In what way is Democrat leadership/policies better for the middle class?

It’s election time and the people will be going out to vote and unfortunately when it comes to political leadership there really are only two choices. By and large when people vote they choose which one they view as better (or choosing the lesser of the two evils). Although I am no fan of today’s Republican party it’s hard for me to see how today’s Democratic party is better for the middle class. One of the things that Hannity (and others) often bring up is the state of the inner cites across America, which are overwhelmingly run by Democrats and in many cases for 50 + years:

“Using U.S. cities with a population over 100,000 and the most recent FBI statistics on violent crime, USA Today formulated a list of the top ten most dangerous cities in America. Of these ten, eight are currently run by Democratic mayors and city councils, and two are controlled by Independents. Of the past ten mayors of each of the three most violent cities in America Birmingham , Detroit, and St. Louis eight have been Democrats. All told, the three most violent cities in this country have been under nearly uninterrupted Democratic control for more than half a century. With violent crime rates exceeding 1,400 incidents per 100,000 citizens in each of these cities…. Admittedly, it is difficult to identify a significant correlation using only one criteria. However, an analysis of poverty and unemployment indicates a similarly distressing pattern.”

“Referencing data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, CBS News composed a list of the top ten most impoverished cities in the United States. The ubiquity of Democratic governance is heightened in this context, as nine out of the ten poorest cities are run by Democrats…… Of the ten major U.S. cities with the highest levels of unemployment, nine are run by Democrats. The Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies Detroit, Fresno, and Las Vegas as the cities with the most unemployment, listing Detroit as number one with an unemployment rate of 24.8 percent.”

But even at the federal level in what ways are the Democrat policies better? Regarding the ACA the majority of the middle class was not helped by that law. Regarding this talk about crumbs, that’s what all Democrat economic proposals are for Middle class as well. Most of the high tax states are also liberal states, so even if the Democrat politician gives some “crumbs” to the middle class at the federal level they will then take far more from the middle class at the local level through high state and local taxes. Furthermore, how are their policies better for business? How are their policies better for education? How are their policies better on immigration? I just don’t see it.

1 Like

There is always going to be more violence in areas where more people congregate. These cities do not exist in a bubble as it is still way too easy for pretty much anyone to obtain weapons and funnel them across state lines to end up on the streets of places like Chicago. That is why the response to gun violence needs to be a national one.

And yeah, cities tend to vote for Democrats. How about the vast swaths of conservative rural America that are also incredibly poor?

If you’re going to use the crime rate as an example, then you’re making the Democrats look like the saviors of America. Crime has fallen dramatically in the last 25 years.


1 Like

Lol, you think that’s what drove down crime rates? I am thinking it might just be this instead.

How does locking up black people drive down the crime rate?

Are you seriously asking me how locking up criminals drives down the crime rate? I don’t see what skin color has to do with it, at least I am unaware of any convictions and sentences handed down for being black.

Are you suggesting there was a set number of criminals and once we locked those criminals up, the conditions that bred them suddenly disappeared?

If you can prove this, there’s a nobel prize waiting for you. Because the incarceration rate was skyrocketing while the crime rate was also skyrocketing in the 80s.

If you’re unaware of the racial demographics of incarcerated Americans then I can suggest some good literature for you.

1 Like

I know black people end up in prison at higher rates, and I also know it’s because they commit more crimes. The same disparity can be found in victim reporting as exists in prisons. That is, more people report the person who victimized them was black, and since criminals in most instances victimize members of their own race, it follows that most of those who reported that they were victimized by black men, are black people.

so logically, if we lock up enough black people, the crime rate will go down further?

No, logically, if we lock up all the criminals, no matter what color their skin is, crime rates will continue to fall.

so what makes the criminal?

Committing a crime.

Why do they commit crimes?

Varies. Obviously not all poor people are criminals, and all rich people are not law abiding, so it’s not strictly poverty.

So there are systemic drivers of crime?

Levitt and friends have also made a compelling and uncomfortable argument that abortion legalization had a big impact as well.

Others point to the fall of communism around 1990 leading to a policy priority shift toward domestic threats.

Others say more police on the streets.

Others say decrease in unemployment.

Others say increase in prison sentences.

As in anything with social science, there’s likely a mix of factors, and it’s so easy to pick out the ones that align with our philosophy…

White collar crime causes much more societal harm than a guy selling loosie cigarettes, but only one of those crimes warrants getting choked out until they die in the street.

1 Like

A white collar criminal who resists arrest will be subdued physically just as readily as anyone else.

They usually get the benefit of turning themselves in… that is if they are even charged in the first place.

What is stopping non-white collar criminals from availing themselves of the same opportunity to turn themselves in?