Obama takes shovel from Perry

tessaesque said:

What was black unemployment when general unemployment was 4%, 5%, 6%, etc?

Click to expand...

Economist's View: Black and White Unemployment Over Time




Interesting to note that white women participation rate is lower than black women participation rate, while white males is higher than black males, but both black groups have higher unemployment than their white counterpart.

nonpareil said:

Economist's View: Black and White Unemployment Over Time

Interesting to note that white women participation rate is lower than black women participation rate, while white males is higher than black males, but both black groups have higher unemployment than their white counterpart.

Click to expand...

So what the graph shows is that this is a long-term issue and not an issue derived of the recession. It also appears to have been uneffected by the EEO/AA programs, at least in terms of black men to whites. That, to me, suggests an issue both in the culture of business and also in the culture of black men, given that black women are riding fairly close to their white counterparts.

Edit: I should add that I did not see graphs 2 and 3, but it seems that my assumption is probably fairly accurate. Why, though, are there no labels for the X and Y axis for these graphs? It's hard to tell exactly what is being measured here.

tessaesque said:

So what the graph shows is that this is a long-term issue and not an issue derived of the recession. It also appears to have been uneffected by the EEO/AA programs, at least in terms of black men to whites. That, to me, suggests an issue both in the culture of business and also in the culture of black men, given that black women are riding fairly close to their white counterparts.

Edit: I should add that I did not see graphs 2 and 3, but it seems that my assumption is probably fairly accurate. Why, though, are there no labels for the X and Y axis for these graphs? It's hard to tell exactly what is being measured here.

Click to expand...

X - years, Y - percentage.

And black women are not doing better despite higher participation rate. Also you must take into account the fact that black men have very high incarceration rates.

The gap between the black and white unemployment shows a downward trend since early 80's, the spike from 2000 could be due to the recession so we don't know if it's the start of a new trend. If you want to talk about the effectiveness of policies, I don't think the evidence provides support that they have been ineffective, just not enough to eliminate the gap completely.

Snapper Head said:

In a nation where we strive, at least in the aggregate (and most certainly among the left) to end racial inequality; how is this action by the President anything other than divisive?

What exactly, can/should he do for/about black unemployment?

Note: you do understand that this is electioneering on his part, and not anything genuine with respect to giving a true hoot about black unemployment???


Big Al

Click to expand...

Electioneering? The reason he has avoided the issue of black unemployment up until this point was precisely this. That he would get called out for it by folks who love to push the buttons of white resentment and then be accused of showing racial favoritism - nevermind the fact that black unemployment is more than 50% above the national average. He has a lot more to lose by doing something like this than he has to gain.

conservativeguy said:

Send a thank you card to the unions, the ecoterrorists, the liberal politicians that crafted the most counterproductive tax code in history, the idiots at the Fed ....... did I miss anyone? Oh yeah, thank BO as well.....he had doubled down all all of the bad decisions, as evidenced by the true unemployment rate being closer to 20%.

Click to expand...

Right...the tax code we're stuck with was only crafted by "liberal politicians"...nevermind the fact that there are two parties in Congress and they both have a role in shaping the tax code eh? :roll:

StillBallin75 said:

Right...the tax code we're stuck with was only crafted by "liberal politicians"...nevermind the fact that there are two parties in Congress and they both have a role in shaping the tax code eh? :roll:

Click to expand...

The parts of the tax code that make our businesses less competitive domestically are universally written by democrats. Changes to the tax code to make our businesses more competitive domestically and internationally are universally blocked by democrats.

conservativeguy said:

The parts of the tax code that make our businesses less competitive domestically are universally written by democrats. Changes to the tax code to make our businesses more competitive domestically and internationally are universally blocked by democrats.

Click to expand...

Okay...what precisely are these parts of the tax code that are helping/hindering competition, and can you show me exactly who wrote them? Or are you just making **** up because you're a partisan hack?

pbrauer said:

Congratulations on getting a new job Dana. Unfortunately during the last 30 years the fine patriotic corporations of America has been exporting our jobs to other nations and during the last decade it has accelerated immensely. We used to be the producer of much of the world's finisheds good and were the largest creditor nation in the world, now we import much of them and are one of the largest debtor nations in the world. We as a nation are sinking while those corporations are making record profits. Sad, really sad.

Click to expand...

Ever wonder why that happened?

CedarBear said:

Ever wonder why that happened?

Click to expand...

I wonder, it wouldn't have started say, when Unions started taking over and our government started instituting socialistic policies, would it?

Out-sourcing couldn't possibly have anything to do with the extremely high cost of unskilled labor in America over the last few decades, could it?

Out-sourcing of some industries, say like oil production, refining, plastics, etc couldn't really have anything to do with meeting increasingly more costly EPA requirements that change every few years, could it?

Americans really can't prefer buying foreign made products, such as automobiles, because they are of a better quality and lower cost than what is made in our fine Unionized shops, can they?

Ayup, makes one really wonder why America doesn't produce much any more or why Americans won't even buy their own products or why our economic strength has been in decline for decades.

DVSentinel said:

Further, while Fox news may have the largest viewer-ship of any single news agency and will probably run the hell out of these kinds of things, Fox does not by itself reach more people than "liberal" media outlets like CNN, CBS, ABC, United Press, etc reach when combined. I

Click to expand...

Well, you see there's two things in this country, a free market and a free press. So If Conservatives want more "conservative media," they could buy more outlets, or start them. The other options would be to socialize the media or repeal the first amendment, but I don't think you'd favor either of those options.

Basically, I'll lay it out. If Conservatives don't like them media, they can do something about it. Or, they can bitch about the "liberal media." I'd love to see more perspective in the media, but it can only happen if Conservatives with the means to do so make it happen.

CedarBear said:

Ever wonder why that happened?

Click to expand...

Labor is cheaper, partially because the cost of healthcare is off the table. So you want socialized medicine? Didn't think so.

How do you want to lower labor costs to the level of Bangladesh?

DVSentinel said:

Out-sourcing couldn't possibly have anything to do with the extremely high cost of unskilled labor in America over the last few decades, could it?

Click to expand...

You're right. So, lowering everybody's wages? That sounds good for the economy. Let's add it to the Republican platform. So far we've got the poor can't vote, lower everybody's wages, and repeal the First Amendment to take care of the liberal media.

Yep, that's gonna win....:lamo

StillBallin75 said:

Electioneering? The reason he has avoided the issue of black unemployment up until this point was precisely this. That he would get called out for it by folks who love to push the buttons of white resentment and then be accused of showing racial favoritism - nevermind the fact that black unemployment is more than 50% above the national average. He has a lot more to lose by doing something like this than he has to gain.

Click to expand...

The reason he has avoided it until now is that he doesn't really give a ****. He's in it for BO, and no other. He's making a move/overtures now because he wants to ensure that the glaze is not wearing off of the eyes of his faithful as the push for re-election begins. Electioneering.

We do agree that this will hurt him.


Big Al

Snapper Head said:

The reason he has avoided it until now is that he doesn't really give a ****. He's in it for BO, and no other. He's making a move/overtures now because he wants to ensure that the glaze is not wearing off of the eyes of his faithful as the push for re-election begins. Electioneering.

We do agree that this will hurt him.


Big Al

Click to expand...

Quit listening to Rush and watching Fox News and you might actually begin to form decent arguments. So far all I am seeing is a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense.

rocket88 said:

You're right. So, lowering everybody's wages? That sounds good for the economy. Let's add it to the Republican platform. So far we've got the poor can't vote, lower everybody's wages, and repeal the First Amendment to take care of the liberal media.

Yep, that's gonna win....:lamo

Click to expand...

Don't forget that science is liberal (therefore bad), universities and the education system is liberal (therefore bad), unions (especially public unions) are bad, minimum wages are bad, government regulation of business policy is bad, teachers get paid too much money, et al.

*Edit:

Oh, and the poor are not poor because they have refrigerators.

whysoserious said:

Quit listening to Rush and watching Fox News and you might actually begin to form decent arguments. So far all I am seeing is a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense.

Click to expand...

Conspiracy??

Do you even know the meaning of the term? Would you like a link to dicitonary.com?


I don't watch FOX, or listen to Rush.


Really, if this is all you can bring, stay home with your crochet and sherry.


Big Al

StillBallin75 said:

Okay...what precisely are these parts of the tax code that are helping/hindering competition, and can you show me exactly who wrote them? Or are you just making **** up because you're a partisan hack?

Click to expand...

Goodness, I make a comment and you get silly by playing the partisan hack card. If you really wanted an answer you wouldn't be a tool and make this insipid post.

Snapper Head said:

In a nation where we strive, at least in the aggregate (and most certainly among the left) to end racial inequality; how is this action by the President anything other than divisive?

What exactly, can/should he do for/about black unemployment?

Note: you do understand that this is electioneering on his part, and not anything genuine with respect to giving a true hoot about black unemployment???


Big Al

Click to expand...

Oh and the unemployment rate for blacks is [B]15%. [/B]

Snapper Head said:

Perry dug himself a bit of a hole last night during the debate with his episodic Azheimer's. BO grabs the shovel from him with this speech and continues to dig his own Grand Canyon. Of course, the media will focus much more on Perry's insignificant moment, rather than on the President's continued drive to divide this country along as many lines as possible, including race.


Big Al

Click to expand...

Oh and the unemployment rate for blacks is 15%.

Snapper Head said:

In a nation where we strive, at least in the aggregate (and most certainly among the left) to end racial inequality; how is this action by the President anything other than divisive?

What exactly, can/should he do for/about black unemployment?

Note: you do understand that this is electioneering on his part, and not anything genuine with respect to giving a true hoot about black unemployment???


Big Al

Click to expand...

So you think he has to go out of his way to secure the black vote?

Snapper Head said:

Conspiracy??

Do you even know the meaning of the term? Would you like a link to dicitonary.com?


I don't watch FOX, or listen to Rush.


Really, if this is all you can bring, stay home with your crochet and sherry.


Big Al

Click to expand...

I can only assume since Rush a big conspiracy theorist - nothing is ever as it seems since there is always some crazy backroom liberal agenda. What do you think? Is he a racist who only cares about certain races or a guy who is trying to improve the unemployment of a race that is quite a bit higher than the average? If you chose the former, then you've proven my point.

conservativeguy said:

Goodness, I make a comment and you get silly by playing the partisan hack card. If you really wanted an answer you wouldn't be a tool and make this insipid post.

Click to expand...

Your comment was full of partisan bull**** that you can't substantiate. Forgive me for calling a spade a spade :roll:

whysoserious said:

I can only assume since Rush a big conspiracy theorist - nothing is ever as it seems since there is always some crazy backroom liberal agenda. What do you think? Is he a racist who only cares about certain races or a guy who is trying to improve the unemployment of a race that is quite a bit higher than the average? If you chose the former, then you've proven my point.

Click to expand...

This argument is a false dichotomy. There are not simply two choices here. There is a huge range in between.

IMO, the President is addressing what is a real problem and happens to be expecting campaign points for it. He is absolutely campaigning. All sitting presidents do this. The reason for him addressing the problem isn't actually as much of a concern for me as identifying the reason for the problem. I think he is trying to fix it the wrong way, but that is a different post.

I do have HUGE issues with his recent use of executive orders to bypass congress. He hasn't crossed a visible line yet, but the precedent is scary to me. There is a reason we have the current process in place to create laws.

In other words, good on him for addressing the issue. Bad on him for doing it this way. All, of course, based on my opinions

Snapper Head said:

So what is he going to do about white unemployment?

Hispanic unemployment?

Asian unemployment?

Klingon unemployement?


News from The Associated Press


This should backfire on him significantly if he keeps it up.

The mostest scariestest part is his statement about going around Congress.

Narcissist beyond description.



Big Al

Click to expand...

I don't get it. This is basic campaigning. Every politician does it. It's no different than when a politician goes to a particular town in Iowa and touts what he has done to make life better specifically for the people living there. Where does it say Obama is only concerned with the problems of black people?

rocket88 said:

You're right. So, lowering everybody's wages? That sounds good for the economy. Let's add it to the Republican platform. So far we've got the poor can't vote, lower everybody's wages, and repeal the First Amendment to take care of the liberal media.

Yep, that's gonna win....:lamo

Click to expand...

The first quote you made from one of my post is a bit out of context. That sentence, as pointed out in the post was a counter to someones argument that because Fox would run with the story that it would damaging to BO because Fox has the highest ratings (number of viewers). I was only commenting on the number of viewers of one sides press vs the other sides press, I was not supporting or defending either sides press.

The problem of outsourcing is a major problem in our economy, unless you are willing to look at the real causes of it, you cannot formulate a plan to counter it. It may in fact be necessary to reduce wages (your suggestion not mine). I didn't actually suggest any solution, only a causal factor.

Nice turn of rhetoric though, very good effort to turn readers against what I wrote. Why you thought this was necessary is a mystery to me since, as I noted, I was only pointing out facts, not actually making any suggestions one way or another. Some will probably applaud you instead of actually taking in what was really written, but then others will see that you are clearly putting your own twist to suit your own views and that your interpretation was not what was actually written.

"The poor can't vote" is apparently associated with someone else's post, not one of mine.

You are correct that to do what is necessary to actually fix things would not be very popular with a very large number of voters. Another part of the problems facing America today is politician concerned about winning re-election instead of doing what is right and necessary.