'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 12:29 AM GMT
    A quote from Tavis Smiley from an interview this week.

    Sad, but true.

    "The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category."

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/11/tavis-smiley-black-people-will-have-lost-ground-every-single-economic#ixzz2hQqlEq3z
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 1:13 PM GMT
    Oh, for those unaware, Tavis Smiley is African-American.

    tavis_smiley.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 2:53 PM GMT
    Curious that our African-American RJ brothers have nothing to say about this.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Oct 12, 2013 3:24 PM GMT
    SeanHamilton saidCurious that our African-American RJ brothers have nothing to say about this.


    Ignorance is bliss my friend. icon_biggrin.gif
  • nperson91

    Posts: 29

    Oct 12, 2013 3:32 PM GMT
    Well I won't be losing anything once Obama isn't president anymore. So that's that.
  • The_Guruburu

    Posts: 895

    Oct 12, 2013 3:40 PM GMT
    Well duh. The red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under ACA have the greatest concentrations of Black people. You think those reps want healthy Black citizens?

    [quote]When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion in order to shake their fist at Barack Obama, they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately black.

    [...]The bars in red are the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and as you can see, almost all of them are clustered at the lowest end of the eligibility spectrum. That means that the states where the Medicaid expansion would have done the most good for the most people are precisely those states where Republican governors and legislatures have told their poor citizens that they're out of luck[/quote].

    medicaid_eligibility_by_state_ii.jpg

    Source
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 3:49 PM GMT
    The_Guruburu saidWell duh. The red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under ACA have the greatest concentrations of Black people. You think those reps want healthy Black citizens?

    [quote]When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion in order to shake their fist at Barack Obama, they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately black.

    [...]The bars in red are the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and as you can see, almost all of them are clustered at the lowest end of the eligibility spectrum. That means that the states where the Medicaid expansion would have done the most good for the most people are precisely those states where Republican governors and legislatures have told their poor citizens that they're out of luck
    .[/quote]

    And not putting African-Americans on Medicaid is why they have fallen behind in every single economic metric during the Obama years?


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Oct 12, 2013 4:39 PM GMT
    SeanHamilton said
    The_Guruburu saidWell duh. The red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under ACA have the greatest concentrations of Black people. You think those reps want healthy Black citizens?

    [quote]When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion in order to shake their fist at Barack Obama, they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately black.

    [...]The bars in red are the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and as you can see, almost all of them are clustered at the lowest end of the eligibility spectrum. That means that the states where the Medicaid expansion would have done the most good for the most people are precisely those states where Republican governors and legislatures have told their poor citizens that they're out of luck
    .


    And not putting African-Americans on Medicaid is why they have fallen behind in every single economic metric during the Obama years?


    [/quote]African-Americans have been struggling regardless who has been elected to the White House. President Obama cannot make these changes alone, he needs Congress and all 50 state governments to get on the same sheet of music. Start working together for the whole of the country and stop looking out for their own self aggrandizement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 5:38 PM GMT
    failscarf saidHow much do you actually care Riddler? Or are you just posting this for the giggles.


    Care? It's a disaster. Certainly nothing to "giggle" about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 6:55 PM GMT
    failscarf said
    SeanHamilton said
    failscarf saidHow much do you actually care Riddler? Or are you just posting this for the giggles.


    Care? It's a disaster. Certainly nothing to "giggle" about.


    So the consensus is that you DON'T care at all.


    I care about it as much as I care about the plight of Thai people in Tampa
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 7:20 PM GMT
    The numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney, there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects. This asinine race baiting needs to stop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 7:52 PM GMT
    blkapollo saidThe numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney,


    Have you visited the alternate universe?


    blkapollo said there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects.


    The "it's Bush's fault" excuse gets trotted out.



    blkapollo saidThis asinine race baiting needs to stop.


    Tavis Smiley (an African-American) speaks about the fact that African-Americans are worse any way you choose to look at it economically and he is a race baiter?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 7:58 PM GMT
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo saidThe numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney,


    Have you visited the alternate universe?


    blkapollo said there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects.


    The "it's Bush's fault" excuse gets trotted out.



    blkapollo saidThis asinine race baiting needs to stop.


    Tavis Smiley (an African-American) speaks about the fact that African-Americans are worse any way you choose to look at it economically and he is a race baiter?



    Anyone with common sense knows that recovery from the global financial crisis was always going to be slow and considering that McCain and Romney would advocating Bush's same failed policy (it damn was his fault), that recovery would have stalled had either of them been elected.

    I'm calling you the race baiter and you very well know that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 8:02 PM GMT
    blkapollo said
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo saidThe numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney,


    Have you visited the alternate universe?


    blkapollo said there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects.


    The "it's Bush's fault" excuse gets trotted out.



    blkapollo saidThis asinine race baiting needs to stop.


    Tavis Smiley (an African-American) speaks about the fact that African-Americans are worse any way you choose to look at it economically and he is a race baiter?



    Anyone with common sense knows that recovery from the global financial crisis was always going to be slow and considering that McCain and Romney would advocating Bush's same failed policy (it damn was his fault), that recovery would have stalled had either of them been elected.

    I'm calling you the race baiter and you very well know that.


    By reporting what an African-American said - because what that African-American said makes you uncomfortable - I am a race baiter? That's a huge stretch to make just to be able to justify calling me a nasty name.

    And as for the "recovery from the global financial crisis" - the recession has been over for several years now and the economy has been "recovering" since then.

    Try coming to the table with actual data and facts. Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 8:18 PM GMT
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo said
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo saidThe numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney,


    Have you visited the alternate universe?


    blkapollo said there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects.


    The "it's Bush's fault" excuse gets trotted out.



    blkapollo saidThis asinine race baiting needs to stop.


    Tavis Smiley (an African-American) speaks about the fact that African-Americans are worse any way you choose to look at it economically and he is a race baiter?



    Anyone with common sense knows that recovery from the global financial crisis was always going to be slow and considering that McCain and Romney would advocating Bush's same failed policy (it damn was his fault), that recovery would have stalled had either of them been elected.

    I'm calling you the race baiter and you very well know that.


    By reporting what an African-American said - because what that African-American said makes you uncomfortable - I am a race baiter? That's a huge stretch to make just to be able to justify calling me a nasty name.

    And as for the "recovery from the global financial crisis" - the recession has been over for several years now and the economy has been "recovering" since then.

    Try coming to the table with actual data and facts. Thank you.


    You are a race baiter, conservatives only discuss African-American issues when they want to bash Obama. The recovery is still going on, the economy is not back fully from that recession, that is a fact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 8:30 PM GMT
    blkapollo said
    SeanHamilton said

    By reporting what an African-American said - because what that African-American said makes you uncomfortable - I am a race baiter? That's a huge stretch to make just to be able to justify calling me a nasty name.

    And as for the "recovery from the global financial crisis" - the recession has been over for several years now and the economy has been "recovering" since then.

    Try coming to the table with actual data and facts. Thank you.


    You are a race baiter, conservatives only discuss African-American issues when they want to bash Obama. The recovery is still going on, the economy is not back fully from that recession, that is a fact.


    Name call all you like, but it doesn't strengthen your argument. You have a serious case of "blame the messenger" going on here.

    And you continue to make ignorant (or false) statements about the economy and the economic recovery. You don't even take the time to post anything that would back up your assertions.

    Here's something - from a LIBERAL group - that shows GDP is now HIGHER than it was pre-crash.

    3.1-GDP-ARRA-OPT.jpg

    There's lots of other metrics I could post as well, but you're here just to be a name caller, so I won't bother.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    In terms of employment, the economy is still recovering and employment is a good indicator of economics. African-American unemployment is always higher than the average, and that is compounded by poor overall economic conditions overall. Furthermore, GDP can go up, but that doesn't mean that jobs and income will automatically improve, and lack of jobs is a problem for African-Americans, one that existed before Obama took office.

    But, there's not use arguing really, because you'll just be banned again for your excessive trolling.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 9:14 PM GMT
    blkapollo saidIn terms of employment, the economy is still recovering and employment is a good indicator of economics.


    And you once again don't provide any evidence to support your assertion.

    The employment picture is pretty stable and at the new normal, given the number of people who have suddenly come down with disabling illnesses and have joined the disability rolls. Couple that with the low workforce participation rate, the shift to part-time workers due to Obamacare, and the employment picture is where it will remain for quite a long time, absent some major change that would convince people to be employed once again.


    blkapollo said...lack of jobs is a problem for African-Americans, one that existed before Obama took office.


    But Obama was the "great hope" of the African American community in many regards, among them economic advancement. So pointing to pre-Obama conditions is a deflection from the topic which is what Tavis Smiley stated:

    "The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category."


    blkapollo said

    But, there's not use arguing really, because you'll just be banned again for your excessive trolling.



    I haven't been "banned" (yet), though I'm starting to see that whenever libs on here get uncomfortable by being confronted with a truth that doesn't fit their political narrative, they call for that member to be "banned" and call him a "troll."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2013 11:09 PM GMT
    failscarf said
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo said
    SeanHamilton said
    blkapollo saidThe numbers wouldn't be any different under McCain or Romney,


    Have you visited the alternate universe?


    blkapollo said there was a global financial failure (under Bush) that will have long term effects.


    The "it's Bush's fault" excuse gets trotted out.



    blkapollo saidThis asinine race baiting needs to stop.


    Tavis Smiley (an African-American) speaks about the fact that African-Americans are worse any way you choose to look at it economically and he is a race baiter?



    Anyone with common sense knows that recovery from the global financial crisis was always going to be slow and considering that McCain and Romney would advocating Bush's same failed policy (it damn was his fault), that recovery would have stalled had either of them been elected.

    I'm calling you the race baiter and you very well know that.


    By reporting what an African-American said - because what that African-American said makes you uncomfortable - I am a race baiter? That's a huge stretch to make just to be able to justify calling me a nasty name.

    And as for the "recovery from the global financial crisis" - the recession has been over for several years now and the economy has been "recovering" since then.

    Try coming to the table with actual data and facts. Thank you.


    You should try doing the same.
    Instead of using OUR issues to push YOUR agenda. This post is more about Obama than black people. You don't even care about black people when the right does something......

    You're becoming a sad case Riddie.


    What is Riddie?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2013 12:15 AM GMT
    SeanHamilton saidCurious that our African-American RJ brothers have nothing to say about this.


    Brother: brothers go to church together.

    Second: I voted for Ralph Nader. Where were my bisexual and gay brothers then? I voted for a third party candidate the second time. Where were my bisexual and gay brothers then? When I truly needed a bisexual and gay roommate to bump up my efforts towards saving myself from the chasm between poverty and affluence as the middle class was attacked by bipartisan and corporate efforts, where were my bisexual and gay brothers?

    Many bisexual and gay men were not rallying behind Ralph Nader. Black people were saying: in politics, Obama cannot appear to be too pro-Black because he'll lose the election. Obama did not run on improving the lives of Black people beyond his skin being dark. Black people wanted to send a message to White people and the bisexual gay Black people wanted to send a message to all those White men who list every ethnic group but Black to play with their organs of elimination. So you don't want us to touch your body now but wait until you're old and in a nursing home, I bet a dark skin person is going to be turning you in your bed and probably bathing you then.

    Brother? I'd say brothers visit relatives together. Have I seen the mother and father of any of my lovers--lovers, White or Black.

    When we're combatting the attack on the middle class by sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom 2 bath roof over our heads, then I've got a brother.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2013 11:20 AM GMT
    The_Guruburu saidWell duh. The red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under ACA have the greatest concentrations of Black people. You think those reps want healthy Black citizens?

    [quote]When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion in order to shake their fist at Barack Obama, they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately black.

    [...]The bars in red are the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and as you can see, almost all of them are clustered at the lowest end of the eligibility spectrum. That means that the states where the Medicaid expansion would have done the most good for the most people are precisely those states where Republican governors and legislatures have told their poor citizens that they're out of luck
    .

    medicaid_eligibility_by_state_ii.jpg

    Source[/quote]

    Medicaid Expansion

    A short explanation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion is available on our ACA Basics page. This page provides more information about the Medicaid program and the ACA Medicaid expansion.

    Overview
    Medicaid is the nation's health insurance program for low-income individuals and families. The ACA calls for a nationwide expansion of Medicaid eligibility, set to begin in 2014. As the law was written, nearly all U.S. citizens under 65 with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($30,675 for a family of four in 2012) will qualify for Medicaid under the expansion. (About FPL; Is it 133 or 138?) This expansion will particularly benefit childless adults, who in more than 40 states cannot currently qualify for Medicaid regardless of their income level. It will also benefit low income parents, who in more than 30 states don't currently qualify even if their children do.

    The Medicaid expansion was one of the major provisions at stake in the ACA cases decided by the Supreme Court in June 2012. The Supreme Court upheld the Medicaid expansion, but limited the federal government's ability to penalize states that don't comply. Therefore, where it was originally effectively mandatory for states to expand Medicaid, now it is effectively optional. While some states might not participate in the expansion given this decision, most states are predicted to eventually expand their programs. The CBO predicts that 11 million Americans will gain coverage by 2022 through this provision.

    http://www.apha.org/advocacy/Health+Reform/ACAbasics/medicaid.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2013 11:50 AM GMT
    The_Guruburu saidWell duh. The red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under ACA have the greatest concentrations of Black people. You think those reps want healthy Black citizens?

    [quote]When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion in order to shake their fist at Barack Obama, they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately black.

    [...]The bars in red are the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and as you can see, almost all of them are clustered at the lowest end of the eligibility spectrum. That means that the states where the Medicaid expansion would have done the most good for the most people are precisely those states where Republican governors and legislatures have told their poor citizens that they're out of luck
    .

    medicaid_eligibility_by_state_ii.jpg

    Source[/quote]

    I'm looking at a chart on 2013 Medicaid Eligibility Levels by State which also shows which states accepted Medicaid Expansion and which ones did not. Washington D.C. and New York accepted Medicaid Expansion. Texas, Louisiana, and Florida did not. Eligibility for family of three. LA - $4,699, TX - $4,894, FL - $10,954, NY - $29,306, D.C. - $40,234. So, the year I couldn't earn more than $25,000, I was better off in NY in terms of getting medical help, if needed. Feel free to explain how this may be wrong for then and going into the future.

    Second, the person who posted the information says:
    "When all those Southern states decided to refuse the Medicaid expansion ..., they screwed over their own poor citizens. So millions of people will be caught in the middle: not poor enough to get Medicaid, but too poor to get subsidies on the exchanges. But when we say "not poor enough," what we're talking about is people who are, in fact, extremely poor. And you'll be shocked to learn that in those states, the poor are disproportionately Black.

    And there are plenty of rich Christian Texans who are quite vocal about being against ACA. Reason #1 The poor need to put their money towards improving their credit score, saving money, eating healthier foods, buying more and better clothes (my closet was far better when I lived in NY under a Venus line of locational astrology than in TX under a Saturn line of locational astrology).

    Reason #2 It seems expanding Medicaid is costly at the state level as well. Those states that rejected Medicaid expansion would rather spend their money on reducing budget deficits.