Comments on: The Qualifications Game

By: domajot

domajot — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:44:23 +0000

I just note that whatever non-whites there are among conservatives, they are certainly prominently present among the talking points commentators.
Are they a curtain to hide the real numbers of minorities in positions that could make a difference?

By: Somebody

Somebody — Tue, 08 May 2007 12:50:18 +0000

Also if you really want to be nitpickers look at the percentages of families that were poor.

Statisically insignificant between the Democratic President and the Republican President.

Just proves that Republicans are not Poverty creators and Democrats are not Poverty Beaters.

Lost also in this is that when Bush took office their was a recession. When Clinton took office there was a recession.

There are lots of things lost in my post.

The point is that without the facts………….NUMBERS ARE STUPID.

By: Somebody

Somebody — Tue, 08 May 2007 12:44:41 +0000

No you guys are making my point for me.

I put out a set of numbers and let you guys run with it.

The numbers I put out could mean anything.

JUST LIKE THE NUMBERS THAT DAVID PUT OUT without any supporting evidence to shore up or for that matter explain what they mean.

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:34:17 +0000

One fact that is significant. The civil rights division has not defended any black citizen with a complaint in the last several years, and there has been a very high turnover (about 50%) because the division has been directed to prosecute voter fraud instead. This is fox-in-the-henhouse style government- and we saw the same type of thing with Julie Macdonald.

By: CaseyL

CaseyL — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:30:13 +0000

Thanks, Jim, they’re quite readable.

I figured Somebody was wrong, since every new report on poverty shows it’s gotten worse – and will continue to get worse, as the sub-prime mortgage chickens come home to roost, along with the economic slowdown, housing slowdown, new bankruptcy laws, rising gas prices, etc. – but it’s useful to have the actual numbers.

The paradox of emerging from a recession with poverty numbers unchanged (or worsening) is easy to explain: this has been called “a jobless recovery” all along, and wages have stayed stagnant. Economic growth has been fueled by credit card debt and mortgage refinancing: people spending money they don’t actually have.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:17:09 +0000

Well, that was bizarre. When I posted it there were more spaces making that more readable.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:16:21 +0000

I think “Somebody” was trying to twist some facts. What comes close to the number he cited is this:

Number of Poverty
poor families rates for
(in thousands) families (%)

2005…… 7,657 9.9
2004 14/.. 7,835 10.2
2003…… 7,607 10.0
2002…… 7,229 9.6
2001…… 6,813 9.2
2000 12/.. 6,400 8.7
1999 11/.. 6,792 9.3
1998…… 7,186 10.0
1997…… 7,324 10.3
1996…… 7,708 11.0
1995…… 7,532 10.8
1994…… 8,053 11.6
1993 10/.. 8,393 12.3
1992 9/… 8,144 11.9

What was left out of the previous post was of course the overall trends during the two periods. During the Clinton Administration the trend was for a reduction in poverty. Overall during the Bush administration poverty has increased. During the Clinton Administration there was the dot com bubble, but that can only account for part of it. What is more interesting that even with recovery from a recession there has not been a statistically significant improvement in the numbers. The 2003 and 2004 numbers were revised and the 2005 numbers could still be revised.

By: CaseyL

CaseyL — Tue, 08 May 2007 01:48:03 +0000

What do those numbers mean, Somebody? You don’t label them. Are they “millions of people living below the poverty line”?

By: Somebody

Somebody — Tue, 08 May 2007 00:24:36 +0000

What are the facts. Perhaps only 2 (TWO) blacks applied. Mabey of the two who applied none of them could pass the background check….

I mean whats the facts here.

I have one for you.

Poverty under Bill Clinton in 1993 was 8756
Poverty under G. Bush in 2001 was 7164.

Does that Mean George Bush is better at terminating Poverty then Bill Clinton?

No?

Doesnt say much without the Facts does it.

By: Bones_708

Bones_708 — Tue, 08 May 2007 00:05:06 +0000

It well may be. You can hardly say that Bush has issues with putting African Americans in positions of power in his administration. Kritter has a good point, how many conservative black lawyers are there?

By: kritter

kritter — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:56:45 +0000

They have hired quite a few lawyers from the Federalist Society to the civil rights division. I think the answer is not racially motivated, rather politically motivated, as a small part of what has been happening overall in the Justice Dept under Ashcroft and Gonzales. It is illegal to consider a candidate’s political affiliation, and some candidates took their membership in conservative groups off of their resumes. The focus has been on prosecuting voter fraud as much as possible to influence close elections in swing states.