The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

So let me get this straight.

 

African Americans are overrepresented on welfare rolls in 1992.

 

African Americans are overrepresented on welfare rolls in 2006.

The population of African Americans has increased relative to Caucasians between 1992 and 2006.

 

The population increase has been enough that there are more African Americans on TANF in 2006 than Caucasian.

 

In 2006, Caucasians did not outnumber African Americans on welfare.

 

Therefore, 2k5's statement there are more Caucasians on TANF than African Americans is true.

 

There is the hang up right there. In relative numbers we don't know if there has been a change or not without a correlation between total population numbers at those snapshots.

 

You are so worried about the detail, you missed the forest again.

[StrangeSox]

Hey guys I said 'disproportionately represented' and all of the data seem to back that up!

[Balta1701]

There is the hang up right there. In relative numbers we don't know if there has been a change or not without a correlation between total population numbers at those snapshots.

 

You are so worried about the detail, you missed the forest again.

 

 

Hey guys I said 'disproportionately represented' and all of the data seem to back that up!

I think the forest is pretty much what SS says here.

[StrangeSox]

Well, as i've said before, pot wouldn't be included. And i'm not discounting the fact that it's important to have that safety position exception. I'm just pointing out that we've made exceptions to that constitutional right before, so it's not some right that is never excluded in favor of a societal goal or policy.

 

Yeah but there's not really a good reason here aside from "saving money" which is a dubious claim anyway. And pot would be included in all of these laws and policies, like the one you bemoaned the CHA from dropping.

 

 

Ideally I'd limit the amount of time someone can be in public housing and limit the scope of public aid altogether. But seeing as we've already broken that rule, I gotta work with what exists already. IMO this is a pretty small move that could potentially save billions over the years and more importantly save the lives of people that might get hooked on drugs and ruin their life.

 

How will this save money? You need to test a whole lot of non-users to find the users, and testing isn't free. Studies I've seen show the costs in the range of tens of thousands for every user caught.

 

Ah, there's my favorite SS response. "You're not as smart as I am, are you?" Look, i'm not suggesting that what my friends experience is what happens all over the country. But even if it's 5% of the public housing population, well, that's 5% that could be changed if you give them an ultimatum of homelessness over drugs. Some will still choose homelessness and commit more crime. But even if a small % decide it's not worth it, well, that's potentially a whole life of public aid off the books.

 

Nothing about intelligence there, but you keep rejecting data in favor of anecdotes from police friends in Chicago.

 

Also not sure how not using drugs automatically leads to getting off of public assistance. We're back to your "poor people are lazy drug users" idea.

 

 

 

Ah, so you can NEVER question any study that SS deems 100% accurate, lest you be giving in to your extreme biases. I get it. I'll try to remember that response next time someone provides you a study or report that goes against what you think and you respond by questioning the source or methodology.

 

Nah, but you're just saying "I don't care, I know some police, there's no way this could be true!" You're not raising legitimate concerns wrt the sample or the methodology. Can you address how the methodology is flawed and why your "stories from police friends in Chicago" is a better measure of drug use in areas with a lot of public aid versus areas with low public aid?

 

[Y2HH]

Nothing about intelligence there, but you keep rejecting data in favor of anecdotes from police friends in Chicago.

 

To back him on this, that's because the data you receive is often corrupt or outright falsified, however legally.

 

How?

 

I'm glad you ask!

 

For a good example of how they do this, look at the "murder" rate in Chicago dropping rather precipitously over the last few years. They could do this in two ways:

 

1) The way they're doing it, by legally corrupting the data.

2) The way they're NOT doing it, which is actually lowering the murder rate.

 

If they don't call the death a homicide, it's NOT counted as a murder...even if it was. Legally, they could call it a number of things, which is what they've been doing. Oh, and if you believe they wouldn't do such a thing, I have some oceanfront property to sell you...in Chicago.

[StrangeSox]

Vague objections to murder rate statistics don't apply to the survey I provided in response to Jenks' request for a survey that supported what I said. You need to actually address the methodology of that study and how sample-collecting would be biased towards underreporting welfare drug use or overreporting non-welfare drug use.

 

eta also there's still zero legitimacy for rejecting data based on anecdotes from police buddies who work in the drug unit. Hopefully jenks saw what I was driving at with sampling bias there. His cop buddies work with the druggies, of course it's going to seem like a much higher rate if that's your only perspective.

Edited June 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

To back him on this, that's because the data you receive is often corrupt or outright falsified, however legally.

 

How?

 

I'm glad you ask!

 

For a good example of how they do this, look at the "murder" rate in Chicago dropping rather precipitously over the last few years. They could do this in two ways:

 

1) The way they're doing it, by legally corrupting the data.

2) The way they're NOT doing it, which is actually lowering the murder rate.

 

If they don't call the death a homicide, it's NOT counted as a murder...even if it was. Legally, they could call it a number of things, which is what they've been doing. Oh, and if you believe they wouldn't do such a thing, I have some oceanfront property to sell you...in Chicago.

 

A good example to this is the controversy of racial data being reported of traffic stops in one of the burbs (I can't remember which one, but it was in the Trib a while back) being outright lies.

[NorthSideSox72]

A good example to this is the controversy of racial data being reported of traffic stops in one of the burbs (I can't remember which one, but it was in the Trib a while back) being outright lies.

Very different though. In the case of the racial data, hispanic people were being noted as white during traffic stops. That's a long ways from classifying a homicide as something different, which I highly, highly doubt is happening with any frequency. Think about the dynamics of that - a guy gets shot, what are they going to do, call it natural causes? Suicide? If this were true, suicide rates would be skyrocketing. Its just not believable.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Very different though. In the case of the racial data, hispanic people were being noted as white during traffic stops. That's a long ways from classifying a homicide as something different, which I highly, highly doubt is happening with any frequency. Think about the dynamics of that - a guy gets shot, what are they going to do, call it natural causes? Suicide? If this were true, suicide rates would be skyrocketing. Its just not believable.

 

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. I said drug rates between welfare and non-welfare are statistically equivalent. Jenks said BS, provide source. I did, he rejected in favor of stories from his police friends who work on the drug unit in some of the worst parts of Chicago and refuses to see why that could be a really, really terrible sample set for judging drug use rates, even qualitatively.

 

Talking about massaging murder rates or traffic stop data is irrelevant.

 

[Y2HH]

Very different though. In the case of the racial data, hispanic people were being noted as white during traffic stops. That's a long ways from classifying a homicide as something different, which I highly, highly doubt is happening with any frequency. Think about the dynamics of that - a guy gets shot, what are they going to do, call it natural causes? Suicide? If this were true, suicide rates would be skyrocketing. Its just not believable.

 

Your right, Chicago would never lie about it's statistical crime rates. After all, we are known as the bastion of clean politics.

 

I'd have colored that green, but there isn't a green bright enough.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Your right, Chicago would never lie about it's statistical crime rates. After all, we are known as the bastion of clean politics.

 

I'd have colored that green, but there isn't a green bright enough.

 

How, specifically, are the murder rate statistics being manipulated?

[Y2HH]

How, specifically, are the murder rate statistics being manipulated?

 

Good question, I'll have to ask, because I can't tell you off hand, as I don't remember the terminology.

[southsider2k5]

It is never good when you are down 5% to To Be Named Later. I think that makes you Juan Pierre.

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

[Jenksismyhero]

Vague objections to murder rate statistics don't apply to the survey I provided in response to Jenks' request for a survey that supported what I said. You need to actually address the methodology of that study and how sample-collecting would be biased towards underreporting welfare drug use or overreporting non-welfare drug use.

 

eta also there's still zero legitimacy for rejecting data based on anecdotes from police buddies who work in the drug unit. Hopefully jenks saw what I was driving at with sampling bias there. His cop buddies work with the druggies, of course it's going to seem like a much higher rate if that's your only perspective.

 

I got your point (and I did attack the methodology, including the purpose of the study which was dependence and usage, not involvement in anyway - dealers don't use their own product, for example, or the fact that those people have more to lose if they admit to usage), but if my cop buddies who work in the drug unit spend 95% of their time with the same people, who live in the projects, then that tells you that they spend a lot of time at the projects. They work in districts that encompass a lot of area, not a 2 block radius where public housing projects are.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How, specifically, are the murder rate statistics being manipulated?

 

You'll love this reference, but check out The Wire, which is widely considered to be really, really accurate. They fudged the numbers all the time. They purposefully spread out crimes by date to make one month look better than the last. I don't know how much of an affect this really has, but since people's jobs are on the line, I have no doubt that they fudge the numbers in their favor.

[StrangeSox]

I got your point (and I did attack the methodology, including the purpose of the study which was dependence and usage, not involvement in anyway - dealers don't use their own product, for example, or the fact that those people have more to lose if they admit to usage), but if my cop buddies who work in the drug unit spend 95% of their time with the same people, who live in the projects, then that tells you that they spend a lot of time at the projects. They work in districts that encompass a lot of area, not a 2 block radius where public housing projects are.

 

these attacks make no sense. First, someone who deals but doesn't use is irrelevant since the topic was usage rates. Second, you've asserted that welfare recipients would under-report, but haven't explained why. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

these attacks make no sense. First, someone who deals but doesn't use is irrelevant since the topic was usage rates. Second, you've asserted that welfare recipients would under-report, but haven't explained why. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense.

 

It is because my original point was that people in public housing are involved with drugs more than the general population. Involved meaning not only uses, but also deals/sells the crap out. You provided a study that's entirely about dependence and usage being the same (all while not counting certain people, for example multiple members in a single family residence from what I remember). So that's a percent they've come up with that wouldn't include people that deal the stuff because those people wouldn't be using it (they'd cut into their profit).

 

And you don't think people would lie about usage to protect the aid they get? Currently they can lose their aid if they are involved in crime. While people in the general population might be worried about being caught, their income and home isn't going to be lost because of it. I think that's a pretty important difference.

[StrangeSox]

It is because my original point was that people in public housing are involved with drugs more than the general population. Involved meaning not only uses, but also deals/sells the crap out. You provided a study that's entirely about dependence and usage being the same (all while not counting certain people, for example multiple members in a single family residence from what I remember). So that's a percent they've come up with that wouldn't include people that deal the stuff because those people wouldn't be using it (they'd cut into their profit).

 

No, you're changing the history here. This started as you advocating drug testing by the CHA. I replied by saying that drug use for those on public assistance isn't any higher. You said you "find it hard to believe that the poorest of the poor out there aren't doing drugs at an increased rate than the general population. At the very least I find it highly suspect that "drug activity" rates aren't significantly higher (using/dealing/selling) in public housing. Do you have a link for that?" Granted, you shifted goalposts here to something that's 1) irrelevant to the topic (drug testing) 2) not something I ever claimed. I should have called that out earlier, but I provided a study to support what I actually claimed.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure if the assumption that drug "activity" rates are higher really holds up, either in the data or in a thought experiment. If usage rates are the same, why would dealer rates increase? I really doubt coke-addicted financial executives or pot-smoking suburban teens are driving to Inglewood to score. Either way, the claim that "activity" rates is higher is yours, and therefore it's on you to support.

 

And you don't think people would lie about usage to protect the aid they get? Currently they can lose their aid if they are involved in crime. While people in the general population might be worried about being caught, their income and home isn't going to be lost because of it. I think that's a pretty important difference.

This still doesn't make sense, really. These are interviews on the phone, not investigations by the CHA. How are they going to lose their aid? And currently I can lose my job and be barred from access to nuclear facilities if I were found out to be using illegal drugs. I've got a lot more to lose there. Why would I be less likely to under-report than someone who's in Section 8 housing?

[NorthSideSox72]

You'll love this reference, but check out The Wire, which is widely considered to be really, really accurate. They fudged the numbers all the time. They purposefully spread out crimes by date to make one month look better than the last. I don't know how much of an affect this really has, but since people's jobs are on the line, I have no doubt that they fudge the numbers in their favor.

You think they've been postponing reports for years? Please, the homicide rates in Chicago have dropped dramatically, over a period of a good number of years. Could there be manipulation in there? Sure, a few here and there. But I want someone to show me how its even remotely possible to "fudge the numbers" to show a 40% drop in homicides over years or a decade.

 

[StrangeSox]

US crime rates in general have been falling, even if media coverage is more hyperbolic (!)

[Jenksismyhero]

You think they've been postponing reports for years? Please, the homicide rates in Chicago have dropped dramatically, over a period of a good number of years. Could there be manipulation in there? Sure, a few here and there. But I want someone to show me how its even remotely possible to "fudge the numbers" to show a 40% drop in homicides over years or a decade.

 

I never claimed they were postponing reports for YEARS. Nor did I claim that it was significant fudging. I'm just saying it's possible (and probably likely).

[StrangeSox]

NY Republicans passed the gay marriage bill!

[NorthSideSox72]

I never claimed they were postponing reports for YEARS. Nor did I claim that it was significant fudging. I'm just saying it's possible (and probably likely).

And Y2HH is claiming that murder rate drops are some sort of illusion. For the numbers to have not dropped at all, instead of how much they've dropped, there would have to be MASSIVE fraud going on in reporting of homicides. And just by their nature, that is nearly impossible to pull off.

 

[kapkomet]

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110628/ap...mann_fact_check

 

Nice. Now where was this "FACT CHECK" in big, bold headlines for Barack Obama? Oh, I forgot. Everything the man says is golden s***.

[Balta1701]

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110628/ap...mann_fact_check

 

Nice. Now where was this "FACT CHECK" in big, bold headlines for Barack Obama? Oh, I forgot. Everything the man says is golden s***.

Really? Googling the phrase "Obama politifact fact check" is beyond your capabilities?