home

Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expectancy

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:15:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

When I first read the news reporting this, I thought it was dumb satire. Turns out, Bush really said it:

Mr. Bush also encouraged the leaders to support his plan to add personal investment accounts to Social Security, which White House officials say could benefit blacks because they have a shorter average life span than whites and end up putting more money into the retirement system than they take out.

African-American men "have had a shorter life span than other sectors of America," Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told reporters. "And this will enable them to build a nest egg of their own and be able to pass that nest egg on to their survivors."

Jesse at Pandagon has now started the Black People Gonna Die Watch, to be known as "BPGDW."

The BPGD Watch is a new feature of Pandagon, featuring the best of Bush administration nonchalantness about the shorter life expectancies of black Americans, particularly black men. In addition to Bush's skillful huggery and head-rubbery of darker-skinned Americans, he's shown a remarkable propensity to accept the shorter lifespans of African-Americans in much the same way you'd accept that all the copies of Elf are rented out at Blockbuster.

< Lynne Stewart Trial Upset: Mistrial Denied | Canada : New Report on Wrongful Convictions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expectancy | 74 comments (74 topical)
    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:47:39 PM EST
    Soooo, the W states an actuarial truth and this bad? How can the truth be bad? Oh, I forgot where I was. My bad.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:48:51 PM EST
    So Black men are dying to support white women.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#3)
    by michael on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:18:01 PM EST
    Steel Turman, What's ignorant, misleading and therefore "bad" about Bush's statement is that it ignores the fact that the "actuarial truth" is a result of high infant mortality. That is, life expectancy *at birth* is lower for African Americans because of high infant mortality, but life expectancy of African Americans who live long enough to make significant contributions to Social Security is about the sames as that of other Americans. The other reason why the statement was "bad" is that it was a shameless attempt to pander to one group of people and divide Americans against each other for crass political reasons. The main beneficiaies of Bush's privatisation scheme will be wealthy investment bankers and Wall Street brokers, not middle class Americans of any race.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:30:25 AM EST
    Michael: The middle class will not be the main beneficiaries of the privatisation program!! Wake up, son!! To date, I have put in excess of $250,000 into a social security fund that currently has zero dollars in it!! Would I rather have the opportunity to save/invest this on my own versus relying on the government, you bet!! I'd much rather be responsible for investing my own hard earned for my own retirement than looking to the government to take care of me. As for the statement being a "shameless" attempt to pander and divide, give me a break. The whole left wing agenda is driven with that objective in mind!

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#5)
    by bad Jim on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:13:04 AM EST
    On my planet Social Security is still running a surplus and expected to continue to do so for at least another decade. Steps taken twenty years ago are projected to keep it solvent for the next forty or fifty years, assuming the economy doesn't do very well. Those of us living in countries which have privatized our retirement plans have reason to be afraid. Those of us living United States do not. This is a good thing.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:17:36 AM EST
    those of us living in the U.S. Perhaps what's driving this is the fear of growing old. There are worse things, though, like the only alternative.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#7)
    by ras on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:46:09 AM EST
    worse Jim, Yes! We are living longer and healthier lives in the most interesting and (if we are willing) rewarding era in history. And we call this a crisis? Compared to what?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#8)
    by michael on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:14:35 AM EST
    Re: Guy's comment at 1:30, above: Bush's ploy is shameless becuase of its mendacity. To suggest that the interests of African Americans in the SS debate are materially different from the rest of America's because of their life expectancy at birth is just an out-and-out lie. Full stop. And, by the way, the Social Security trust fund is not devoid of assets -- they hold US Treasury bonds, which are reputed to be the safest investment vehicle in the world. (Now, Bush is trying to change that, but so far he has not succeeded!) The only way you could construe the current surplus as a defecit would be to ignore the distinction between the *Federal* balance sheet and the *Social Security* balance sheet. Yes, the *Federal Government* has no net assets, but that is most recently the result of the two-term presidents Bush and Reagan. But, fortunately, those thieves weren't able to get their hands on the SS trust fund. Get used to it.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:33:27 AM EST
    Actually (or is it actuarially?) the truth is that blacks get more out of the system than they put in according to the Social Security Administration (link found on josh marshall's excellent website talkingpointsmemo). Bush's statement is misleading because it is based on faulty information. Kind of reminds me of the steps leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#10)
    by michael on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:49:29 AM EST
    And furthermore (since you raised it), The ostensible motive to invest in a "safer" and by implication more lucrative investment vehicle is only worth considering if you ignore the impact of infusing a huge amount of cash into the market place over a short period of time. What exactly happens when you do that (e.g. throw 10% or 50% of the SS trust fund at the stock market) is an active area of economic research, but it sure isn't long-term stability and growth, at least for an individual investor with a short time horizon. If you were to inject $25,000 per $50,000 of assessed housing value into the real estate market, what would happen to the prices of homes? On average, they would rise sharply for a while, then crash hard. Why should it be any different with the stock market? And, do you want in on the ground floor? Be my guest. No no please, you first... _________________:)_________________

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 04:28:18 AM EST
    Michael writs - "What exactly happens when you do that (e.g. throw 10% or 50% of the SS trust fund at the stock market) is an active area of economic research,..." No one is talking 10% and above, so that's just a strawman. The number that sticks in my mind is 4% or less.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 04:35:47 AM EST
    The actuarial fact that black men have a shorter lifespan is a telling indicator that we have a long way to go to address a lot of public health issues and social injustices in this country. Only someone as clueless as George Bush would use such a fact to happily promote his own shortsighted agenda. He's so dumb I almost want to forgive him...and then I remember that he is running my country into the crapper and I can't. Shame on anyone who defends this idiot.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 05:07:46 AM EST
    Uh, guys, you should always ask a demographer about stuff like this and otherwise keep your trap shut. We live near the Carolina Population Center and, because of my wife's program, sometimes "party" (god help us) with people who spend their life dealing with this stuff. And I have to tell you that what Bush said is exactly the kind of stuff that they've been talking about around me for years. It's not just black men, but Asian men live longer than average and, since they put the max in (usually) they collect more than average. I'm not commenting on the policy, just on the likely accuracy of the statement. The other thing you should consider: how many serious academics from top schools (100% liberal in composition) have come out with a serious argument about this? I haven't read of a one.... -c

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:41:59 AM EST
    Bush's plan is gambling, and though I love a good gamble, I like to know a little about what I'm gambling on. And I trust my local bookie and cardroom more than I trust the gov't or Wall Street. I'd actually be fine with Bush's plan if it were optional. Let each individual pick from these 3 options.. 1) Continuing the current system of paying SS Tax for a fixed return/safety net 2) Bush's plan, let it ride with some broker/fund manager who doesn't give a damn about you 3) None of the above, keep your money and do as you see fit. FWIW, I'd take option 3 in a heartbeat.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:43:17 AM EST
    P.S. Making some broker rich is not on my to do list.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:08:58 AM EST
    The other thing you should consider: how many serious academics from top schools (100% liberal in composition) more RNC talking points, makes as much sense as MSM which spends most of its time kissing Bush's butt so they can keep their access have come out with a serious argument about this? I haven't read of a one Why am I not surprised since you pay no attention to them Try Brad DeLong at Stanford for starters

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#17)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:33:23 AM EST
    I’ve heard this argument from the left with respect to a proposed age increase in initial benefits. The left need to come up with a better response to the republican’s all out domination of US politics. Folks want solutions not just opposition. “more RNC talking points,” Well, I’m all turned around on this one. A lucid and well-rationed answer to cliff’s challenge. Bravo.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:02:32 AM EST
    “Nothing like pitting minorities/women against white guys who think they're getting screwed out of thier money.” I think the idea is to convince the minorities that they are also getting screwed. I don’t see how they are trying to play the two in oppositon.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    The Life expectancy of Black males IS about 5 years shorter than that of the norm. If you doubt that, please Google "life expectancy" and view the results. While I concur that there are societal discrepancies that may well contribute to this, I would argue that Bush's point about leaving a "Nest Egg" to their families IS part of a long term solution to helping resolve some of the financial inequalities that do exist. I am amazed at the reflexive and immediate discounting of anything the President says by the left. I think you all need a bit more reflective than simply Hating Bush.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:07:09 AM EST
    The Dems are static on this issue. Dems aren't offering anything other than opposition. Just answer this question: Both my parents died before they were elgible to receive SS. I grew up with my parents wondering how to pay the power bill. We could have used that money to live on, or at least help pay for college. Sure, they were paying for others benefits, but a good percentage of those beneficiaries were 'better off' than we were financially. Is this fair???

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    I don't know the protocol of posting quotes from other blogs, but there were a couple of very relevant comments on BPGDW that are much better written than I could hope to do. The first by, I think, Lewis Carroll (I'm assuming, not the author) as follows: "Everyone is better off with private accounts, because the expected returns are higher." This is a huge fallacy, for a couple of reasons. First, the AVERAGE returns of private accounts MIGHT be higher, but the variability of returns MUST be greater, meaning some will get much higher returns, some much lower. Given the Investment Institute of America's study showing the average return in a mutual fund account is below 4%, I doubt seriously the typical SS beneficiary would do much better than in traditional SS, and would be assuming a lot more risk. The real impetus SS should give to retirement savings is that the certainty that it will be there should give potential savers the confidence to take more risk with their other assets. In that regard, sanctioning a "Social Security Plus" type of supplemental account would probably be a good idea. Second, when privatization advocates use the assumed real rate of return of six or seven percent in the stock market, they compound it all the way to retirement age. NOBODY, NOBODY who knows what they're doing handles their retirement funds this way; the informed retirement saver begins to gradually consolidate his or her gains in the five or ten years prior to retirement by shifting systematically to bonds (and some cash or equivalents), particularly short term bonds that don't fluctuate much, but also pay lower yields. Add this in to the equation and your holding period return declines significantly. Moreover, one of the strongest virtues of SS is that it is an annuity indexed to inflation. Try buying such a thing in the commercial annuity market. The "value" of your private account just went down by a hell of a lot. And as far as the "passing your SS account to your heirs" meme, forget it if you purchase an annuity, which is extinguished when the annuitant dies (unless you choose the lower payout of a joint and survivor option, which again lowers your overall account "return"). In order to pass on your account to your heirs, you'd need to treat the account the way retirees typically treat their assets: by living solely on the earnings. That means, especially in an interest rate environment like we've seen the past few years, that you're living on cat food if you attempt to preserve your principal.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    Gender may have overtaken race as a primary indication of life expectancy (non-white females outlive white males) but there is still a difference

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#25)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:47:14 AM EST
    Guy wrote: To date, I have put in excess of $250,000 into a social security fund Then take a load off your feet and set a spell, old-timer. By my reckoning, you must be closing in on your 85th birthday!! A worker who has been paying the maximum into social security since its inception in 1937 would have paid about $190,000 into the system by the end of 2004. Thanks for the extra $60K, Guy! Also, if that worker starting paying into the system at a very young age, say 14, he'd be 81 years old today. Your point is well-taken, Guy. But your $250,000 claim isn't possible.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#26)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    And yes, the $190,000 includes the employer's share of the tax.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    Very interesting statistics mfox, and very telling as to the state of health care for the poor. Blacks don't die sooner because they're black, but because more of them are poor. Sadly, in many ways, we are regressing.
    The nation's infant mortality rate ranks 25th globally, meaning that 24 countries have a better rate of infant survival in the first year of life. Furthermore, within the U.S., the mortality rate among black children is nearly two and a half times greater than for white children.


    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    Much of the higher infant mortality rate for blacks is directly related to the lack of prenatal care in the poor population. One of my former bosses was an MD and she started a van outreach program that went into the poor neighborhoods did initial screenings for free and attempted to hook the women up with some clinics. Without the van many of these women may not have had any prenatal care. The state of health care for the poor is a disgrace.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    We live near the Carolina Population Center and, because of my wife's program, sometimes "party" (god help us) with people who spend their life dealing with this stuff. And I have to tell you that what Bush said is exactly the kind of stuff that they've been talking about around me for years.
    I geuss this tells us a little about the company you keep. See mfox's post above for a %100 liberal answer to your demographic stats. Now, who should keep thier trap shut?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    This thread is so confusing - and most of the posters are fairly intelligent - I'm definitely going to have to do some independent research. However it seems like the opinion holders above fall into several categories: 1. Those who think that worker's investment in America should be rewarded once they aren't able to work by a gov't. guaranteed subsidy that provides an inflation-adjusted income sufficiently above the poverty-level to make old age a moderately decent proposition. The idea here is not that you are subsidized from your own "savings", but that the infrastructure you contributed to supports you. 2. Those that think the workers investment in America ends at the wage they earn and that there is no "constitutional" guarantee of income for non-workers. These folks, I believe, want their Social Security taxes returned to them and feel "they could do better" on their own than the government could do for them. The truth seems to me to be that Social Security currently operates on the first premise and George Bush currently operates on the second. Do people who espouse the first viewpoint think that George Bush is fixing the "broken" system to ensure retirement benefits for all workers? Not in my opinion. However, people who support the second viewpoint are all for "fixing the broken system" of government entitlement in general. Bush's arguments probably make sense to them as he seems to share their values. Bush's problem is that he is disingenuous about the debate, which should be about the two above viewpoints, if about anything. To throw up a smokescreen by pitching the plan to minority status, lower SES workers with shorter life spans (arguably the group that needs guaranteed retirment income the most), he avoids coming out and saying what you "get the gov't. out of my pocketbook" commenters have said above, which is to flatly state and argue the second point. Your bank account is Federally guaranteed (for good reason, it turns out). Why shouldn't your retirment pension be?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    “Sadly, in many ways, we are regressing.” Before you all trot out the infant mortality rate to denigrate the US and our ‘dismal’ social services please see: EM Howell and B Blondel International infant mortality rates: bias from reporting differences Am J Public Health 1994 84: 850-852

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    Social Security is an insurance program not a pension plan. Its goal has been to guarantee some minimal level of benefits. Its misleading to talk about it in the same way you would talk about a 401k or annunity for example. Its purpose is that even if your company pension went belly up or the stack market crashed then you would still have some money to live on.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    Before you all trot out the infant mortality rate to denigrate the US and our ‘dismal’ social services This has good points but only applies if your concern is precisely where our ranking in the world is. It's probably higher that the rankings suggest. However, that infant mortality among blacks is 2.5x whites speaks directly to the disparity in medical care across socio-economic levels.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    Thank you for clarifying, Soccerdad. I didn't make that point or distinction. So, to be clear, is the debate about changing Social Security from an insurance plan to a savings investment plan? Would you compare it to my boss telling me that we wouldn't be getting health insurance anymore but he would instead put my contribution into insurance into a savings account for me instead?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    We are regressing in that every year more people are without medical coverage.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    “Social Security is an insurance program not a pension plan.” This seems like a strange way to describe it. I get SS benefits even if nothing bad happens. Insurance is to payout in case of some speculated event. If SS only paid out for those with crashed retirement funds it would seem more appropriate. Imagine how much cheaper SS would be if it were only a safety net instead of a force retirement savings scheme.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    My view is that the Bush plan is to ultimately change the SS program from an insurance to an investment plan. This would tie your retirement benefits directly to the stock market, the honesty of your broker, etc. If the market crashed you would have nothing. The current proposal is a partial step in that direction. England has had a program much like Bush wants and it has failed and is in the process of being changed to one more like ours. The experience in Chile of a Bush type plan has also not been good. The fact that Bush has proposed, in response to wall street complaints, to have the government handle all private accounts under $5k and let wall street skim the most desirable accounts shows that this is more about wall street profits than it is about your retirement.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    This seems like a strange way to describe it.
    Maybe so, but look at its history. Its goal is not to maintain a life style or a rate of return, or to pay a set proportion of what you paid in. Saving for retirement is a lifetime process, all SS does is remove some level of uncertainty.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    The solution is to let the individual choose. Those of us that are willing to assume responsibility for our actions can choose to invest for our retirement on our own (suffering the consequences if we screw up)while the rest of you can have big brother take on the responsibility for you. While were talking about choice, I have always thought that it would be a great idea to let the individual choose their own tax bracket. The benefit here is that it would allow you libs who are big on redistributing wealth to put your money where your mouth is while letting us who aren't so inclined to give up our hard earned pay the alternative option. Any takers?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    “We are regressing in that every year more people are without medical coverage.” This was a big centerpiece of the Kerry campaign. I did a little looking and found that indeed the amount of uninsured folks was increasing, increasing proportional to the population increase. The rate of uninsured folks has been very nearly constant for a number of years. Look here. These last couple of years have been unexceptional.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#42)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    "would allow you libs who are big on redistributing wealth to put your money where your mouth is while letting us who aren't so inclined to give up our hard earned pay the alternative option. Any takers?" That depends, Guy. Will those who choose "the alternative" agree to give up the benefit of government services they don't pay for? Will they take state highways instead of federal highways or interstates? Will they live in communities that aren't protected by our military? Will they have no enforcement of federal weapons laws? Health and safety laws? Will they live in areas where industries are allowed to pollute the environment and never be required to clean up their own mess? Will they all forego federal disability benefits? Retirement benefits? Will they leave the decisions on who gets to vote up to local officials only? If so, I might be willing to go along with your proposal. But please let me know before it happens. If any of that's going to happen where I live, I need time to pack my stuff and clear out.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    Social Security is an insurance program not a pension plan. Its goal has been to guarantee some minimal level of benefits. Its misleading to talk about it in the same way you would talk about a 401k or annunity for example. Its purpose is that even if your company pension went belly up or the stack market crashed then you would still have some money to live on.
    Yes, this is right on. It is called Social Security Insurance, afterall. As far as Piggle's question, what it is insuring against is either a long life or a career ending illness or injury (disability). Technically, SS is just a transfer paymnet from the working population to the nonworking population. The trust fund was set up in anticipation of the babyboomers and because people were living longer lives. But, in theory, all it does is take money out of working people's paycheck and transfer it to individuals who are not working because they are retired or have some disability. THe administraion costs are very low. Calculating a rate of return is dificult, because it should only grow as fast as the economy grows, provided demographic trends remain relatively stable (even when they are unstable, ie. babyboomers, we usually have many years to anticipate these events such as the trustfund). The only reason to privatize Social security would be if we desired to raise the National Savings rate --in order to increase investment (to encourage long-term growth in the economy). However, if the gov't needs to borrow in order to increase private savings this defeats the purpose of the privatized accounts. There are many other more practical ways to increase the National Savings rate. Conservatives argue the individual soveriegnty and unnecessary public safety net angle. This is just getting rid of SS just for the principle of it. Maybe they are right (I don't know), but now that SS is running, it is going to be awfully expensive to dismantle it. Then there is the whole crisis thing being played up, which the "academics" and the "%100 liberals" insist on debunking by just doing the math alongside our beloved and intelligent leader. Lets look at what is really going on here. In 2000, 7 out of the top 10 contributers to Bush's campaign were energy companies. What did they want? An energy bill, leniency in the investigation of the california enrgy price fixing scandal, more opportunities to drill and explore on public lands, increased presence in the middle East oil fields, coup' in venezuala, etc. Well, they got most of what they asked for. Their political capital was well-spent. In 2004, 7 of the top ten contributers to Bush's campaign were financial investment companies. Bush said he intends to spend some political capital. What he is doing is just paying his political debt. The financial investment companies want a piece of social security as payment for this debt. A successful (as in rich) friend of mine once advised me that the secret to making a large amount of cash is to locate where money is changing hands and figure out how to get a piece of that transaction. He's a divorce lawyer with a PhD in Economics who also runs a business evaluating economic assets--thus determing the value of households involved in divorce proceedings. Lots of money changes hands in divorces. What am I getting at? The two largest pots of money where transactions are made in the US are the military defense budget and social security. Private companies have always made huge amounts of money off of military transactions. Nobody has ever made any money off of social security transactions. This is the payoff the financial companies want from Bush. Call it capitalism if you wish, but it isn't free markets capitalism and the corporate officers in these finacial companies are not entreprenuers. They are thieves and bloodsuckers bleeding our economy dry by taking real opportunity away from true entreprenuers. Entreprenuers don't look at how they can exploit the system by stealing money where money changes hands. Entreprenuers look for better and more efficient ways to produce products or offer services.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#44)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    Pretty good stuff, Peaches. A minor quibble, tho: You wrote, "The trust fund was set up in anticipation of the babyboomers and because people were living longer lives." The payroll tax rate was increased in anticipation of the retirement of baby boomers. That increased the surplus of payroll taxes collected over benefits paid, and that increased additions to the trust fund. However, the trust fund was not "created" or "set up" specifically for this purpose. The way SS handles surplus revenues has not changed since its inception 70 years ago.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#45)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    "The rich stay healthy While the sick stay poor." U2

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    Posted by Peaches at January 27, 2005 12:44 PM good thoughts! this is why i never get to comment much, some of you guys/gals are just so much damn smarter than me. it's that public school curse!

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    When SS was created, life expectancy was at 59.1 years, it is now at 77.1 years, seems to me that a raise in the retirement age or a shift in benefits needs to be in order.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    pig, the rate is constant - so what. Like that matters to the people without health insurance like my 23year old daughter. Shes working, company doesn't supply health benefits so I have to pay for her meds. She been looking for a better job for over a year, like most of her friends. I would like to see a link to the data if you have it.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    SD, No, the rate is not constant. THe link Pig provided shows a definite trend upward. 12.9 % in 1987 to 15.6 % in 2003. We probably need to go back furhter to see this trend more clearly.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#50)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    Jlivingston wrote: "When SS was created, life expectancy was at 59.1 years, it is now at 77.1 years," That's life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy for people who reach the age of 65 has increased only about 4 years since 1940. The government is already in the process of raising the retirement age by 2 years. On the other hand, a larger percentage of people who reach adulthood are also living long enough to reach age 65. That percentage is up by about 20 points for both men and women.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    Q in the B, Thanks for the correction. I geuss I should have said the SS surplus was increased through higher payroll taxes in anticipation of the babyboomers creating a much larger Trustfund.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 05:51:42 PM EST
    “I would like to see a link to the data if you have it.” It was in my original post; you can get it from the census b. ; the data is from the 80’s to current. My brother is also without health insurance, and thinking about having a baby. It absolutely drives me nuts. We all can’t have the best healthcare, so it must be rationed in some way. Here we ration it by ability to pay (kind of, no one is ever turned away); elsewhere they ration it by wait and by providing mediocre care. Look, we are never going to agree here. I do not think it is just to use the full force and violence of the feds to take my money for another’s healthcare. I’m not against philanthropy and compassion; but hey, forced contribution is hardly either. Another big problem I have with the community line is the disparity in the world. Why are Americans so high on your list for free healthcare?

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#53)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    “No, the rate is not constant.” More or less; within the set there is so little deviation you cannot say there is any statistically significant change. If you think there is a trend we certainly need more data. If anyone cares I can rigorously show that there is little difference, otherwise I won’t waste my time.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:03:03 PM EST
    Piggle, Are you blind. The rate increase every year from 1987 to 1998 (its highest point). It drops down in 1999 and 2000 and then begins rising again. It will be higher in 2004 and higher in 2005 if this trend continues. Don't be a fool!!!

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    Piggle, Go ahead, Waste your time. Your rigorous test cannot hide the fact that there is an inccreasing trend. I can't help it. You pompous fool! There I feel better.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#56)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:21:22 PM EST
    “Are you blind.” I just analyzed the data; only the first three data points fall outside a single standard deviation. It would be irresponsible to call this a trend. If I calculated the slope of a best-fit line within the margin of error it I could just as reliably claim it was negative as positive.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:28:56 PM EST
    You are a fool. You're test is faulty. It has steadily risen since 1987 except for an anomoly in 199 and 2000. You don't need a standard diviation test to see this. Just chart it on a graph. Talk about lame academics. Granted, to really see the trend we need to know the rates during the 1980s and 1970's. I would be willing to be these rates have been steadily increasing since the late 1970's.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#58)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:44:20 PM EST
    “You're test is faulty” You’re faulty. “Just chart it on a graph. Talk about lame academics.” I did, along with the measure of uncertainty. You clearly have little understanding of statistical rigor. That’s ok, not everyone is a mathematician. Trust me, there isn’t enough data to say with any confidence there’s a trend.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    Piggly, BS, I have done economics my whole life. I understand econometrics, and statistics. I havew had extensive training in Math, stats and econ. Thi is a limited data set. I know how you arrived at your results and your test is faulty. Plot the graph. A trend is there. If we knew 1980-87 or 2004 and 2005, all points would fall within the margin of error. 1999 and 2000 are the only data points that throw this set of data off. Rigor is short for rigormortis. You have to use your head also.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#60)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:35:43 PM EST
    Soc. Individual health insurance policies are available in all states. In the case of an individual with a pre-existing condition--which appears to describe your daughter--the law provides that each state have a last-chance policy available. I believe that's HIPAA. Now, of course, the policyowner and or family of the policyowner (and not the taxpayers) will actually have to pay for it, which is the major problem with it, for liberals.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#61)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    Ten or so years ago, Nicholas Eberstedt, a demographer then of Harvard, looked over the data on neonatal death rates. The single biggest factor was illegitimacy. If illegitimacy were a disease, it would be the most dangerous faced by newborns. This turned out to be true in Europe, as well, with their different approaches to health care. He even found a study in which prenatal self-care was considerably less present among highly-educated women pregnant out of wedlock than among high-school dropouts pregnant while married. If we consider only education, this is backwards from what we would expect. The self-care was smoking or not smoking. In addition, black women have more low birthweight babies, even when in the middle class. The reason is unclear. I suggest that there is no reason to consider that nature decrees an equal ratio of low birthweight babies from one race to another. We don't have the same melanin, the same sickling trait, the same propensity to high blood pressure, the same resistance to malaria. There is probably a diffrence in the capillary response to cold, which may be the cause of different rates of cold injuries in the Korean War. It would be a matter of faith that all races should have the same ratio of lowbirthweight babies. Prove that it is not natural before you go about finding somebody to blame for it. In addition, very low birthweight babies born alive in the US but who succumb after a brief struggle are considered born alive and then dying, while in other reporting systems, they are reported as born dead. This raises our infant death rate compared to other reporting systems when it is the same issue being reported.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    Following up Piggles, From your list, take your data points from 1987 to 1999 and run your regression. Then run a regression on the data from 1999 to 2003. You cannot find a best fit line for either one to fit within the margin of error that is negative. The problem is you are fitting a line from 1987 to 2003 and 1999 and 2000 throw off the line. Why? Read the footnotes. the data in 1999 was adjusted using the 2000 census data. This is why there is two entrys for 1999. You cannot use one line to describe this set of data. You have to use two. And both lines show incresing trends. 1987-1999 % uninsured in the US. 1987: 12.9% 1988: 13.4% +0.5%change 1989: 13.6% +0.2%Change 1990: 13.9% +0.3%change 1991: 14.1% +0.2%change 1992: 15.0% +0.9%change 1993: 15.3% +0.3%change 1994: 15.2% -0.1%change 1995: 15.4% +0.2%change 1996: 15.6% +0.2%change 1997: 16.1% +0.5%change 1998: 16.3% +0.2%change 1999: 15.5% -0.8%change 1999-2000 % uninsured in US (based on 200 census) 1999: 14.5% 2000: 14.2% -0.3%change 2001: 14.6% +0.4%change 2002: 15.2% +0.6%change 2003: 15.6% +0.4%change 2004: 15.8% +0.2%change* 2005: 16.1% +0.3%change* *projected from the weighted averages of %changes from 1987-2003 Put that in your pipe and smoke it statman.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 10:03:02 PM EST
    Hey Quaker In A Basement...I have no problem paying for what you identified. It is the wasteful spending on "redistribution of wealth" initiatives like welfare that is the issue. When I discuss these initiatives with the libs, they are big proponents. Of course, when the discussion turns to providing them (the libs) with the option of contributing more given our differing beliefs, their commitment to the cause weakens.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#64)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:16:26 AM EST
    Peaches- “You cannot use one line to describe this set of data. You have to use two. And both lines show incresing trends.” Assuming a linear trend is valid if we are only concerned with an overall increase or decrease, with the single caveat that the data is representative. If, as you say, two straight lines of positive slope fit the data their average slope will also be positive. The assumption of linearity places a hard lower (upper) bound on an increasing (decreasing) trend. In any event, using the data provided I have found the slope to be zero within what is a commonly accepted rigorous confidence. Additionally, I excluded either and both points you said were questionable even going so far as to include only the favorable one; no significant change. The problem is the sample size is too small and the degrees of freedom swamp the denominator of all the equations. Although, when I exclude both suspect points and include only the most favorable one the slope is almost identical to the deviation of the slope. “Thi is a limited data set. … Granted, to really see the trend we need to know the rates during the 1980s and 1970's. …Plot the graph. A trend is there.” I agree this set is too small to say anything conclusive. I brought it up in reference to senator Kerry’s campaign rhetoric of a gathering crisis of the uninsured. What I find surprising is that you are (and apparently he is also) willing to identify a trend from just a glance; temper your bias. “Rigor is short for rigormortis. You have to use your head also … Talk about lame academics.” If you read my post you may notice I’m not keen with this kind of thing; you also may notice I never mock another’s poor grammar and spelling. Perhaps you could extend my example to your criticism of other’s analytical skills. Speaking of academics, if I were to submit a manuscript in which I claimed a trend and further justified it in the manner you have, it would be dismissed out of hand. Claiming trends in raw data isn’t like picking shapes out of clouds.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:48:17 AM EST
    Piggles, I apologize for being a little short last night. Sometimes, it is frustrating. Lets look at the facts. You gave a link suggesting you had done some research which showed that rates were not increasing for uninsured Americans. I conclusively showed that they are. Let me give you some advice. When looking at data sets, the first thing you do is look for trends. Then you look at the anomalies. The anomailies are usually the most interesting data points, so you have to do some investigating to explain them before throwing them out. The last thing you do is rigorly test it. Otherwise you will use a test that verifies your preconcieved bias. What you did was not only sloppy and irresponsible it was dishonest. First, You ran a line and used both data points for 1999 and created an imaginary year hoping noone would verify your result. Then you were perfectly willing to throw out 1987, 1988, and 1989. because they fell outside of margin of error for your decreasing slope. In the real world, that will get you you fired or demoted unless you work for the Bush administration. Now, you try and cover up your mistakes with as much statistical jargon as you can hoping to confuse everyone. Well, I put the data points up there, for everyone to see. 12 out of 15 years the % of uninsured in America went up. It has risen from 12.9 % in 1987 to 15.6% in 2003. And you still insist that there is no trend that suggests rates for the uninsured are increasing. And this is also with the knowledge that rates were likely increased throughout the 1980's. Cmon, be a man. You @#%$ed up. admit it.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:22:47 AM EST
    Peaches - I took a look at the results, and given that they are the results of a very inaccurate survey, can only conclude that the percentage of people without health insurance is remaining about the same. Which, BTW, I think is too high. Everyone should have health coverage. And arguing over details like this merely gets it in the way. And politicians trying to use them as points turn off reasonable people. Why doesn't some politician say: I propose a health insurance program for all our citizens for all health care and drug costs. It will cost, but not doing so is costing more. Much more. We should enact an X% tax on all income to pay for it. If you currently have insurance paid for by your employer, the employer may reduce his payment to you, or in your behalf, to an amount equal to, or the same as, the tax that you will now pay, so you will not lose that benefit until you retire or change employers. If you are retired and on medicare, your tax will be reduced to an amount equal to your new tax less your existing medicare payment. This will not apply to new retirees. There will be no change to health care providers beyond that they will now bill the US Health Care Insurance plan instead of the individuals.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#67)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:37:40 AM EST
    Peaches- “You gave a link suggesting you had done some research which showed that rates were not increasing for uninsured Americans. I conclusively showed that they are.” I said they were more or less constant, in contrast to what senator Kerry was campaigning on. Why should I repeat this when there is a permanent record several posts up? You have not conclusively shown anything. I don’t know what your weighted average of the difference between points show, if anything. “First, You ran a line and used both data points for 1999 and created an imaginary year hoping noone would verify your result.” It is perfectly acceptable to use both points for that given year. But you are correct that I didn’t notice; however, it is unacceptable it to use the one that is weighted toward your preconceived conclusion. “Then you were perfectly willing to throw out 1987, 1988, and 1989.” I used all of these years in every analysis I have done. I simply noted that they were the only points that fell outside a standard deviation. Incidentally, it is noteworthy that the first standard deviation is less than 1%. “Now, you try and cover up your mistakes with as much statistical jargon as you can hoping to confuse everyone.” You let me know you have a thorough background in math, so I am speaking like I would to one of my colleagues. I’m not trying to confuse anyone. “Well, I put the data points up there, for everyone to see. 12 out of 15 years the % of uninsured in America went up. It has risen from 12.9 % in 1987 to 15.6% in 2003. And you still insist that there is no trend that suggests rates for the uninsured are increasing” I took your ‘projected’ points, and additionally used the 1999 datum that is most favorable to your premise of an increasing trend. Rejecting all slopes outside the 95% confidence interval those that remain are between 0.375%/yr and –0.125%/yr. So, yes, I still insist that there is no trend to suggest rates for the uninsured are increasing. “Cmon, be a man. You @#%$ed up. admit it.” I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, and have previously admitted as much here about other matters. I am often wrong; more often than I am right. That is an inevitability when do anything worthwhile. However, I am not wrong about this; you are. I am more than willing to email you my excel files and you can scrutinize my analysis. If you find a mistake I will retract everything I have said.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    piggle, They are two different sets of data. You have 1987 to the first 1999 point.Use that. Then the second data set begins with the next 1999. I did not run them together.(you can't because only one year was reestimated using the 2000 census results according to the link you provided) I used a weighted average for projecting 2004 and 2005. You can quibble with it, I don't care (it doesn't matter--throw it away and we'll check back a year from now.) The main trend (increasing) shows up from 1987 to 1999. 1999-2003 is too small but it supports the results of the first set. Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that the uninsured rates have gone up while union membership has gone down. In which case they have likely been increasing since the late 1970's. The Kerry Campaign was mostly stating a fact when it says this was the case. You dispute it. You have not proved it. The link you provided lends evidence to the Kerry campaign claims. btw, I take lying and misrepresentation much more seriously than grammar and spelling errors. I make my living as a writer and consultant. I write fast and rely on spellcheck and many editors for most of my writing. I apologize for spelling and grammar mistakes, but I am usually confident that my main points are clear. ppj, What the heck are you talking about ol' man.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#69)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    Peaches- OK, I’ve split the data exactly as you suggest. For the first set there are no negative slopes accepted. The second set there are negatives slopes, but you are ~3 times more likely to accept a positive slope than a negative one. However, the potential slopes were absurd due to the limited sample size; if the extreme is to be believed we all may be without health insurance in the next decade (or equally as absurd, we will all eventually be covered). When I include your ‘projected’ points there are no accepted negative slopes. So if this was your point, you have made it. But I would like to add, it is dubious to choose to parse the data at the 2000 control change and not the 1990 control change as well; the years split by the 1990 change (91-92) show a point increase whereas the single year split by the 2000 change shows a point decrease. Favoring the split as you have will biases the data toward a positive slope for the 87-99 years. I did the same analysis splitting at the 1990 change as well; there are accepted negative slopes for all sets, when excluding your two points. I could add your two points, but I am done parsing an 18 (or 20) point data set. It has become silly. “The link you provided lends evidence to the Kerry campaign claims.” I took a quote from senator Kerry’s campaign website. “since Bush took office, the number of uninsured has skyrocketed” Not so; even if I parse the data as you would like and add your two projected points, at most it shows a marginal but consistent positive trend over the last two decades. Splitting the data as you suggest I find no statistically meaningful difference between the trends before GWB and after; certainly nothing that I would describe as ‘skyrocketing’ rates. “I take lying and misrepresentation much more seriously than grammar and spelling errors.” I never meant to suggest or imply you lied. Or are you suggesting I did? Or perhaps you are referring to senator Kerry’s campaign? Anyway, I consider spelling and grammar trivial.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    Posted by pigwiggle at January 28, 2005 09:37 AM If you find a mistake I will retract everything I have said. only if we could press that conviction throughout the blogaspehere, heck why not throughout all our adversarial encounters. thats cowboying up

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    Piggles, Well, now we are back to where you were before you responded to SD. You quote Kerry's Campaign. since Bush took office, the number of uninsured has skyrocketed Then you wrote this to SD This was a big centerpiece of the Kerry campaign. I did a little looking and found that indeed the amount of uninsured folks was increasing, increasing proportional to the population increase. The rate of uninsured folks has been very nearly constant for a number of years. But your data does not support that the rate of uninsured was very nearly constant. It supports that the rate has been increasing. So your challenge to the Kerry Campaign was both disingenuous and wrong. At the very least it was frivolous since you agree with their main contention--that the number of insured has increased (skyrocketed). I was not suggesting that you said I was lying, but rather that you were critical of my spelling and grammer. Yes, I was saying that you were misrepresenting and lying.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#72)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    Peaches- “But your data does not support that the rate of uninsured was very nearly constant. It supports that the rate has been increasing.” No, how many times do I need to repeat this? If you read through the last several posts what my analysis has shown is that we cannot reject a zero slope hypothesis. If I parse the data in exactly the way you suggest then we can reject the zero slope hypothesis for one of the two resulting series. However, to inconsistently divide the data into series advantageous for your claim is wrong. If I consistently parse the data along control changes I cannot reject the zero slope for any of the three resulting series (excluding your additional two points). The error is so large with these three (small) data sets the analysis is meaningless. “At the very least it was frivolous since you agree with their main contention--that the number of insured has increased (skyrocketed).” I think you need to reread my post. What I was saying was that if I cook the data in exactly the manner you suggest I find that the rates of increase are nearly identical within the measure of uncertainty (note for the second set there are still negative accepted slopes, excluding your points). If you want to describe recent trends, whatever they may be, as ‘skyrocketing’ to be consistent you would also need to describe the trends of the 13 years prior to GWB as ‘skyrocketing’ as well. “I was not suggesting that you said I was lying, but rather that you were critical of my spelling and grammer. Yes, I was saying that you were misrepresenting and lying.” Again, read my post carefully; I was trying to include a bit of tact while making this point. Just as I am poor at spelling and consequently chose not to be critical of other’s poor grammar and spelling, someone with your questionable analytical skills would be wise to hold criticisms of another’s. You know, glasshouses and all. I challenge you to pick out anything in my above posts that can be shown to be a lie. More likely you are trying to impugn my character to bolster your weak point. If you would rather insult me than debate the merits of my analysis or the quality of my data I won’t participate.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    Piggly, Sorry but you should really give up on doing stats. All data series I present show that there rate are increasing from year to year. 12 out of 15 years. I don't know the methodology the Census uses, but I would assume that an adjustment will eventually be made for the 2000 census and there won't be two entries for 1999 after that. I would geuss this was done for the 1990 census. Regardless, It cannot be denied that rates havce cnsistently risen since 1987 and as I argued b4, they mostly likely have risen since the late 1970's. As pertains the Kerry Campaign, The rates have increased since Bush has been in office and the number of uninsured has skyrocketed. Simple as that. You are attempteing to use statistics to say black is white by introducing null hypothesis which are not relevant to what the Kerry Campaign was saying. Rates have been increasing. Get out of your statistical theory and look at the numbers. Statistics can say anything we want depending how we divvy up the data. But, as I have been repeating over and over this misses the point that rates have obviously increased as anyone who honestly looks at the numbers can attest. Now stop It. Let go of your pride.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#74)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    “Sorry but you should really give up on doing stats. All data series I present show that there rate are increasing from year to year. 12 out of 15 years.” Can’t, it is a significant portion of my job; which I would quickly loose if I used your cavalier ‘look and see’ method of data analysis. You haven’t presented anything but a table pasted from the census site, with the addition of your two concocted points. “Statistics can say anything we want depending how we divvy up the data.” As you have shown in spades; exactly why I suggest we use the entire set, not just those points that substantiate your view. “I don't know bthe methodology the Census uses, but I would assume that an adjustment will eventually be made for the 2000 census and there won't be two entries for 1999 after that.” Those entries were for an adjusted methodology; it just happens that the last time they did so they didn’t reanalyze the same year. The footnotes are clear. “Get out of your statistical theory and look at the numbers.” Just ‘looking’ at the numbers as you say isn’t good enough. As you should know, if you indeed have the background you claim. I performed a simple regression and compared the zero slope hypotheses in a strict confidence interval. No slight of hand, no tricks. It is entirely reproducible and rigorous; unlike your subjective ‘look and see’ method. Like I said before, showing a trend isn’t as simple as finding shapes in the clouds. Your imagination isn’t proof. “Now stop It. Let go of your pride.” I think you are the one who is letting their pride in the way of the facts. Your logic of ‘look and see’ is simple. I submit the computer you are using repels rabid dog. Just look around, no rabid dogs; I must be right. Bah. OK, I’ll stop; really, this has become ridiculous.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:40:26 PM EST
    Piggle, You don't get it, You need two quarters of a decrease in the economic growth rate to determine whether or not we are in a recession. THe numbers tell you everything. A trend is a trend. And you want to determine with statistical rigor if there is a line which may make the recent trends negative. You will take any data you can to prove your point. But that is not what census data is for. Look, in a few years when you go to the census bureau and look at the data everything will be adjusted to the 2000 census. But it will only go back to 1997. What the census is looking for is changes from year to year. The data the census puts out is not meant for statistical analysis because it changes every ten years. They have to make adjustments. Weighted adjustments can be made, but once you get past two decades long-term analysis gets way to tricky to make an conclusions from rigoprous analysis. BUt you are stuck in your little world of objective theory which gives you nothing about trends which are happening before your very eyes. I feel sorry for you. Numbers tell a story they do not determine truth from false. Poor guy! Read some Bukowski or Dostoevsky or Proust. Get away from stats for awhile. Get a feel for the art of the narrative. That is the best advice I can give you when it comes to trying to sort through data sets.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peaches on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:59:22 AM EST
    Can’t, it is a significant portion of my job; which I would quickly loose if I used your cavalier ‘look and see’ method of data analysis. This explains a lot. What you need to understand is that we are not computing premium rates. It is not that I am cavalier, it is only that I am not trying to do what you are doing. I am looking at the data from the census bureau and I am seeing a trend. You want me to believe that there is as likely possiblity that in 2004, the rate for uninsured is as likely to be what it was in 1987 12.9 as it will be if it continues with the current trends--15.8 base on yoour statistics. But a betting man would rely on statistical rigor to only a limited degree and looks at trends. He is not trying to locate Truth. The numbers just describe what is happening in the world. Those entries were for an adjusted methodology; it just happens that the last time they did so they didn’t reanalyze the same year. The footnotes are clear You missed my point. I did not want to get into a long explanation of the methodology of the census buruea, becasiue I don't know all the details, but I obviously know a little more than you. I was trying to answer your point about splitting up the data at 1990 like I suggest for 2000. 1987-99 is adjusted to the 1990 census. 1999-2003 is adjusted to the 200 census. Like I said before, showing a trend isn’t as simple as finding shapes in the clouds. Your imagination isn’t proof. And this is where you go wrong. I am not looking for proof. I an pointing out a trend. That the rates for the uninsured have been increasing and they are likely to increase in the immediate future. I am not going to say with any certainty, but if someone wanted to lay some odds, a wager might be made.

    Re: Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expect (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peaches on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    Just look around, no rabid dogs; I must be right. Bah. OK, I’ll stop; really, this has become ridiculous. THis conversation may be over. I don't know if you will ever even come back. I admit to being cantankerous and a bit obtuse. Frankly, I have no desire to put my energies toward statistical rigor. I will defer to you as the expert in that field. But that is not because I don't understand mathematics or statistics or proof. I just don't place as much stock in it. I'll admit to having to pull out my old textbooks when you start dropping the statistical jargon. I am not your colleague in this regard. But while doing consulting I often have to pull these textbooks out to refute other's testimonies. Yes this argument bordered on ridiculous, but we were arguing a very important point in my view. We may always argue past each other becuase of your faith in statistics and my disregard for them. THe point you seemed to steer away from was my pointing out that 12 out of 15 years the rate for the uninsured in America increased. It 1987 12.9% were uninsured in 2003 15.6% were. Just humor me, please? Make a geuss for 2004. As far as the Kerry campaign. Again look at the numbers. The rate was 14.2 % in 2000. It has climed to 15.6% in 2003. That is a significant increase and it would be foolish to ignore. Why should the Kerry Campaign not say the number of uninsured have not skyrocketed. Finally, You have not made any contention with my hypopthesis that rates probably increased throughout the 1980's. If so, the decrease in 1999 and 2000 are significant because they happened under democrats and Clintons watch. They demonstrate that dems had a program for increasing the number of insured in America. At least, if I was on the Kerry campoaign that is what I would argue. But, they began rising again in 2001. Anyway, I'll see you in another thread. I'll try and be more cordail. If you bring up statistics as proof and call people irresponsible for pointing out shortterm trends, I may find it hard not to "repel rabid dogs." :-)

    Bush on African-Americans' Shorter Life Expectancy | 74 comments (74 topical)