Jeb Bush is part African-American

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 07:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Because......oppression !
It is only right that minorities get their turn at being corrupt and lackadaisical, just like the old crusty white guys.

I just don't understand how someone can defend progressivism after seeing the sort of results that they deliver. 

Baltimore isn't Birmingham, Alabama circa 1950. 

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2015, 03:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: As I said before, the guy is nothing more than a racist community organizer and a disgrace.  

1.  A community organizer is a good thing

2.  Just repeating your opinion does not make it any more valid.

(08-23-2015, 03:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: After nearly two terms in office, black unemployment numbers are worse, 

Wrong.  Unemployment among African Americans has dropped fron 12.7 when Obama took office to 9.1 in July of 2015.

(08-23-2015, 03:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:  gun violence in many major cities is worse,

Over all the rate of violent crimes has dropped every year Obama has been in office.  I don't give him any credit for that because those rates have been trending down for years, but I also contest vague claims like you just made.  What is "many cities"?  What numbers are you talking about?

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2015, 08:12 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Baltimore isn't Birmingham, Alabama circa 1950. 

Stop and think for a second what arfgument is being made here.


"Hey, we aren't bombing your neighborhoods and killing your kids.  What more do you want?"

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2015, 08:12 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I just don't understand how someone can defend progressivism after seeing the sort of results that they deliver. 

We've seen this sort of talk from several members of the boards around here as of late, and I always find it interesting. People that have been railing against progressive policies don't realize, IMO, that we have never actually seen progressive policies at work in this country. Any progressive policy that has been enacted has been watered down in the political process, often times to the point where it is but a shadow of its former self and unable to actually operate the way it is supposed to work.

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2015, 08:12 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I just don't understand how someone can defend progressivism after seeing the sort of results that they deliver. 

You mean like ending market domination and price fixing by monopolies.

Or ending the exploitation of child labor?

Or eliminating Polio?

Or ending most food born illness?

Or providing safe medicine and medical practices?

Or saving the environment?

Or providing safe workplaces?

Or feeding and housing the poor and disabled?

Or providing a means for a majority of the population to get a secondary education?

Or ending segregation and discrimination based on race in employment and housing?

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean like ending market domination and price fixing by monopolies.

Or ending the exploitation of child labor.

Or ending most food born illness?

Or providing safe medicine and medical practices?

Or saving the environment?

Or providing safe workplaces?

Or feeding and housing the poor and disabled?

Or providing a means for a majority of the population to get a secondary education?

Or ending segregation and discrimination based on race in employment and housing?

People often forget what progressive policies are. All of things are happening, and could happen better. If people are so concerned that progressive policies are going to fail, then maybe we should let them happen as they are supposed to and see if they can actually succeed or fail, or if what we see is actually politicians against progressive policies that are setting them up to not be as successful.

If we eliminated the watering down of some of these policies could we provide better access to medicines and health care? Make health care, housing, and food more affordable? Or will they fall flat because these policies are actually bad? We won't get to know because those against progress are too afraid of their success to let them happen as they are intended to.

I just read over that and realized how much I have apparently been drinking the government worker kool-aid.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-24-2015, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  Unemployment among African Americans has dropped fron 12.7 when Obama took office to 9.1 in July of 2015.

Yeah, with labor participation rates 1.0% lower than in July 2014. 

Do you know what labor participation rates are?

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 01:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, with labor participation rates 1.0% lower than in July 2014. 

Do you know what labor participation rates are?

Do you have a link to that stat? Especially one that may discuss the reasons for the lower amount in the labor statistic? The reason I ask is because reduction in the labor participation rate can be a result of a higher number remaining full time students through high school and into higher ed. Without an explanation the lower labor participation rate is meaningless.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-24-2015, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We've seen this sort of talk from several members of the boards around here as of late, and I always find it interesting. People that have been railing against progressive policies don't realize, IMO, that we have never actually seen progressive policies at work in this country. Any progressive policy that has been enacted has been watered down in the political process, often times to the point where it is but a shadow of its former self and unable to actually operate the way it is supposed to work.

Defining a progressive policy might be yield ten different responses when asked to ten different people. 

I'm just tired of the strawman liberal defense of "OMG YOU WANT ANARCHY" every time big government is brought up. 

While I would say that we have a hybrid going on between progressivism and corporatism, both of them suck, and would suck even worse if we were to throw one of them out and go all-in on the other. 

A rejection of progressive policies doesn't make one an anarcho capitalist.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you have a link to that stat? Especially one that may discuss the reasons for the lower amount in the labor statistic? The reason I ask is because reduction in the labor participation rate can be a result of a higher number remaining full time students through high school and into higher ed. Without an explanation the lower labor participation rate is meaningless.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 01:27 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

So 1% lower equates to one-tenth of a percentage point? Yeah, I'm not going to even bother arguing over 0.1% in an estimate, where that can be within the margin of error. And that still doesn't address my discussion of the reason.

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 01:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, with labor participation rates 1.0% lower than in July 2014. 

Do you know what labor participation rates are?

Yes I do,

Do you know that the labor participation rate has been dropping for ALL races?

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 02:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I do,

Do you know that the labor participation rate has been dropping for ALL races?

Indeed, I looked at the A-1 table and it dropped in the total by 0.5%, or 0.3 percentage points when looking at it 62.9 to 62.6 I believe it was. And it didn't drop 1% for the black segment either, it dropped more like 0.2%, 0.3% if looking at the non-seasonally adjusted.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 02:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So 1% lower equates to one-tenth of a percentage point? Yeah, I'm not going to even bother arguing over 0.1% in an estimate, where that can be within the margin of error. And that still doesn't address my discussion of the reason.

Yeah................this is from April 2015, so it's a little dated, but the point remains relatively the same.

A record 12,202,000 black people were not in the labor force in March, as the participation rate for this group declined over the month to 61.0 percent, according to data released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).


According to the BLS, the more than 12 million black people not in the labor force in March means that they did not have a job or actively seek one in the past four weeks. The number climbed from 12,122,000 in February to 12,202,000 in March, an increase of 80,000.

The labor force participation rate for this group, which is the percentage of the population who participated in the labor force by either having a job or actively seeking one, declined from 61.2 percent in February to 61.0 percent in March.

The unemployment rate for black people in March was 10.1 percent, which is nearly double the overall national unemployment rate of 5.5 percent. Last month, the unemployment rate for black people was 10.4 percent.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 02:50 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah................this is from April 2015, so it's a little dated, but the point remains relatively the same.

A record 12,202,000 black people were not in the labor force in March, as the participation rate for this group declined over the month to 61.0 percent, according to data released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).


According to the BLS, the more than 12 million black people not in the labor force in March means that they did not have a job or actively seek one in the past four weeks. The number climbed from 12,122,000 in February to 12,202,000 in March, an increase of 80,000.

The labor force participation rate for this group, which is the percentage of the population who participated in the labor force by either having a job or actively seeking one, declined from 61.2 percent in February to 61.0 percent in March.

The unemployment rate for black people in March was 10.1 percent, which is nearly double the overall national unemployment rate of 5.5 percent. Last month, the unemployment rate for black people was 10.4 percent.

This does nothing to refute what I said. Especially because of the rise in the participation rate after that. And then the fluctuations thereafter, and likely before.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This does nothing to refute what I said. Especially because of the rise in the participation rate after that. And then the fluctuations thereafter, and likely before.

My original point that led to this was the high number of blacks that are not better off under Obama. 

Someone (fred, I believe) pointed to a slight decrease in unemployment numbers, which does nothing to refute what I said.

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 04:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: My original point that led to this was the high number of blacks that are not better off under Obama. 

Someone (fred, I believe) pointed to a slight decrease in unemployment numbers, which does nothing to refute what I said.

Actually what I posted directly refutes what you said.

(08-23-2015, 03:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:  black unemployment numbers are worse,

Black unemployment numbers are not worse.  Even when you factor in the drop in labor force participation the total number of employed blacks has increased and the percentage of unemployed has dropped.

You fail again.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually what I posted directly refutes what you said.

What do unemployment numbers have to do with how much better or worse black people have it? 

You didn't even address my point, let alone refute it.  

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 04:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What do unemployment numbers have to do with how much better or worse black people have it? 

You were the one that said unemployment numbers did.  Not me.

I just proved you were wrong about the numbers.  So you were wrong.  Not me.


But I think many people consider employment an indicator of well-being.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2015, 04:20 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: My original point that led to this was the high number of blacks that are not better off under Obama. 

Someone (fred, I believe) pointed to a slight decrease in unemployment numbers, which does nothing to refute what I said.

It is one measure of them being better off as of late. In the same time frame we see the reduction in the participation rate of 0.2% we see a decrease in the unemployment rate of roughly 20.2%. So the drop in unemployment in the black community was only minimally impacted by the participation rate. Now, I don't know what the difference in the participation rate would be from when he took office to now, but the unemployment rate dropped 28.3%.

Now, his statement about this was in response to your statement that black unemployment numbers are worse. This does refute what you said.