Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,477
2,305
113
.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/23/under-obama-blacks-are-worse-off--far-worse-n2028985?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse

Ninety-five percent of black voters in 2008 voted for then-Sen. Barack Obama. Surely a "progressive" black president would care about, empathize with and understand black America in a way no other president ever has or could, right? Exit polls from Pew Research show that 63 percent of all voters -- and 65 percent of Obama voters -- cited the economy as the number one reason they voted for him. Iraq was a distant second at 10 percent. Even for black Obama voters, "It's the economy, stupid."

After six years, the report card is in. The grades are not pretty. By every key economic measurement, blacks are worse off under Obama. In some cases, far worse off.

What about poverty? In 2009, when Obama took office, the black poverty rate was 25.8 percent. As of 2014, according to Pew Research Center, the black poverty rate was 27.2 percent.

What about income? CNNMoney says, "Minority households' median income fell 9 percent between 2010 and 2013, compared to a drop of only 1 percent for whites." The Financial Times wrote last October: "Since 2009, median non-white household income has dropped by almost a 10th to $33,000 a year, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve's survey of consumer finances. As a whole, median incomes fell by 5 percent. But by the more telling measure of net wealth -- assets minus liabilities -- the numbers offer a more troubling story."

What about net worth and the black-white "wealth gap"? The Financial Times said: "The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 -- almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr. Obama took office. White median wealth, on the other hand, has inched up by 1 percent to $142,000. In 2009, white households were seven times richer than their black counterparts. That gap is now eightfold. Both in relative and absolute terms, blacks are doing worse under Mr. Obama." Remember, these numbers apply to all "non-whites." For blacks, it's worse.

When looking only at "black net worth" -- which is lower compared to non-whites as a whole -- white households are actually 13 times wealthier than black households. From 2010 to 2013, according to the Federal Reserve, white household median wealth increased a modest 2.4 percent, while Hispanic families' wealth declined 14 percent, to $13,700. But blacks' net worth fell from $16,600 to $11,000. This is an astonishing three-year drop of 34 percent. Investors Business Daily put it this way, "That's a steeper decline than occurred from 2007 to 2010, when blacks' net worth fell 13.5 percent." The black/white "wealth-gap" has reached a 25-year high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
I can think of at least a couple other factors besides "Obama Policies" that may contribute to these observations.


For example

- The choice of benchmarks and scales that an analysis is based on can have a big effect on the conclusions. Analyzing economic trends over short periods can tell a very different story than analyzing them over a longer period. Using 3-yr increments provides a narrow perspective whereas a 30-yr trend analysis might provide a lot more context.


- Last in, first out - meaning that the outlying fringes tend to demonstrate the smallest effects of a positive trend and the largest effects of a negative trend.

- Every choice made in domestic policy will result in winners and losers, the ostensible goal of a President being to find the compromise that will work best for the many, not necessarily the compromise that's best for the few. And BTW, Congress has a big say in Domestic Policy.


Pres. Obama was elected twice based on what he said he was going to do, or perhaps more accurately what his constituents thought he was going to do. One of those expectations being that he was not GWB. His actions in office have mostly been considerably more moderate than the proposals contained in his campaign platform. Most of what he has accomplished has had a lot of public support, even if the polling numbers for some of them tallied in the 40% range instead of the 50% range.

If you want to make the comparison of Obama's performance on behalf of the economic interests of blacks then the isolated comparison would be between what he's accomplished for them vs what John McCain would have accomplished. Frankly, it's difficult for me to believe these numbers would have been better had McCain won 5% more of the vote.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,477
2,305
113
.
GDaddy said:
The choice of benchmarks and scales that an analysis is based on can have a big effect on the conclusions. Analyzing economic trends over short periods can tell a very different story than analyzing them over a longer period. Using 3-yr increments provides a narrow perspective whereas a 30-yr trend analysis might provide a lot more context....
Parts of this analysis DID baseline for 30 years. Besides, you come up with a statistical analysis which shows a trend more accurately, then get back to us on whether Democrat/socialist policies have helped or harmed black people. Until then this one will have to do.

........apologetic guesswork leading nowhere, with a decidedly leftist spin ......destroying any credibility for your argument that you represent conservatism.

It is what it is.
..
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
I think I lean right but the fascist characterizations are usually levied at me by other people. I don't claim that.

One commentator whose observations usually resonate with me is Dr Thomas Sowell. I don't think I'd call him wishy washy, or even a moderate. What I like about his reasoning is that he usually stands ready to test these ideas out by looking at the facts.

-------------------
Anyways,


One thing I'm saying is that I believe the office of POTUS has some significant limitations with respect to actually improving the general economy. So when any of these politicians talk about creating jobs (outside the context of doing it by growing the employment or the contracting in government) I don't tend to take such claims very seriously.

I do think the POTUS can fck things up and make things worse - and maybe that can be attributed to Obama's policies. But without pointing to specific policies that are clearly backfiring I find it hard to pick up the broad brush and sling it around with any amount of enthusiasm.

I *believe* that the ACA and the QE policies will eventually prove to be big negatives for our economy over the long run but for the most part I don't think those effects have become apparent yet, so I can't point to them as being the culprit for a whole lot of negative economic effect at this point.

I *believe* that the all-race, all-the-time narrative will have significant negative economic effects on the interests of blacks over the long run but aside from the increases in confrontations with the cops I don't see a whole lot of evidence about that, either.

IMO there are a lot of variables in play in our economy besides government activities, many of which predate Obama or either of the Bush Administrations and some of which are arguably of greater effect.


BTW, the headliner you used for this thread specifically referenced Obama, not the performance of the wider Democrat/Socialist agendas stretching back over time. An Obama-centric implication means he's performing even worse than the average Democrat.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,215
16,981
113
I find articles like this amusing. For one there's lots of numbers and no links to sources like most reputable outlets would do. I'd be curious to look more at these numbers to see how they're cherry picked but that would take a lot of effort because there's no links to sources.

More importantly I love how articles like this resonate with the same people who freak the fvck out every time Obama opens his mouth and addresses racism in any way.



On a side note the Affordable Care Act reduced the number of uninsured african americans from 24.1% to 16.1% in 2014. That's pretty significant if you ask me.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/29/upshot/obamacare-who-was-helped-most.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

Most importantly for what was listed above to be true isn't it time to acknowledge that there's a problem and revisit things like affirmative action, income inequality and an increased minimum wage which are all things that conservatives vehemently appose?

And yes, I agree that our government could do more to level the playing field for blacks. You on board or are you just looking to sling mud at the kenyan socialist?
 

GDaddy

Duke status
Jan 17, 2006
29,238
2,056
113
Carlsbad
The economy ebbs and flows on it's own regardless of who is in office. We had an unusually long bull market between 1996-2008; the latter half running at the unsustainable fever pitch. The excesses from that bull run basically made the severity of the bear market that followed inevitable. The question at hand is the performance of the current bull run, also inevitable regardless of who was sitting in office, could have been better or worse; and if so, why.

On the one hand, it was the excesses of the prior bull run that led to the excesses of the correcting bear market that followed. On the other hand, almost everyone benefited from that bull run, whether directly or indirectly. That just goes to show that even stupid plans and marginal workers are successfuil when times are good. They're succeeding despite their weaknesses, not because they somehow got stronger.

You are right about the expansion of entitlements on the federal dime benefiting it's recipients, 'cause that's how welfare works. Both individual and corporate. It would all be good if you could actually have obtained the funding to pay for it instead of just putting it on the credit card. Instead, we're apparently planning on stiffing our kids and making them pay for our free ride. Sux to be them.

 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
60,215
16,981
113
Now that Squidley has put his concern for the well-being of our African American countrymen and women out there, perhaps he'll show a similar level of concern for the constitutional violations, brutality and murder of America's blacks at the hands of local law enforcement? Or does he only care about their plight when it's convenient to his ant-kenyan socialist stance? Inquiring posters want to know. :shrug:
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
I'm sure if you read deep into it, the Bible hates Kenyan soushulists.
It's all in there, you just have to be mentally prepared to make it up in your head.
It's part of the moral code.
 

sirfun

Duke status
Apr 26, 2008
17,763
7,017
113
U.S.A.
CharmingSophisticate said:
One of these days Black people are going to tire of "liberal/progressives" using them as their political pawns.
hmm ...
I dint think of the author of the OP as a "liberal/progressive" !! )
 

Lance Mannion

Duke status
Mar 7, 2009
26,450
2,371
113
In Gods Country
sirfun said:
CharmingSophisticate said:
One of these days Black people are going to tire of "liberal/progressives" using them as their political pawns.
hmm ...
I dint think of the author of the OP as a "liberal/progressive" !! )
If I used sarcastic scare quotes around the entire sentence then it just wouldn't work.
Just for argument, lets see what happens.


"Any century now, Detroit will resurrect itself and prove once and for all that the Liberal/Progressives were on the right side of history"

R.W. Knuttdjob VP, Halliburton Rape Culture Division shortly before Dick Cheney took him on a hunting expedition.




 

Pissbiscuit

Miki Dora status
Jun 25, 2008
3,871
0
0
904
GromsDad said:
Truth is nearly every American is doing worse.....far worse after these years of Obama as president. :(
Yeah, I miss 9% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and upper 600s S&P 500. If only unemployment and the deficit could double and the S&P500 could lose 2/3 of its value from present and get us back to the glory days.