What if you're wrong?

Post #412,872 by Another Scott 8/22/16 11:00:00 AM 8/22/16 11:00:00 AM Reply	What if you're wrong?
Post #412,876 by mmoffitt 8/22/16 11:04:39 AM 8/22/16 11:04:39 AM Reply	Status quo. That's bad enough. I don't like everyone being owned by Corporations+Banks.
Post #412,882 by Andrew Grygus 8/22/16 11:54:29 AM 8/22/16 11:54:29 AM Reply	So, you prefer they all be property of "The State" . . . . . and you're willing to risk a bloody revolution to get there.
Post #412,887 by mmoffitt 8/22/16 12:16:13 PM 8/22/16 12:18:58 PM Reply	Guilty as charged. ;0) Edit: Forgot the wink. Edited by mmoffitt Aug. 22, 2016, 12:18:58 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #412,883 by Another Scott 8/22/16 11:54:53 AM 8/22/16 11:54:53 AM Reply	Tell that to the American people who will die as the result of new GOP policies. Business Insider has a graph I've pointed to before: Notice anything about the Black Male and Female lines and what happened during the Reagan/Bush vs Carter and Clinton administrations? Your privilege is showing, again. Cheers, Scott.
Post #412,886 by mmoffitt 8/22/16 12:15:56 PM 8/22/16 12:15:56 PM Reply	Look at the bottom line from 1992 to 2000 and ask again.
Post #412,894 by drook 8/22/16 12:43:56 PM 8/22/16 12:43:56 PM Reply	Yes, going up during Clinton admin, what's your point? -- Drew
Post #412,897 by mmoffitt 8/22/16 1:40:06 PM 8/22/16 1:40:06 PM Reply	Compare slopes 88-92, 92-2000, 2000-2008. It doesn't make his case.
Post #412,902 by Another Scott 8/22/16 2:12:32 PM 8/22/16 2:12:32 PM Reply	There's a lag. Film at 11. The trend was up under Democratic administrations and flat under Reagan/Bush. Reagan/Bush policies had a significant, measurable negative impact on the life expectancy of AAs. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #412,907 by drook 8/22/16 2:55:36 PM 8/22/16 2:55:36 PM Reply	Why there might not be a lag According to the source data, both Aids and homicide had significant impact on black male life expectancy. Both of those could change abruptly with policy shifts. -- Drew
Post #412,909 by Another Scott 8/22/16 3:16:25 PM 8/22/16 3:16:25 PM Reply	Good points, but ... It takes time to get people confirmed, for new policies to get drawn up, advertised, take effect, and for the rest of the government to act on them. Other than moratoriums and the like, it's hard for me to see policy changing in less than 3-6 months under normal circumstances on changing administrations from one party to another. But you're right that the general point stands - who controls the White House has life-and-death implications for the AA community (and others). The Congress and the Courts matter too, of course. It's not, "well they're all corrupt anyway, so it doesn't matter". It does matter. A lot. Cheers, Scott.
Post #412,910 by drook 8/22/16 3:19:21 PM 8/22/16 3:19:21 PM Reply	Absolutely, lots of factors -- Drew
Post #412,906 by drook 8/22/16 2:54:16 PM 8/22/16 2:54:16 PM Reply	Well let's see ... Percent increase in life expectancy per year. `Black Male White Male Nixon 0.166 0.296 Ford 1.095 0.681 Carter 0.358 0.286 Reagan 0.118 0.265 GHW Bush 0.233 0.346 Clinton 0.615 0.256 W Bush 0.532 0.284` Aside from the fact that Ford presided over an exceptionally good period for both races, the thing that really sticks out is that white males generally make about the same gains year over year, but the gains of black males are highly correlated with what party holds the white house. Who holds the House and Senate, and how much life expectancy lags any policy changes, are obviously relevant. But as a first cut, you'd have to be willfully blind not to see it. So what are you seeing from 88 - 92? -- Drew
Post #412,914 by mmoffitt 8/22/16 3:48:01 PM 8/22/16 3:48:01 PM Reply	I misread the chart. Mea Culpa. Apologies, Scott.
Post #412,917 by Another Scott 8/22/16 4:01:06 PM 8/22/16 4:01:06 PM Reply	Progress! :-) Don't sweat it.

Welcome to IWETHEY!