IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Status quo. That's bad enough. I don't like everyone being owned by Corporations+Banks.
New So, you prefer they all be property of "The State" . . .
. . and you're willing to risk a bloody revolution to get there.
New Guilty as charged. ;0)
Edit: Forgot the wink.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Aug. 22, 2016, 12:18:58 PM EDT
New 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.
New Look at the bottom line from 1992 to 2000 and ask again.
New Yes, going up during Clinton admin, what's your point?
--

Drew
New Compare slopes 88-92, 92-2000, 2000-2008. It doesn't make his case.
New 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.
New 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
New 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.
New Absolutely, lots of factors
--

Drew
New 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
New I misread the chart. Mea Culpa. Apologies, Scott.
New Progress! :-) Don't sweat it.
     One for MM and Box - (Another Scott) - (19)
         useful idiots still exist and that post is pointed right at them -NT - (boxley) - (2)
             Yes, they still exist, but . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                 ah, the Trumpenlumpen -NT - (boxley)
         Idiots think it can be salvaged. It can't. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
             What if you're wrong? -NT - (Another Scott) - (14)
                 Status quo. That's bad enough. I don't like everyone being owned by Corporations+Banks. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                     So, you prefer they all be property of "The State" . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Guilty as charged. ;0) - (mmoffitt)
                     Tell that to the American people who will die as the result of new GOP policies. - (Another Scott) - (10)
                         Look at the bottom line from 1992 to 2000 and ask again. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                             Yes, going up during Clinton admin, what's your point? -NT - (drook) - (8)
                                 Compare slopes 88-92, 92-2000, 2000-2008. It doesn't make his case. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                     There's a lag. Film at 11. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         Why there might not be a lag - (drook) - (2)
                                             Good points, but ... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                 Absolutely, lots of factors -NT - (drook)
                                     Well let's see ... - (drook) - (2)
                                         I misread the chart. Mea Culpa. Apologies, Scott. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             Progress! :-) Don't sweat it. -NT - (Another Scott)

This space intentionally left blank.
146 ms