100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Democrats causing income inequality? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
what EXACTLY does 'ruled by democrats' mean? Uh, the same thing as "The U.S. Senate is currently ruled by Democrats," and, "The White House is currently ruled by Democrats." improper analogy white house is one building, with one understood 'lead' person that is a quantifiable conclusion because there only requires pointing to ONE Person as is the senate (two buildings),also wit a quantifiable number of reps and senators which can have a majority as opposed to a whole CITY so , how are we determining what party ' rules' a city? Duh!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Sun 02/23/14 02:55 PM
|
|
the only data given had nothing to do with democrats or liberal or progressive that seems a commentorial afterthought and not based in anything provable a safety net is a needed reality, not having it wont do anything to improve income inequality, except maybe in the small numbers who die off from not having food and shelter according to latest numbers there are 12.8 mill on 'welfare' (means tested programs people mostly complain about that help families) 46.7 mill on food stamps (means tested program people complain about that help families and individuals and elderly and handicapped to eat) and 5.6 mill on unemployment insurance that's a total of 65.4 mill total http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ roughly 1 in 5 americans receiving assistance,,, many, if not most, being children, disabled, and elderly I don't think its a liberal or conservative , or democrat or republican issue, its a cultural issue fathers need to step up and support their kids employers need to think as much about their employees bottom line as their own incentives need to be in place to create jobs and employ AMERICANS and the casual sex culture needs to get back to teaching parental responsibility and reality instead of all the glamourizing of romance, so that fewer kids are being born to those not prepared to be a father or mother or not wiling to support anyone but themselves,,, and we need to have more allegiance to AMERICANS, and not just American ideals or the American flag Starvation sure is a driving force. so is being without shelter but only as long as it takes to die which , probably, will often be less time than it takes to make income that can provide the food or shelter,, Perhaps just as it should be. Those that refuse to provide for themselves receive their just rewards. The lord looks after those that look after themselves. refusing to and not being able to , are different things Of course it is, but then there is the old saying, where their is a will, there is a way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lord looks after those that look after themselves.
What is the origin of that statement? It isn't in the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grandmother always said; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I know I am about to offer a huge generalization, but from what I've seen here in my state, many, or most democrats will treat issues without putting much thought into solutions, or trying to predict outcomes. To many (and I've heard it mentioned by several here on mingle), doing "anything" is better than doing nothing. For instance, here in Maine, legislation was written to expand welfare to include a broader base of clients on the healthcare front. Funding for this was an afterthought. Hospitals were forced to take patients, and the state, not being able to afford it, just wouldn't pay the bill. The result over the course of a decade or so, was the state owing our hospitals $400+ million, which is a ton of money for a low populated, low income state. This actually caused quite a few job cuts, and salary decreases. Democrats wanted to expand healthcare again, without answering this debt. Our republican governor actually resorted to vetoing virtually everything that came across his desk until they payed back the money (a compromise was reached and some of the money was paid). He got a TON of backlash for this. I believe Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion for action". That being said, I have wondered if the long-term effects of welfare is beneficial at all economically. Why wonder, you know the answer. 
spoken like a true republican... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a city has a Democrat mayor, and if the city council has a Democrat majority, then the way that the city is governed is under the control of Democrats.
The OP of this thread shows which 10 cities in the USA have the greatest income inequality, and those cities are under the control of Democrats. So, there is circumstantial evidence that Democrat control and income inequality go hand in hand. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a city has a Democrat mayor, and if the city council has a Democrat majority, then the way that the city is governed is under the control of Democrats. The OP of this thread shows which 10 cities in the USA have the greatest income inequality, and those cities are under the control of Democrats. So, there is circumstantial evidence that Democrat control and income inequality go hand in hand.
But one begets the other. "When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grandmother always said; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I know I am about to offer a huge generalization, but from what I've seen here in my state, many, or most democrats will treat issues without putting much thought into solutions, or trying to predict outcomes. To many (and I've heard it mentioned by several here on mingle), doing "anything" is better than doing nothing. For instance, here in Maine, legislation was written to expand welfare to include a broader base of clients on the healthcare front. Funding for this was an afterthought. Hospitals were forced to take patients, and the state, not being able to afford it, just wouldn't pay the bill. The result over the course of a decade or so, was the state owing our hospitals $400+ million, which is a ton of money for a low populated, low income state. This actually caused quite a few job cuts, and salary decreases. Democrats wanted to expand healthcare again, without answering this debt. Our republican governor actually resorted to vetoing virtually everything that came across his desk until they payed back the money (a compromise was reached and some of the money was paid). He got a TON of backlash for this. I believe Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion for action". That being said, I have wondered if the long-term effects of welfare is beneficial at all economically. Why wonder, you know the answer.
spoken like a true republican... Really..... |
|
|
|
|
