Crime Statistics

______________________________________

The first question you need to ask is why did the government stop publishing statistics on interracial crime in 2008.

The second question you need to ask is why doesn't the government publish crime statistics correlated to both race and economic factors.

Our government does a horrible job of publishing accurate and meaningful crime statistics.

Examining data from 2012-2013 the Manhattan Institute derived the following statistics:

Violent Crime Victims:

White 42.9, Black 22.4, Hispanic 14.8, Other 12.1, Unk. 7.8

Violent Crime Perpetrators:
 
In 56% of the cases Whites were the victims of other Whites.
In only 13.7% were Whites the victims of Blacks and in 11.9% were they the victims of Hispanics.

In 62.2% of the cases Blacks were the victims of other Blacks. In only 10.4% were they the victims of Whites and in 4.7% were they the victims of Hispanics.

In 38.8% of the cases Hispanics were the victims of Hispanics.  In only 21.7% were they the victims of Whites and in 21.2% were they the victims of Blacks.

Murder

In 2013 there were 5680 murders in the US according to the FBI

3005 victims were White, 2491 victims were Black, and 227 were other or of an unknown race.

83.5% of White homicides were committed by other Whites, only 13.6% were committed by Blacks.

90% of Black homicides were committed by other Blacks, only 7.5% were committed by Whites.

For what it is worth 43.6% of Other/Unknown homicides were committed by Other/Unknowns, while only 25% were committed by Whites and 19.3% were committed by Blacks.

___________________________________________________

Between 2003 and 2013 565 Police Officers were "feloniously killed" according to FBI statistics.

51.5% of the Officers were killed by White/Hispanic offenders, 43% were killed by Black offenders.  97.5% of the offenders were male. Only 1.4% of the offenders were Asian/Pacific while in 2010 they were roughly 5% of the population.

Since the FBI lumps Whites and Hispanics into the same category:

77% of the US population is White/Hispanic

13.2% of the US population is Black

In 2015 990 people were shot by police officers.

80% of those shot had a deadly weapon

5.5% of those shot were presumably using a vehicle as a deadly weapon

3.5% of those shot had a toy gun 

9.4% of those shot were unarmed

2.7% of the shooting circumstances were termed "unknown".

Of those shot 67% were White/Hispanic, 26% were black.

Go back to that original figure relating to police officers killed.  43% of police officers killed in felonious assault were killed by Blacks. Police officers kill Blacks at a rate twice as high as their proportion of the population but Blacks kill police officers at a rate three times as high.

If you are a police officer your chances of getting killed by a White or Black offender are almost equal despite the differences in demographics.  

“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” Moskos-Wash Times

What remains a gaping hole in all of this are the socioeconomic factors, what do the numbers look like when adjusted to income bracket and race?

The Big Lie

 

Or as Mark Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Jim Clifton, President and CEO of Gallup recently posted an article on how the Department of Labor is misleading the American people and the media is cheering them on.

The unemployment rate is not really 5.6%.

If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%

Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%.

What the government likes to trumpet from the rooftops is the U-3 rate or "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force".  Please take note however that they get to define what the civilian labor force is and they exclude the long term unemployed who have just given up or those who are marginally employed or underemployed.  The U-3 rate  for Dec 2014 trumpeted above is 5.6%, the U-6 rate or "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force" was 11.2% for the same period.  

It's also very important to always read the fine print:

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Wait... it gets better:

Fewer Americans born in the U.S. have jobs now than were employed to November 2007, despite a working-age population growth of 11 million.  Almost one in every two jobs added since 2009 have gone to foreign-born workers. In November 2014, one in every five U.S. jobs was held by a foreign-born worker, up from one-in-six jobs in January 2010.  Since November 2007, the number of working legal and illegal migrants has risen by two million, from 23.1 million in November 2007 to 25.1 million in November 2014.  But the number of Americans with jobs has fallen by 1.5 million, from 124 million in November 2007 to 122.6 million November 2014. The DC

Government Statistics Made Easy!

Another day, another liberal blogger making outrageous charges in a feeble attempt to score cheap political points...


 If you're interested in learning how to quickly (less than 5 minutes!) get to the bottom of government facts and figures, follow along with me. Learning how to do this is invaluable, especially when combating wild slurs from the left.

Unhinged Liberal:
"The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.

We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false."

Of course, he's wrong.  You can go here and run the numbers yourself.  It is not a government site, but it uses publicly available government statistics from GPO Access.

Contrary to the unhinged liberal's claim, the data show that revenue did increase after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush II tax cuts. The chart to the left is for the Reagan years and it shows the growth in constant 2005 dollars.  You can punch in the 2000-2010 timespan and you'll see continued revenue increases after the Bush tax cut as well.




The data plainly show that revenue increased after each tax cut, and GDP also kept climbing. So clearly, the culprit in all of this is the spending.

Unfortunately, government spending grew at an even greater rate than the revenue increase, resulting in the growth of the national debt.

Look at the chart during the Reagan 80's, and you'll see why liberals (and libertarians,and fiscal conservatives) criticize Reagan and the Democratic House.  They increased spending even more than revenue increased, adding to the public debt.  Clinton and a Republican congress eventually flatlined it around 1997, and even started it downward.  Bush II ramped it up even more, and Obama is on course to set new spending records.

A False Nexus
This is where the mischief comes in.  Liberals scream and point to the debt chart, ignoring the first chart showing the increase in revenue.  To them, this "proves" that tax cuts cause debt.  They have to leave out the fact that revenue increased and the economy grew in order to "prove" this.  That tax cuts caused the debt is patently and provably false.  Too much spending is what exploded the debt.

An Easy to Use Tool to Analyze Government Data

I highly recommend Christopher Chantrill's Government Spending site.   Look on the left sidebar and you will find links to the sister sites, US Government Debt, and US Government Revenue. 

You can use the interactive charts to zoom in on areas of interest.  All of his charts are powered by US Government data accessed at GPOAccess.Gov.  You can also download all the data yourself for your own analysis from that same site.

Chantrill's site makes this very easy to do.  If you click the little "Here" link below the charts, you can build your own interactive line chart that displays the data from year to year.  % of GDP is a good choice to display for government spending, since it shows you how big of a slice the federal government takes out of the economy.  I also like the "$ billion 2005" setting, which displays all data in constant 2005 numbers.  This is important since the dollar's value is constantly eroding and it allows us to compare the 1930's with the 1980's by basing all numbers in constant dollars.

Avoid Petty Partisan Spats and Focus on the Stats
I bring all of this to you because I am tired of arguing with people who just want to tear down republicans or score some cheap political point.  Engaging in these kinds of arguments is a descent into madness.  Stick to the facts, and you can at least make some headway towards understanding, if not for the lib you are arguing with, then at least for yourself.