Jeb Bush: Dems give Blacks Free Stuff

[AthenaAwakened]

Are you sure about that? Last time I looked that was not true.

Where have you been looking? Let's take a brief look at food stamps for starters:

And this is a privilege to you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem is what he said. It isn't racist, it is ignorant. It implies he hasn't a clue about the working hours blacks actually have, when getting this "free stuff". It is once again a Republican saying 'We need to teach blacks that they can work.' I think Romney said something similar.

What "free stuff" do you think Jeb was alluding to?

You know, stuff. Certainly not food, housing assistance, or heating assistance. Because you'd have to be an asshole to complain about that sort of "free stuff".

 

[laughing dog]

Are you sure about that? Last time I looked that was not true.

Where have you been looking? Let's take a brief look at food stamps for starters:

Let's look at data like

 

[laughing dog]

My understanding of the data on income support programs is that white people typically represent the largest share of recipients in any program in any year. In other words, more white people get "free stuff" than black people do. If anyone is being bought by "free stuff" it is white people.

 

[Derec]

And this is a privilege to you?

No, and I think a big reason why the discrepancy exists today is not racism but the attitudes as can be seen in that video I posted.

 

[Ford]

And this is a privilege to you?

No, and I think a big reason why the discrepancy exists today is not racism but the attitudes as can be seen in that video I posted.

The video is not exactly helping your whole "I'm not a racist" thing.

 

[Derec]

Let's look at data like

There's your problem, trusting stuff from HuffPo. The way they have presented the data (not taking population numbers into account) is either a sign whoever did it knows nothing of statistics or has deliberately chosen to mislead.

My understanding of the data on income support programs is that white people typically represent the largest share of recipients in any program in any year. In other words, more white people get "free stuff" than black people do. If anyone is being bought by "free stuff" it is white people.

There are also more white people. If non-hispanic whites constitute 40% of SNAP recipients but 62% of the population that means that they are heavily underrepresented among SNAP recipients.
If blacks constitute 26% of SNAP recipients but 13% of the population, they are heavily over-represented among SNAP recipients (actually by a factor of 2).
You can't just compare raw numbers without taking into account population sizes. Otherwise you'd conclude that US is twice as dangerous as Honduras because US had 14k murders in 2012 while Honduras had "only" 7k. Of course, US has a much bigger population (320 million vs. 8 million) which means that Honduras is actually almost 20 times as dangerous with a murder rate of 90 per 100,000 vs. 4.7 per 100,000.

But to paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damned lies and statistics published by Huffington Post.

- - - Updated - - -

The video is not exactly helping your whole "I'm not a racist" thing.

Why not? I am not saying blacks in general are like that, nor that this attitude is intrinsic to the race. But unfortunately this attitude exists and it is being enabled by racist "identity politics".

 

[Ford]

Why not? I am not saying blacks in general are like that, nor that this attitude is intrinsic to the race. But unfortunately this attitude exists and it is being enabled by racist "identity politics".

If you're not trying to say these things, then don't link to a video that makes the case that all the blacks are just waiting for the "Obama bucks."

The video is titled "Liberal Parasites Want Obama Bucks" and it features all black people.

Give me a break, Derec. If you're gonna post racist bullshit, at least try to be honest about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My understanding of the data on income support programs is that white people typically represent the largest share of recipients in any program in any year. In other words, more white people get "free stuff" than black people do. If anyone is being bought by "free stuff" it is white people.

If you are black, you have a higher percentage "chance" of having been on SNAP. If you were in SNAP, you have the highest percentage "chance" of being white. *head explodes*

 

[laughing dog]

There's your problem, trusting stuff from HuffPo.

The data is from the dept of agriculture.

The way they have presented the data (not taking population numbers into account) is either a sign whoever did it knows nothing of statistics or has deliberately chosen to mislead.

No. If one is making claims about giving a "free stuff" to influence people, the relevant view is the number of people who receive it.

There are also more white people. If non-hispanic whites constitute 40% of SNAP recipients but 62% of the population that means that they are heavily underrepresented among SNAP recipients.
If blacks constitute 26% of SNAP recipients but 13% of the population, they are heavily over-represented among SNAP recipients (actually by a factor of 2).
You can't just compare raw numbers without taking into account population sizes. Otherwise you'd conclude that US is twice as dangerous as Honduras because US had 14k murders in 2012 while Honduras had "only" 7k. Of course, US has a much bigger population (320 million vs. 8 million) which means that Honduras is actually almost 20 times as dangerous with a murder rate of 90 per 100,000 vs. 4.7 per 100,000.

This is simply pseudo statistical babble. Again, if one is making claims about buying votes, it is the number of voters who are potentially being bought that matters.

 

[fromderinside]

There's your problem, trusting stuff from HuffPo. The way they have presented the data (not taking population numbers into account) is either a sign whoever did it knows nothing of statistics or has deliberately chosen to mislead.

First the Huffington post takes their numbers from "Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013" http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf

Where do you get your numbers? Oh, they were taken by finding the proportion the SNAP race number was of the total race number in the population. How does that account for racial income differences? It doesn't? Really!

So you take your baked numbers.

But, you imply not taking into account income status within race is good. Then you imply not taking into account proportion of a given population is bad?

What are the numbers normalized by income? I glanced at Census bureau income stats and found these numbers for whites and blacks

Whites 98 million households, median income 52000 dollars, 6.2% over 200000 dollars income.
Blacks 16 million households, median income 34000 dollars, 2.1% over 200000 dollars income.

Don't you think the disparity between these numbers weighs on both the percentage of blacks and whites eligible differently?

I suggest when you read your charts you divide the black number by a little more than two to get normalized income/race outcomes. Oh gee. Doing that wipes out the percentage differential between whites and blacks in your charts.

Bad for you sir.

Good for truthfulness for the purposes of this discussion though.

 

[Axulus]

The cynic in me says that is why we have the programs with have with regards to the poor. So that people will hate poor people and ignore poverty.

I thought the Democrats were open and proud about wanting to give people free stuff.

But why single out blacks when the qualifications for the free stuff has nothing to do with skin color? That's the racist part, implying they get free stuff _because_ they are black. Even more so when said in front of a nearly all white crowd. It's playing off of ignorance, stereotypes and perpetuates myths.

 

[Axulus]

Republicians give white people free stuff: mortgage int deduction, charitable deduction, retirement plan contribution deduction, corporate welfare.

 

[Derec]

The data is from the dept of agriculture.

Since I voiced no objection to the raw data I do not see why you posted this.
My problem is the dishonest or incompetent way the data was presented to make a misleading political point about whites and food stamps.

No. If one is making claims about giving a "free stuff" to influence people, the relevant view is the number of people who receive it.

Go to Honduras. It's twice as safe as US.

This is simply pseudo statistical babble. Again, if one is making claims about buying votes, it is the number of voters who are potentially being bought that matters.

Again: go to Honduras.

 

[Derec]

First the Huffington post takes their numbers from "Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013"

So? It's what they do with those numbers that's the problem.

Where do you get your numbers? Oh, they were taken by finding the proportion the SNAP race number was of the total race number in the population.

That's the proper way to do these kinds of comparisons because you normalize for population sizes. The numbers in HuffPo's graphic are, on the other hand, meaningless and (I think deliberately) misleading.

How does that account for racial income differences? It doesn't? Really!

So what? It's still the case that blacks, rather than whites, are more likely to be on SNAP regardless of what HuffPo dishonestly tried to portray.

So you take your baked numbers.

You mean HuffPo's baked numbers?

But, you imply not taking into account income status within race is good.

Actually, I didn't say anything about income levels. However, since food stamp eligibility is income based, I wonder what revelations you expect from normalizing for income.

Then you imply not taking into account proportion of a given population is bad?

Yes.

Whites 98 million households, median income 52000 dollars, 6.2% over 200000 dollars income.
Blacks 16 million households, median income 34000 dollars, 2.1% over 200000 dollars income.

Yeah, whites have, on average, more income than blacks.

Don't you think the disparity between these numbers weighs on both the percentage of blacks and whites eligible differently?

Sure. That still doesn't change the fact that blacks, and not whites, are more likely to be on food stamps.

I suggest when you read your charts you divide the black number by a little more than two to get normalized income/race outcomes. Oh gee. Doing that wipes out the percentage differential between whites and blacks in your charts.

I never claimed it wouldn't.

Bad for you sir.

I do not see how.

Good for truthfulness for the purposes of this discussion though.

Nope. Good for obfuscation of HuffPo's misleading graphic.

 

[laughing dog]

Since I voiced no objection to the raw data I do not see why you posted this.
My problem is the dishonest or incompetent way the data was presented to make a misleading political point about whites and food stamps.

What misleading political point? More whites receive food stamps than blacks ,which means more whites are being offered "free stuff" than blacks. That is basic logic. Your "point" (assuming there was one) is that black are more reliant as a group on food stamps than whites.

It was clear that Jeb Bush was engaging in dog whistle politics and it clear that his intended audience is people who feel like you. No need for you to be embarrassed or defensive.

 

[fromderinside]

Since I voiced no objection to the raw data I do not see why you posted this.
My problem is the dishonest or incompetent way the data was presented to make a misleading political point about whites and food stamps.

What misleading political point? More whites receive food stamps than blacks ,which means more whites are being offered "free stuff" than blacks. That is basic logic. Your "point" (assuming there was one) is that black are more reliant as a group on food stamps than whites.

It was clear that Jeb Bush was engaging in dog whistle politics and it clear that his intended audience is people who feel like you. No need for you to be embarrassed or defensive.

Let me add, since Derec insists on being income blind, that twice the proportion of blacks to whites are eligible for SNAP just because of racial difference in income profile. If we correct for this inequality, adjust black incomes to match white incomes by category, the proportion of blacks and whites would be the same.

Derec and his deity Jeb! have no leg to stand on. Their stool isn't a stool it's a racial hole.

 

[untermensche]

One can taste the desperation in the Bush camp.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So? It's what they do with those numbers that's the problem.

Where do you get your numbers? Oh, they were taken by finding the proportion the SNAP race number was of the total race number in the population.

That's the proper way to do these kinds of comparisons because you normalize for population sizes. The numbers in HuffPo's graphic are, on the other hand, meaningless and (I think deliberately) misleading.

Not really. How they report the numbers is entirely reasonable and not baked.

How does that account for racial income differences? It doesn't? Really!

So what? It's still the case that blacks, rather than whites, are more likely to be on SNAP regardless of what HuffPo dishonestly tried to portray.

The United States pays more in aggregate to white people for SNAP than any other race. That is a statistical fact. While the percentage of people who are blacks who have at one time been on SNAP is higher than the white component, the aggregate numbers matter a lot as the impact on the economy more notable for the support of whites because they are a higher percentage of total SNAP recipients. More importantly, because there are more whites getting SNAP, that means they are getting more free stuff and are, in general, fodder for electoral manipulation.

So you take your baked numbers.

You mean HuffPo's baked numbers?

Aggregate is not baked!

But, you imply not taking into account income status within race is good.

Actually, I didn't say anything about income levels. However, since food stamp eligibility is income based, I wonder what revelations you expect from normalizing for income.

Oddly enough, if you take income into perspective, we learn that more worthless jobs are filled by white people than lazy blacks. Why aren't we accosting whites who are in dead end jobs and using up the SNAP resources?

Good for truthfulness for the purposes of this discussion though.

Nope. Good for obfuscation of HuffPo's misleading graphic.

You need to learn about what misleading actually implies.

 

[dismal]

I thought the Democrats were open and proud about wanting to give people free stuff.

But why single out blacks when the qualifications for the free stuff has nothing to do with skin color? That's the racist part, implying they get free stuff _because_ they are black. Even more so when said in front of a nearly all white crowd. It's playing off of ignorance, stereotypes and perpetuates myths.

I don't know that it was Bush who singled out blacks. If someone asks him "What can we do to make inroads with the black vote?" then he is responding to a question about blacks. The article does not have the whole transcript but it leaves the impression this is the sort of exchange that happened.