Posted by Jack
She’s a white gal posing as a black female, which by itself is no big thing. In today’s society you’re welcome to be whoever or whatever you want to be. You’re a guy who wants to be a female or you’re female who wants to be a guy, no problem. You want to wear a dog suit and frolic with other people in animal costumes, no problem. However, apparently there is a problem when the black-poser heads up the local chapter of the NAACP and she teaches black studies at the university by virtue of her false racial identity. 
She’s now facing ethics charges and false identification.
“Rachel Dolezal is the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, chair of the city’s Office of Police Ombudsman Commission and an adjunct professor at Eastern Washington University.
This week, she was outed as a fraud by her estranged mother who says she isn’t black and has been faking her ethnicity for years. In fact, her mother said she is Czech, Swedish, and German.
The Spokesman-Review reported this week there were questions about Dolezal’s background and complaints she has made to the police about being harassed. This story was reported by the Coeur d’Alene Press.
Dolezal has represented herself as white, black and American Indian. Many believe this mixed background helped her secure the prominent positions in the NAACP, the local government and gain the credibility to teach African American studies courses.
When her mother came forward with claims of her true heritage, KXLY asked her during an interview if she was African American. Dolezal looked puzzled, stunned, and responded, “I don’t understand the question.”
After this baffling statement, she then retreated from the press conference and hid in a local store to avoid further questioning.
As a result of these findings, Dolezal faces a city ethics investigation over the false identification.”
Skin color is irrelevant unless you’re a racist. It’s what’s INSIDE that counts!
I really find it like meh who cares? Why is everything about race in the media?
We are not out of the woods on trade deal. The 700 Million dollars of medicare Cuts GOP added to bill saved us. Was too much for Pelosi.
I feel like at least my voice was heard for a second, it was hot outside her office at the capital.
Have a good Day
I just realized I’ve been living a lie. I have this feeling inside, a longing to stand motionless in the yard and sway with the wind. Yes, I admit it now. I am trans-shrubbery!
Off topic, but so worth watching.
Carly Fiorina’s Out With A FANTASTIC New Anti-Hillary Ad:
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29345-carly-fiorina-s-out-with-a-fantastic-new-anti-hillary-ad
This story is nuts. I can’t believe the NAACP didn’t do any kind of vetting process to even see who her parents were.
No one wakes up one morning and thinks “Gee, I really want to be part of a socially disadvantaged minority group.” This woman must have some serious issues.
Apparently from what I’ve heard white people can and have headed NAACP chapters before, though I’m not sure why any white person would want to do that–that would strike me as a pretty arrogant thing to do.
Chris you said, “Gee, I really want to be part of a socially disadvantaged minority group.” This was true, a decades back, but not today.
I think the paradigm has changed. Today, no other minority group has a greater advantage than blacks. The bar has been lowered so much that mediocre performance will generate praise ad nauseum. Now Chris, don’t you dare start with the racism accusation, because I’m taking this direct from what from black people who swear this is the gospel!
They tell me straight up, in business to have a black person on your team is worth more in PR than they could generate in job performance. Some business sectors, especially gov. sub-contractors, have aggressively sought out minimally qualified persons, so long as they were black!
To actually be a young, gifted and educated black person today is to have the world at your beck and call! Maybe this gal figured that out and that her ordinary life would have greater meaning and more reward if she were to pose as a black female? Maybe she felt that her talents that were overlooked as a common ol ordinary white person would be suddenly praise worthy as a black person? She certainly achieved great things as a black female… could you say the same for her as a white female?
By the way I am hearing this same argument being posed on television news. They’re saying her deception on federal forms could cause her trouble, also her federal grants for Howard college may have been illegal.
Jack: “Chris you said, “Gee, I really want to be part of a socially disadvantaged minority group.” This was true, a decades back, but not today.
I think the paradigm has changed. Today, no other minority group has a greater advantage than blacks.”
Oh, Jack…I know for a fact you are aware of the stats on black unemployment, black poverty, black imprisonment, representation of blacks among positions of power, etc., so I don’t know why you would say such a thing.
“The bar has been lowered so much that mediocre performance will generate praise ad nauseum. Now Chris, don’t you dare start with the racism accusation, because I’m taking this direct from what from black people who swear this is the gospel!”
I’m not going to accuse you of racism, but your argument here for why I shouldn’t is pretty outrageous; surely you don’t think “some of my black friends said…” is really an automatic defense against charges of racism, do you?
“They tell me straight up, in business to have a black person on your team is worth more in PR than they could generate in job performance.”
Let’s say I concede that this preference exists. You’re still talking about a very tiny subset of black Americans. The vast majority do not work the kinds of jobs that have teams that care about PR.
Furthermore, while some businesses do go out of their way to hire African-Americans, many more demonstrate (probably unconscious) prejudice against them. There have been many studies that have shown that resumes with common African-American names are more likely to be rejected than the exact same resumes with common white names. Politifact cites many:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
So the notion that it is generally advantageous to be African-American is a bit preposterous.
It is of course likely that this woman thought being African-American would be a bonus in the line of work she was going into (Africana studies, wasn’t it?), but that doesn’t change the point of my original statement.
Chris: “Oh, Jack…I know for a fact you are aware of the stats on black unemployment, black poverty, black imprisonment, representation of blacks among positions of power, etc., so I don’t know why you would say such a thing.
Jack: Yes, I do acknowledge these things, but I’m saying if a black person wants to move up the ladder all he/she has to do is be employable. What does that mean? Well, for starters they must be able to read and write and have at least a high school education. Must be able to speak English. Must be able to pass a drug test. Must be able to pass a background check. A black person with these “amazing” credentials is practically ready for anything in the business world, but so few are. So, whose fault is that?
Chris: “The bar has been lowered so much that mediocre performance will generate praise ad nauseum. Now Chris, don’t you dare start with the racism accusation, because I’m taking this direct from what from black people who swear this is the gospel!” -Jack I’m not going to accuse you of racism, but your argument here for why I shouldn’t is pretty outrageous; surely you don’t think “some of my black friends said…” is really an automatic defense against charges of racism, do you?
“They tell me straight up, in business to have a black person on your team is worth more in PR than they could generate in job performance.”
Let’s say I concede that this preference exists. You’re still talking about a very tiny subset of black Americans. The vast majority do not work the kinds of jobs that have teams that care about PR.
Jack: Ok Chris, now lets say you are right, there are only tiny subset that fit this. So what? I maintain that the doors are essentially wide-open for minimally qualified black persons in the entire business world. If they are not minimally qualified and barely try to find a job, if they can’t pass a drug test or a criminal background check, and are illiterate, again, I ask whose fault is that?
It seems like you (liberals in general) prefer to make excuses for black under-achievement to exploit racism allegations for political advantage.
If there is blame here, and I know there is, it’s liberals who keep lowering the bar and abusing blacks by keeping them down on welfare. It’s liberals who exploit class warfare, exploit racism and want to give away the hard earned money from working people, just to keep minorities unemployed and welfare, beholding to their democrat overlords. The liberals want them to have it just good enough so they have no incentive to get off the freaking welfare!
Liberals who control our educational system must take a bow for some of this. In a way they are co-dependents for blacks every time make excuses for blacks dropping out of schools, bad parenting, high crime, etc. Black parenting is of course largely to blame because behind almost every black criminal their was dysfunctional home, but even the bad parenting will eventually link back to liberalism and socialism. Liberals secretly like our poor to be dependent on big government because they gain power by manipulating their vote. Liberals are using the “populace vote” to control elections and it gets worse with every passing year.
If there is a bright spot here, its that there is a growing number of highly competent black people who resent being “helped” by liberals. They want to control their own destiny and take credit where credit is due. They rightly are angry at liberals for helping too much. The trouble is these people are often put down as Uncle Tom’s by their peers/liberals and made to feel like outcasts.
What’s the big deal? What did anyone expect from the “open society” we now live in. You were born a man but believe your a woman, no problem you can now live as a woman and we give you an award because we think you’re a hero.
If you want to marry five other women and a bird that’s ok too, or a one year old, but not consummate the union until the girl is nine, just sing here. That’s what living with no rules, where up is down and down is up.
If she wants to be black she should be able to and if she wants to use the men’s bathroom who’s going to stop her. It’s the norm, right? Nobody should be getting upset over this.
Oh, and if she broke some silly laws who cares. Even our lawmakers and presidents have broken them for years and still are today. No one’s stopping them. This IS the new normal.
Said with sarcasm.
Oh geez, I almost forgot about Elizabeth Warren who believes she’s American Indian and everyone said, Sure, why not. Welcome to our tribe. Just check this form here to change your race.
Ha, I’m not alone.
Why CAN’T Rachel Dolezal Be Black?:
“We shouldn’t be asking if Dolezal’s parents are black, or if she looks black. The only question that matters is: Does she feel black?
We’ve accepted that Caitlyn Jenner, despite being born in a male body and having a Y chromosome and fathering six children, was actually a woman all along and simply forced into a male role by a sexist, patriarchal society held back by quaint notions such as “people with penises are men.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/12/why-cant-rachel-dolezal-be-black/?utm_content=buffer9f86d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
It is time for me to come out of the closet. I have decided to follow in the footsteps of Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, and Bruce Jenner.
A week ago I applied for the Famous Artists School (the address I found on an old matchbook cover).
I described myself as black Cherokee lesbian trapped in a man’s body. I am awaiting the grant money.
Re #5 Chris : This story is nuts.
Not any more nuts than you and Dewey.
Re #6 Post Scripts :
Clearly Jack is a racist. And I am a black Cherokee lesbian trapped in a man’s body.
Great ad Peggy! Thanks for putting it up.
Side Topic: The Wannabe Queen is Displeased.
Republicans Forced to Turn Shirts Inside Out at Clinton Launch
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/republicans-forced-turn-shirts-inside-out-clinton-launch_970505.html
Hanoi Jane seeks to stop pipeline.
“It absolutely racked me and brought me back to the barricades. I’m going to commit the rest of my life to stopping global warming by preventing fossil fuels from being extracted,” said Fonda.
She said development of the Alberta oil sands must stop, adding that she hopes Canadians signal their opposition to the industry at the next federal election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/i-hope-i-get-arrested-jane-fonda-sides-with-first-nations-against-kinder-morgan-pipeline/article24951279/
In the government bidding game it is often mandated that a certain percentage of the work performed on the product MUST come from black owned business. Quality, expense, and performance don’t matter, period! Finding such businesses is not always easy.
Cities have mandated that a certain percentage of firefighters and police officers MUST be black (or women) whether or not they qualify under the same standards.
Preferences for blacks have been given for college and work for over forty years. Some of it has been mandated, some of it has been tokenism, and some a real desire to give black people an equal chance (If they apply and are qualified).
The stats on prison, unemployment, etc. are irrelevant to this discussion. Those things are separate issues with very different causes, as Jack articulated in #16.
Liberals have been helping blacks for decades. Today they are appalled at the result produced by all of their helping but refuse to admit responsibility or discuss changing course. Placing the blame on “racist republicans” has been very lucrative for democrats in terms of votes and donations. So much for caring, being inclusive, or embracing true equality.
I was thinking about the boomer generation and it’s embrace of civil rights in the sixties. A major shift has occurred since then and the left has a lot to do with it. Entitlement mentality streams from being treated unequally through lowering the bar and preference hiring. Racial attitudes among blacks have been taught. Attitudes like resentment and hatred of whites among many blacks have gotten worse since the advent of black studies in our nations colleges. Louis Farrakhan’s hate speech has inspired the same attitudes.
At the same time, successful blacks in sports and entertainment are enjoying the admiration of fans of every ethnic background…including whites who, we’re told, are so hateful. How can it be that white folks are so duplicitous?
The NAACP was formed by whites, whites who could not tolerate injustices in the Democrat South:
In Canada another category has emerged, the trans-abled! These people believe that certain body parts, their arm, their eye, their leg is not theirs and want them removed!
At #3, There may be a home for you in Canada. Go North young man!
Hey Pie, I found something for us to be. Just have to decide what. We could even start our own support group.
Otherkin:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=otherkin&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=AFACD05056BC6DF9AF81AFACD05056BC6DF9AF81
#14 Pie, The “queen’s” crown is slipping.
Only six people show up for Hillary Clinton watch party Iowa:
“Only six people (including one staffer) showed up for Hillary Clinton’s ‘watch party’ in Iowa. The Hillary Clinton watch party was for her so called campaign ‘re-launch’ earlier today in New York. Even pitiful CNN called the turnout pitiful.”
Watch: Lots of empty space as crowd didn’t ‘overflow’ Hillary campaign re-launch:
“The area, set up with a jumbo-tron to live-broadcast Hillary’s speech, held no supporters even 20 minutes into Hillary’s speech.
MSNBC observed that the crowd that did show up for her speech was “largely enthusiastic” but “not overwhelmed” and that the audience was overwhelmingly white.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-lots-of-empty-space-as-crowd-didnt-overflow-hillary-campaign-re-launch/article/2566214
She’s going to have to do much better and get the blacks and Hispanics to show up or she won’t be sitting on the WH throne.
Re #18 : Good lord!
Required viewing : Anthony and Mark — http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2015/06/13/mark-steyns-address-to-climate-change-conference-video/
#16 Jack: “If there is blame here, and I know there is, it’s liberals who keep lowering the bar and abusing blacks by keeping them down on welfare. It’s liberals who exploit class warfare, exploit racism and want to give away the hard earned money from working people, just to keep minorities unemployed and welfare, beholding to their democrat overlords. The liberals want them to have it just good enough so they have no incentive to get off the freaking welfare!”
Here is another one to add to the liberals and the Marxist/Commander in Chief’s list of aid to keep the votes rolling in and more dependent on their gov’t master.
With the bait of federal grants HUD will take over control of local communities from city councils just like they did with federal grants for education and Common Core. Hopefully, city councils will be smart like the states that did sign up for ObamaCare subsidies.
Obama, HUD aim to desegregate residential areas with new set of housing regulations:
http://thehilltalk.com/2015/06/12/obama-hud-aim-desegregate-residential-areas-new-set-housing-regulations/
House Passes Gosar Amendment Defunding Obama’s AFFH Housing Power Grab:
“Obama’s radical plan to transform suburban neighborhoods hits a roadblock.
Tuesday night, on a vote of 229-193, the House passed an amendment to the THUD (Transportation Housing and Urban Development) bill that blocks any HUD funding that enforces President Obama’s fair housing rule (AFFH). The amendment, offered by Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, protects local zoning rights from federal overreach.
Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has been ringing alarm bells since 2012 about the “Radical in Chief’s” plan to transform suburban neighborhoods by punishing state and local officials who don’t integrate what the federal government considers the correct mix of citizens based on income, race, ethnicity, etc.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/06/10/house-passes-gosar-amendment-defunding-obamas-affh-housing-power-grab/
Instead of providing jobs and a strong economy so people of all colors can afford to buy the house they want, Obama is now going to “give” them a home they can’t afford by taxing everyone else, who pays taxes, to pay for these houses.
It’s no wonder Americans giving up their citizenship hit a record high this year and last year. People are heading for Canada or any place that looks like it will have a better future than here.
US records all-time-high number of Americans who renounced their citizenship:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/us.records.all.time.high.number.of.americans.who.renounced.their.citizenship/55996.htm
Jack: “Ok Chris, now lets say you are right, there are only tiny subset that fit this. So what? I maintain that the doors are essentially wide-open for minimally qualified black persons in the entire business world.”
Again, the studies cited in the Politifact article seriously cast doubt on this presumption. There is plenty of evidence that discrimination against African-Americans is still a powerful force in the business world.
“If there is blame here, and I know there is, it’s liberals who keep lowering the bar and abusing blacks by keeping them down on welfare.”
The notion that welfare programs keep anyone, including blacks, “down” is a very popular theory among Republicans, but it lacks real-world evidence. There is far more evidence that welfare programs have hughly reduced the poverty rate among nearly all groups, including African-Americans.
For example, the black poverty rate in 1959 was 55%. in 1966, it was 41%. Today it stands at 27%. That is still too high–and it’s notable that it has consistently been twice the rate of white poverty, for decades–but it is much lower now than prior to the implementation of the Great Society.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/29/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-poverty-hasnt-budged-1965-despit/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/
Now, of course, correlation does not equal causation. I can’t prove (at the moment, at least) that the black poverty rate is lower today due to the advent of welfare programs. But this does at least put a dent in the common conservative argument that welfare programs actively hurt the poor, especially African-Americans. If this were true, we should be seeing higher poverty today than before the major welfare programs were implemented. Instead, the opposite is true.
“It’s liberals who exploit class warfare, exploit racism and want to give away the hard earned money from working people, just to keep minorities unemployed and welfare, beholding to their democrat overlords. The liberals want them to have it just good enough so they have no incentive to get off the freaking welfare!”
I can’t speak for most liberals, but I support welfare programs because I believe that for the most part, they work, and I think the evidence bears that out.
I suspect most liberals support welfare programs for the same reason. The notion that most liberals only support welfare because they know it actually keeps minorities in poverty strikes me as not only pretty conspiratorial, but also based on false premises.
“If there is a bright spot here, its that there is a growing number of highly competent black people who resent being “helped” by liberals. They want to control their own destiny and take credit where credit is due. They rightly are angry at liberals for helping too much. The trouble is these people are often put down as Uncle Tom’s by their peers/liberals and made to feel like outcasts.”
I don’t like the term “Uncle Toms,” as it seems to me to unfairly put African-Americans in a political box.
But to be fair, Republicans–on this site–often call black Democrats “slaves to the welfare plantation,” which is at least an equally racially loaded phrase. I have said before that both sides should stop using this racially charged language. It is condescending and immoral, and both phrases treat blacks as little more than pawns in a political game.
I mean, perhaps you’re right that many liberals are condescending to blacks and hold them to lower standards. But the conservative argument I’m hearing here seems to boil down to, “The only reason most blacks are Democrats is because they are manipulated by liberals. They are easily persuadable and more of them would be Republicans if they were just smarter and voted in their own best interest.” And that doesn’t strike me as a more appealing message to prospective black fence sitters.
Tina: “In the government bidding game it is often mandated that a certain percentage of the work performed on the product MUST come from black owned business.”
I believe this.
“Quality, expense, and performance don’t matter, period!”
I don’t believe this. Surely the government can find black-owned businesses that are just as high quality as white-owned businesses? Surely you don’t believe black-owned businesses are almost always of a lower quality?
“Liberals have been helping blacks for decades. Today they are appalled at the result produced by all of their helping”
Again, the result seems to be that the black poverty rate has been cut in half. I’m not appalled by that result at all, though of course more needs to be done.
I would say most of the problems in the black community are the result of the same problems in every impoverished community: lack of jobs caused by outsourcing, the decline in the minimum wage, and the decline in union power. (Somehow it’s always shocking to conservatives that if you make it harder for workers to bargain and easier for their bosses to pay them less, then…their bosses are going to pay them less. Shocking!) But because the African-American community was already starting at a disadvantage to the general population (twice the poverty rate of whites!), the problems in their communities are of course worse than the general population.
Chris: ” Surely the government can find black-owned businesses that are just as high quality as white-owned businesses?”
Not all businesses are competent or even able to perform per the contract specifications. Race has nothing to do with it. Black owned businesses don’t produce every component or service in everything that’s manufactured. sometimes it’s very difficult to fit the requirement simply because the businesses don;t exist!!!
“Surely you don’t believe black-owned businesses are almost always of a lower quality?”
You make me sick. I have posted business web pages to show YOU that not all blacks are poor and that many run successful businesses. Stop with the innuendo, already!
Chris: “…the result seems to be that the black poverty rate has been cut in half.”
A complete distortion of the facts!
Jobs are few in poor and black communities due to liberal taking from the rich to redistribute. That money could go to job creation, as it did under Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton but once again you are too closed minded to even consider such a thing. also the rules governing welfare ensured that a poor man and his wife would part ways as a means of earning more. This destruction of the family is a major cause of problems in poor and black households. Replacing men with government as the family provider was a real dumb move as prison and gang population shows. Liberal have been talking up education but won’t do anything about the lousy schools in poor neighborhoods and that too contributes to the problem.
Conservative policies boost people in every class. National Review:
As the Donald pointed out today, under the current radical left leadership our nation experienced NEGATIVE GDP in the first quarter of this year…jobs will never come from high tax and outlandish regulation…or redistribution that enriches the elites in government.
Unemployment for blacks under Obama is appalling. There is no recovery after six years of liberal redistribution. Obama/Pelosi/Reid policies have killed job creation! People have fallen from the middle class into poverty and a third of working age Americans are not in the work force.
Are you blind and deaf?
Forbes on policies of the left and right and the result of each.
Gotta go. People started businesses and moved out of poverty during the Reagan years.
Tina: “Not all businesses are competent or even able to perform per the contract specifications. Race has nothing to do with it.”
You just said that race-based quotas conflict with the government from hiring compretent businesses. Saying “race has nothing to do with it” contradicts your original argument; it doesn’t magically make it go away.
Me: “Surely you don’t believe black-owned businesses are almost always of a lower quality?”
Tina: “You make me sick.”
Whoa. That’s unnecessary.
I am sorry if being confronted with the logical implications of your own arguments makes you feel ill. But the problem is with your arguments, not with me.
Again, you are the one that implied a conflict between hiring black-owned businesses and competent businesses. Not me.
The notion that such a conflict exists certainly implies that black-owned businesses are typically not as qualified as white-owned businesses. Your argument does not make sense without that premise.
Now, I don’t think you really believe that premise. Which means you should reconsider your argument.
“I have posted business web pages to show YOU that not all blacks are poor and that many run successful businesses.”
Yes, I know, which is why I specifically said “Surely you don’t believe…”
“Stop with the innuendo, already!”
Again, I clearly indicated that I didn’t think you actually believed the logical implications of the arguments you’re making when I wrote “Surely you don’t believe…” There’s no innuendo. I’m not casting aspersions on your character. I am literally giving you as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible, given the things you are saying here.
Chris: “Chris: “…the result seems to be that the black poverty rate has been cut in half.”
Tina: “A complete distortion of the facts!”
If that’s the case, it should be very easy for you to show how this is a distortion. But you didn’t do that. Instead, you spent the rest of your comment describing general bad conditions among black Americans, and not even trying to disprove what I just said.
Is what I said true or false, Tina? Has the black poverty rate been cut in half since the advent of the Great Society, or hasn’t it? I suspect you know the answer, which is why you didn’t even try to prove your assertion that my statement was a “distortion of the facts.”
“Jobs are few in poor and black communities due to liberal taking from the rich to redistribute.”
There is no evidence for this claim.
More later.
Tina, the comparison between Obama and Reagan’s record on black poverty is interesting.
Let’s look at the numbers.
It’s true that Obama’s record on black poverty doesn’t look great. In 2009 the black poverty rate was 25.8%. In 2011 it reached 27.6%, and in 2012 and 2013 it was 27.2%. So black poverty has risen during his tenure.
However, it’s important to note that black poverty was rising consistently long before Obama took office. It rose almost every year of Bush’s presidency, with 2006 being the lone exception.
Reagan actually did preside over a significant decrease in the black poverty rate. In 1981, the rate was 34.2%. It fluctuated a lot during his presidency, but mostly went down, and sufficed to say when Reagan left office in 1989 the rate was 30.7%. That’s higher than it is today under Obama, but given that Reagan entered with a much higher rate of black poverty, and that it went down significantly during his tenure while under Obama it has gone up, Reagan’s record was clearly better on this issue.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html
Strangely (really, I find this weird), the same isn’t true of black unemployment under the two presidents. From Politifact:
“During Reagan’s full term — January 1981 to January 1989 — black unemployment fell from 14.6 percent to 11.8 percent. That’s a decline of 2.8 percentage points, or 19 percent…
If we instead look at Obama’s entire term to date — January 2009 to April 2015 — black unemployment fell from 12.7 percent to 9.6 percent. That’s down 3.1 percentage points, or a decrease of 24 percent. That’s a more impressive decline than under Reagan’s entire term.
There are also other ways to compare the two presidents’ records on black unemployment.
• The black unemployment rate peaked at 21.2 percent under Reagan in January 1983, but the peak under Obama was significantly lower — 16.8 percent in March 2010.
• The low point for black unemployment under Reagan was 11 percent, reached twice in 1988. The low point under Obama is 9.6 percent, which is the current rate. That’s lower than the lowest point under Reagan.
• Under Reagan, black unemployment exceeded its worst level under Obama — 16.8 percent — for 26 consecutive months, or more than two years straight.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/22/facebook-posts/was-ronald-reagans-record-black-unemployment-bette/
Does this prove that either president’s policies are better than the other? I don’t think so. There are a lot of factors influencing poverty and unemployment beyond the president’s actions.
I think the above statistics demonstrate this quite well. Under Obama, black unemployment has decreased while black poverty has increased. How is this possible? I think this is a sign that we need to look more closely at the factors behind black poverty. Obviously the problem can’t be boiled down to, “Obama’s policies are making it harder for blacks to get jobs.” Blacks are getting more jobs than they used to–that’s why their unemployment numbers are lower. Maybe we need to look at what kinds of jobs they are getting?
I mean, it’s no secret among people of my age group that having a job is not necessarily a ticket out of poverty. With the decline in the minimum wage, and the decline of workers’ bargaining power, sometimes having a job is even more expensive than simply being unemployed–there are travel expenses, expenses related to childcare, and due to the higher average amount of hours in a modern work schedule, the lost time that could be put into getting a degree that would lead to a higher paying job. If you’re going to school while working–fuhgedaboudit. Shiz is expensive.
If we’re seeing an inverse relationship between unemployment and poverty–in any community–we seriously need to reconsider the system. Conservatives may look at this inverse relationship and conclude that unemployment pays too much. I look at it and conclude that work pays too little.
If we want today’s workers to have the same opportunities as previous generations, we have to actually give workers the same opportunities as previous generations. Continuing to fight to reduce their wages, while also chipping away at their ability to bargain, is not going to get us there.
Tina: “As the Donald pointed out today, under the current radical left leadership our nation experienced NEGATIVE GDP in the first quarter of this year…jobs will never come from high tax and outlandish regulation…or redistribution that enriches the elites in government.”
You need to stop listening to the Donald.
First, there is no such thing as “negative GDP.” Trump should have said negative GDP growth.
Second, Trump was also wrong to claim that “It’s never below zero.” Negative GDP growth is a very common aspect of periods of recession and recovery. From Politifact:
“Negative GDP growth — in other words, GDP shrinkage — from quarter to quarter is one of the hallmarks of a recession. And there have been lots of recessions over the years — 11 since World War II.
The first year the government calculated the change in GDP from quarter to quarter was 1947. We looked back and found no fewer than 42 quarters over that period in which GDP shrank on an annualized, seasonally adjusted basis. That’s roughly 15 percent of the time…
…Finally, since Trump was attacking Obama for this bad quarter of growth, we’ll just throw this out: Of the 42 quarters of negative growth since World War II, 30 occurred under Republican presidents and just 12 under Democratic presidents.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-gdp-never-negative-ter/
So your claim that negative GDP growth is a result of “radical left leadership” simply doesn’t stand up to the facts. Not only have quarters of negative GDP growth been fairly common in our history, it has occurred more often under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents.
Chris anyone who follows business news knows exactly what is meant by negative GDP. It has nothing to do with shrinkage or expansion. It has to do with the fact that the GDP was measured at less than 0%. That represents negative GDP in any informed persons book.
The evidence that Obama’s liberal policies have resulted in a non-recovery of low, and now negative, growth, high unemployment, a high non-participation rate is obvious. Liberal economic policy has had six years to produce prosperity, growth and opportunity. It has instead created conditions of dependence and despair.
“Of the 42 quarters of negative growth since World War II, 30 occurred under Republican presidents and just 12 under Democratic presidents.”
Have you considered that your statistic could be a result of fewer Democrat presidents? Put the stat in context Chris before you make such insane claims.
Also keep in mind that Clinton’s good record occurred because Republicans won control of the House and he chose to embrace Republican policy.
Open your mind to the whole truth Chris, rather than believing the deceitful cherry “facts’ liberals use to distort the record.
February 2013: Human Events:
But the experience of the record changes dramatically if we consider dept to GDP. Take a look at the chart here.
Chris that you continue to defend the Obama record is astounding.
Tina: “Chris anyone who follows business news knows exactly what is meant by negative GDP. It has nothing to do with shrinkage or expansion. It has to do with the fact that the GDP was measured at less than 0%. That represents negative GDP in any informed persons book.”
Literally all of this is incorrect.
Let’s take it one sentence at a time.
“Chris anyone who follows business news knows exactly what is meant by negative GDP.”
It’s possible this part is true. I’ve seen a lot of articles referring to “negative GDP.” But it’s still a misnomer. The appropriate term would be “negative GDP growth” or “GDP shrinkage.”
As a point of reference, our current GDP is $16.77 trillion dollars. That’s not negative anything. It’s the growth that was measured in the negative.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&oq=gdp&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i60j0l3.5384j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=gdp+usa
“It has nothing to do with shrinkage or expansion.”
Laughable. Every single article I have read on the subject, even those that erroneously refer to “negative GDP,” explains that this means the GDP has shrunk.
Here’s one:
“The U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter as the nation’s trade deficit widened and business stockpiling slowed.
Gross domestic product — the value of goods and services produced in the U.S. — contracted at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.7% in the January-March period, the Commerce Department said Friday. That’s well below the modest 0.2% growth the government initially estimated.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/05/29/first-quarter-economy-gdp/28093025/
“It has to do with the fact that the GDP was measured at less than 0%.”
No, it has to do with the fact that the growth in GDP was measured at less than 0%. $16 trillion is not 0% of anything.
“The evidence that Obama’s liberal policies have resulted in a non-recovery of low, and now negative, growth,”
Again, negative growth has happened under many presidents, including Republican presidents, so this is not a strong point.
“high unemployment,”
Unemployment is now lower than it was when Bush left office.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
“a high non-participation rate is obvious.”
There are many reasons for this:
“Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.
Among the reasons cited for the trend:
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.
But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015.
According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”
CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
But I suppose it’s much easier to pretend that Obama and liberals are the root of all evil.
“Have you considered that your statistic could be a result of fewer Democrat presidents?”
That is a good point, but that doesn’t change the overall point that a quarter of negative growth is not all that unusual, nor is it a sign that liberals are killing the country.
“Also keep in mind that Clinton’s good record occurred because Republicans won control of the House and he chose to embrace Republican policy.”
Of course. Everything bad that happens under a Democratic president is his fault, and everything good that happens under a Democratic president is because of someone else.
Tina: “But the experience of the record changes dramatically if we consider dept to GDP.”
Yes, it certainly does.
Reagan presided over a large rise in debt-to-GDP. Over his two terms, debt-to-GDP rose by a total of 20.6 percentage points.
Under Bush Sr. debt-to-GDP continued to rise. The ratio lowered under Clinton, but then rose at a massive rate under Bush Jr. In his first term, debt-to-GDP rose by 7.1%, and in his second term, it rose by 20.7%.
From 2009 to 2013, debt-to-GDP rose by 18.5%. That is one of the largest rises in our history, but it is still less than the rise in Bush Jr.’s second term, and less than the rise in both of Reagan’s terms.
I could not find numbers after 2013. Obama still has time to catch up to Reagan and Bush when it comes to the rise in debt-to-GDP. But for now, none of their records look like anything to brag about.
(The largest increase in debt-to-GDP was under Roosevelt, for obvious reasons. Since then, debt-to-GDP has generally risen faster under Republican presidents than Democratic presidents. Jury’s still out on whether Obama will reverse this trend.)
Sorry for commenting so frequently, but I found more interesting stuff and junk related to the debt.
If we just look at the percentage increase in the debt rather than the debt-to-GDP, we see that Obama’s percentage is actually lower than most modern presidents:
Reagan–190%
GHW Bush–52%
Clinton–37%
GW Bush–86%
Obama–70%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
Of course, if you look at just the dollar amount, Obama has presided over the greatest net increase in the debt ever.
Chris we always enjoy another perspective, especially on our debt. It’s very confusing and its fair to say that both sides play the numbers to their best advantage and the truth gets muddled in the process.