathe you take, more cameras on every corner, more government spying on citizens or telling you what you can or can't put into or do with your own body. Enough is enough.

So is anyone seeing my point? The partisan politicians on both sides play ping pong with Americans through the hysterical media to slowly erode away everything our forefathers fought for. Only to send off our sons to fight for their profits under the guise of American interests wrapped in more fear mongering. Or allow untold millions into the country swelling the 'poor' to unimaginable numbers that the government will have to protect you from or we the legal citizens will have to take care of as they devalue our wages, steal our property and destroy our quality of life.

Wake up America. Stop taking sides in this petty he said, she said politics of self interested media fed circle jerk. Think for yourselves!

Finally ban people from this board who do nothing but post partisan threads and add nothing about basketball.

Good Post.

I don't 100% agree, but you make some very good points.

Welfare does reduce the benefit to getting a job and that's stupid. It perpetuates welfare and removes some of the workforce.

Obama's tax rebate plan seems a good one to me, because it puts money into the hands of the poor without significantly reducing the desire to work. There is some cutbacks in the rebate, but it roles in slowly enough to have no effect on work.


I still believe that the Repubs are more harmful than the Dems, but the liberals have gotten some stuff wrong too, so I do partially agree with you.

Keep in mind that a lot of the welfare program came in, not as it was designed, but as it was compromosed on, so I don't think it's fare to blame liberals for a welfare program that they had to meet the concervatives half way before it got passed. Blame the problems in the Welfare program on partison politics, not just on the liberals.

[cgf]

yes, let's force the poor out of poverty, good idea!

Can you make clear for me exactly what this guy is trying to say? That we stop welfare then the poor will lift themselves out of poverty? Dude, if I saw you on the street I'd jack your wallet for taking food out of poeples' mouths. You should be ashamed for posting reactionary garbage like this. Don't you have a soul? Have you never known any poor people in your life or are you just an incredibly callous individual. Do you read "Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844" and yearn for the good old days?

I'm just going to let you know I'm a heartless bastard. But if you eliminate huge portions of welfare system and simply return the tax dollars a lot of the working poor would actually be in condition to save money and potential rise up if they're smart and hardworking. Now the jobless poor you'd think would be hit harder but even that wouldn't happen as a lot of the middle class would have more excess money and this country has a healthy feeling of guilt for the poor so you'd think a lot of these middle class people would donate to charities which would be much more efficient and useful than the government's current system. I know I have no heart and must never have even seen a homeless guy so my opinion is going to be worthless, but you might want to know my family are first generation immigrant and when we first came here my parents were making less than 20k a year so I haven't exactly grown up with a silver spoon in my mouth.

[duetta]

I'm just going to let you know I'm a heartless bastard. But if you eliminate huge portions of welfare system and simply return the tax dollars a lot of the working poor would actually be in condition to save money and potential rise up if they're smart and hardworking. Now the jobless poor you'd think would be hit harder but even that wouldn't happen as a lot of the middle class would have more excess money and this country has a healthy feeling of guilt for the poor so you'd think a lot of these middle class people would donate to charities which would be much more efficient and useful than the government's current system. I know I have no heart and must never have even seen a homeless guy so my opinion is going to be worthless, but you might want to know my family are first generation immigrant and when we first came here my parents were making less than 20k a year so I haven't exactly grown up with a silver spoon in my mouth.

Sorry, but we tried that before, and it didn't work. If you tried it again, you would get an insurrection. Meanwhile, the children of the idle rich, like Dubya, still get every advantage, and still are able to spend most of their life drinking, drugging, and screwing around, before using their family advantages to rise to a position that they are utterly unqualified to hold.

See, that's why Dubya has been great for America - because his rise demonstrates just how utterly unfair the system is to real Americans, versus the children of idle rich.

[madvillian]

I'm just going to let you know I'm a heartless bastard. But if you eliminate huge portions of welfare system and simply return the tax dollars a lot of the working poor would actually be in condition to save money and potential rise up if they're smart and hardworking. Now the jobless poor you'd think would be hit harder but even that wouldn't happen as a lot of the middle class would have more excess money and this country has a healthy feeling of guilt for the poor so you'd think a lot of these middle class people would donate to charities which would be much more efficient and useful than the government's current system. I know I have no heart and must never have even seen a homeless guy so my opinion is going to be worthless, but you might want to know my family are first generation immigrant and when we first came here my parents were making less than 20k a year so I haven't exactly grown up with a silver spoon in my mouth.

Sorry, but we tried that before, and it didn't work. If you tried it again, you would get an insurrection. Meanwhile, the children of the idle rich, like Dubya, still get every advantage, and still are able to spend most of their life drinking, drugging, and screwing around, before using their family advantages to rise to a position that they are utterly unqualified to hold.

That's a good point, for far too many people, especially minorities, the deck is simply stacked too far against them. I don't believe in equal outcomes, but I sure as hell believe in leveling the playing field a bit.

I've certainly been pissed when I see a 19 year old mother with 3 kids buying soda, candy, and god knows what else on her DSS card when I'm standing in line at the bodega, but I also realize that that's just a symptom of the society she was raised into, a rather bleak hopeless situation where the education system failed her. God only knows where that family would be without government assistance.

And I'm sick of hearing the argument that this country can't afford to help the poor. You know how much this country wastes on national defense every year? I'm not talking about critical things like paying for troops and equipment, I'm talking about waste like star wars anti-missile, needless weapons programs, etc.

See, that's why Dubya has been great for America - because his rise demonstrates just how utterly unfair the system is to real Americans, versus the children of idle rich.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Try figuring out which makes less sense. The article itself or the title.

The poverty of Democrats' ideas for cities