"rich get richer...yadda-yadda-yadda

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



tru-marvell
It's seems that this is a sad but true saying....my question is -is this a natural law of consequence or is it a forced rule?
I believe that it is a natural law in that we live in a finite world. But my problem is why must there be such extremes in standards of living?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43085437/Profiting_From_The_Wealth_Divide
Homes over $750,000 actually saw an increase in sales. Homes in the $750,000 to $1 million range saw a sales increase of 4.2%. Homes above $1 million saw an 11% increase. Sales of homes in the $100,000 to $500,000 range, for comparison, were down more than 20%.

It really seems to me that there is a concerted effort to create more "super wealthy"- not just rich- at the the expense of the great majority who by natural order be pushed to the other end of the wealth spectrum.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25244140/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/cnbc-special-report-who-are-super-rich/#.TkfR02PiFGw
In 1985, there were only 13 billionaires in the United States. Today there are more than 1,000.

Mindship
Originally posted by tru-marvell
It really seems to me that there is a concerted effort to create more "super wealthy"- not just rich- at the the expense of the great majority who by natural order be pushed to the other end of the wealth spectrum.
From another thread... Originally posted by Mindship
It's as if, just as humans long ago began shaping the natural environment to their benefit, but to the detriment of other species along the way, so it might seem that the "financial elite" are thus shaping the financial environment.

Tha C-Master
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true.

On the home thing I was talking about that. At first I thought the higher end homes would come back slower, but it actually seems they aren't. I've seen ones near me selling. So it seems the rich homes are coming back faster, because those who can afford them will buy them and the deals are just so good now. They waited until the other morons cranked homes up high and self destructed, now they are buying them cheap. Good time to buy houses.

Mindship
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true. Nature also says that man shouldn't fly, cuz he doesn't have wings. Yet we found a way.

It doesn't have to be this way. Human beings need to make better choices, choices which are truly rational and emphasize long-term, group interests, not short-term emotional thinking with self-interests in mind (ie, greed). IMO, it is the only way we will survive as a species. Unfortunately, what is harsh but true is that this type of thinking is likely a long way off.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
Nature also says that man shouldn't fly, cuz he doesn't have wings. Yet we found a way.

I disagree.

Nature gave us these brains that allowed us to build planes that allowed us to fly.


Therefore, it should be considered "natural" for humans to do anything that we do.

Just like it's natural for a chimp to get termites out of a termite tower with a stick: they could not do it without their brains but it's "natural".

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true.

that hasn't been the view of biologists for decades

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

Nature gave us these brains that allowed us to build planes that allowed us to fly.


Therefore, it should be considered "natural" for humans to do anything that we do.

Just like it's natural for a chimp to get termites out of a termite tower with a stick: they could not do it without their brains but it's "natural". I get the gist of what you're saying, and in another context, would even agree. But my point was that we don't have to be limited to our original human design, mentally or physically.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
I get the gist of what you're saying, and in another context, would even agree. But my point was that we don't have to be limited to our original human design, mentally or physically.


Are you talking about transcending our genetics with things like cybernetics or gene therapy?

In which case, I would only partially agree.


Our brains, which were still given to us by nature, allowed for us to augment ourselves. big grin



laughing

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
that hasn't been the view of biologists for decades It's still true. People still choose the most successful and desirable person they can. People still underachieve and have more kids than they can afford, while others choose to further themselves to increase the chances of survival for their own offspring.

We use laws and systems now, but the reason we even have a nation like America is because some men came over and killed, plundered, raped, and stole from others. This land and nation didn't come from out of the air. We made it our territory like animals make their own territory and those who are too weak to defend themselves pack up and leave.

You see it in gang activity amongst anything else. If others can enforce what they say, they won't enforce for long.


Originally posted by Mindship
Nature also says that man shouldn't fly, cuz he doesn't have wings. Yet we found a way.

It doesn't have to be this way. Human beings need to make better choices, choices which are truly rational and emphasize long-term, group interests, not short-term emotional thinking with self-interests in mind (ie, greed). IMO, it is the only way we will survive as a species. Unfortunately, what is harsh but true is that this type of thinking is likely a long way off. Yes, but we were given the brains to improvise.

Although there is nothing wrong with buying nice houses. If you can great. Don't see the problem.

In the US there are 5 bedroom 4 bathroom houses going for $30,000. If you can afford it, why not? We all had to pay for the decisions of the stupid. That's a very good price and the mortgage would be cheaper than renting a 1 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment. It's a no brainier.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's still true. People still choose the most successful and desirable person they can. People still underachieve and have more kids than they can afford, while others choose to further themselves to increase the chances of survival for their own offspring.

We use laws and systems now, but the reason we even have a nation like America is because some men came over and killed, plundered, raped, and stole from others. This land and nation didn't come from out of the air. We made it our territory like animals make their own territory and those who are too weak to defend themselves pack up and leave.

You see it in gang activity amongst anything else. If others can enforce what they say, they won't enforce for long.

I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

My Viking blood takes offense at your negative implications. uhuh

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

I understand his logic as being more along the lines of: "If they didn't build their city there then it wouldn't have been destroyed when we bombed it. This is really their fault."

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you talking about transcending our genetics with things like cybernetics or gene therapy? Those would be more extreme examples (although, in another context, I might say that building/flying a plane 'transcends' nature). Basically, I was saying we don't have to be greedy.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Although there is nothing wrong with buying nice houses. Agreed. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying any of the finer things in life, as long as it is not at the expense of others.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I understand his logic as being more along the lines of: "If they didn't build their city there then it wouldn't have been destroyed when we bombed it. This is really their fault."

I don't know

it seems like he is really blaming people for not being strong enough not to get bombed, not simply for being in the way when we bomb them...

like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism"

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
Agreed. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying any of the finer things in life, as long as it is not at the expense of others (ie, does not cause a significant loss of quality of life or standard or living).

I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.

It ties back into the "keeping up with the Jones'" saying.


That promotion? Someone out there is more qualified than you are, deserves it more than you do, but didn't get it because you were better in an interview by random chance of common interest (you both liked fishing or some shit).


In fact, I think there's some sort of biological mechanism in place that rewards those that "win" over their fellow man. I remember reading about "winners" having elevated test levels after winning a sports event. The "winners" get more "winny" by winning. Does that make sense?



Originally posted by inimalist
like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism"

Laser precision architecture didn't save the Aztecs. Despite the fact that they were in some ways, far more advanced than their European counterparts....they still couldn't stand up to the "tech" of the invaders. sad


They were certainly bloodthirsty enough. Well...some were.









Also....side note...


It freaks me out to read about the stories of possible nukes from ancient peeps from India. Something about the idea that a people thousands of years old somehow developed to a technological level around our current age (within 50 yeras) is a bit disturbing.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.

Who gives a ****?

For some people one of the finer things in life is raping ten year old girls.

inimalist
I don't think anyone is really against winners and losers in society, so long as losing doesn't mean not-having-the-means-to-live-a-modest-life.

In many sectors of the economy, we have seen competition as being hugely beneficial (in some ways, labour laws and such, not so much), however, when the greed of some causes so much destruction that others are losing their very livelihood, then it is problematic.

Tha C-Master
But nobody is entitled to live the "lifestyle" they feel entitled to without working for it. Some feel entitled to what the very rich have without working for it. If a person doesn't get up and earn it they don't have the right to anything.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage? My argument is people will do what they want to survive at the expense of others. Just like any other living creature. If you get a promotion, someone else didn't get it. Someone goes up, another goes down. People cooperate to gain more power, that means someone else is going to go down in power. We aren't as "far away from the jungle" as we'd like to think.

Not to mention there were societies where that went on quite often.Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.

It ties back into the "keeping up with the Jones'" saying.


That promotion? Someone out there is more qualified than you are, deserves it more than you do, but didn't get it because you were better in an interview by random chance of common interest (you both liked fishing or some shit).


In fact, I think there's some sort of biological mechanism in place that rewards those that "win" over their fellow man. I remember reading about "winners" having elevated test levels after winning a sports event. The "winners" get more "winny" by winning. Does that make sense?





Laser precision architecture didn't save the Aztecs. Despite the fact that they were in some ways, far more advanced than their European counterparts....they still couldn't stand up to the "tech" of the invaders. sad


They were certainly bloodthirsty enough. Well...some were.









Also....side note...


It freaks me out to read about the stories of possible nukes from ancient peeps from India. Something about the idea that a people thousands of years old somehow developed to a technological level around our current age (within 50 yeras) is a bit disturbing. On the 10 year old thing, people got married an had kids at a very young age back then.

And yes people do compete, we're the most competitive of all animals. That's why those idiots bought houses they couldn't afford. It was all one big competition. Those who bit the dust perished and those who are taking advantage of things now and getting good houses for cheap prospered.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who gives a ****?

For some people one of the finer things in life is raping ten year old girls.

Except in my example...it's a whole hell of a lot more common.

In fact...everyone is so competitive about "who has what" that it seems the majority are like that.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Laser precision architecture didn't save the Aztecs. Despite the fact that they were in some ways, far more advanced than their European counterparts....they still couldn't stand up to the "tech" of the invaders. sad


They were certainly bloodthirsty enough. Well...some were.

yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)

Originally posted by dadudemon
It freaks me out to read about the stories of possible nukes from ancient peeps from India. Something about the idea that a people thousands of years old somehow developed to a technological level around our current age (within 50 yeras) is a bit disturbing.

lol, those claims are fake

the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know

it seems like he is really blaming people for not being strong enough not to get bombed, not simply for being in the way when we bomb them...

like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism" Not blaming anybody, just saying it's the way it is, nature and all.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But nobody is entitled to live the "lifestyle" they feel entitled to without working for it. Some feel entitled to what the very rich have without working for it. If a person doesn't get up and earn it they don't have the right to anything.

if a person doesn't work they don't have the right to health care if they get sick or hit by a car?

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Not blaming anybody, just saying it's the way it is.

... given we all act as bloodthirsty individuals who don't care for anyone else, sure...

...so long as we go along with the most amoral and willing to do harm to others, sure...

... , sure...

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.Unfortunately this does seem to be the case. And oddly enough, I pity those types...when they're not pissing me off.

In fact, I think there's some sort of biological mechanism in place that rewards those that "win" over their fellow man. I remember reading about "winners" having elevated test levels after winning a sports event. The "winners" get more "winny" by winning. Does that make sense? This does sound familiar. I think it was related to biomechanisms related to fight-or-flight. Basically, if you 'fought' and won, the systems responsible are reinforced. But I could be recalling incorrectly.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, those claims are fake

the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....

Really? That's not what I got when I read about it in depth.


It seems that one of the sites has elevated levels, for sure...but not enough to attribute it to weapons. Then another has strata that are too old to be "modern nukes".


There's 2 sites. Isn't there a thread on this?


Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)

China would be an excellent exception. They were conducting mass army campaigns thousands of years before the Europeans (except the greeks and romans).


Now China is waging war with their rare-earth metals. uhuh

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
... given we all act as bloodthirsty individuals who don't care for anyone else, sure...

...so long as we go along with the most amoral and willing to do harm to others, sure...

... , sure... We all care about ourselves and those directly tied to ourselves, and we do what is in our own best interest. No different than 1,000,000 people dying is a statistic and one person dying is a tragedy. We do what motivates us and pleases us all day, every day.

Your primary motivation for buying food is not to help out farmers or to help people keep jobs, you buy food to eat.

People do everything for their own benefit. Have kids, exercise, go out, etc. We cooperate and follow laws because we feel it is in our benefit rather than not cooperating. I wouldn't go to a job (which I don't at all thank god), if I weren't getting something in return. I'm not going for the benefit of the economy or the company. I'm going for the benefit of myself. Just like we all are.

People do compete and the ones that fall behind eventually fade away. This is why poorer areas have worse schooling, worse health care, worse neighborhoods. The reason poorer people have more kids is to increase the chances of them surviving and having one of their take care of them. It will always be that way. People who are the least educated and successful will always produce the most offspring whether or not it is any detriment to society. We're in a lot of debt and in reality people are still having kids to the detriment of us as a whole. Why? Their own self satisfaction.

Originally posted by inimalist
if a person doesn't work they don't have the right to health care if they get sick or hit by a car? What's the story behind the person that doesn't work. Did they recently lose their job? Or did they just decide not to do anything ( I know people like this). Why do they not have money put away for health care? Who is going to subsidize these people. Where does the money come from?

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What's the story behind the person that doesn't work. Did they recently lose their job? Or did they just decide not to do anything ( I know people like this). Why do they not have money put away for health care? Who is going to subsidize these people. Where does the money come from?

im sorry, let me rephrase:

is not dying due to treatable illness a human right in your mind?

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
China would be an excellent exception. They were conducting mass army campaigns thousands of years before the Europeans (except the greeks and romans).

those were the Europeans I was speaking of, yes

Egypt also, but the medeterainian shares a lot of geographical similarity to Europe

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
im sorry, let me rephrase:

is not dying due to treatable illness a human right in your mind?

That hurt my mind.

I want to rephrase that:

"Is being able to live from a treatable, yet deadly, illness a basic human right in your mind?"

The answer is answer is easy: only if the "treatability" is economically feasible for all parties involved. no expression

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
That hurt my mind.

I want to rephrase that:

"Is being able to live from a treatable, yet deadly, illness a basic human right in your mind?"

The answer is answer is easy: only if the "treatability" is economically feasible for all parties involved. no expression Right. This also brings me back to the original phrase. Those who have the most money get the best healthcare. Those who can't, might not get any.

Other countries have very little healthcare and very few get it.

inimalist
I bet you say that without the slightest bit of irony either...

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
I bet you say that without the slightest bit of irony either... This isn't about whether people think it's right or fair, because everyone disagrees on what's equal. Hell men and women disagree on what's equal. It's about what is. No matter what technological advances there are, people seek to be at the top to increase their chances of survival.

People who are poor will have many kids in hopes that one of *them* will take care of them. It's always going to be that way.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No matter what technological advances there are, people seek to be at the top to increase their chances of survival.

I see your point and got it earlier, as well.


That's just the natural order of things. It is the way we are programmed to work. smile

Tha C-Master
Well if you go broke too bad. I'm on my way at the top baby!!! stick out tongue


Seriously though I'm all for giving. I donate 10% of my gross to numerous causes. But I give to those who are in a tough bind and plan on improving or doing something. Not to losers, or people who had too many kids, etc. Even if they are family or friends. I believe in charity because it gives me options on who I help and people realize that it is a choice I made, not an entitlement. My problem with welfare is that it is taken from us without our option and given to others who may or may not really deserve it.

But even giving is something I do because I'm interested in doing it, even though it helps out others. I get satisfaction out of it or else I wouldn't do it. We all do what is in our own self interest. Nothing wrong with that.

But even as our society advances and allows these things for losers, they can't cheat nature. They'll never be at the top if they don't do anything, they can't. People who do just enough to get by will have only enough to get by. They will never be at the top. Those who are better looking and more successful will have more options. Even in our current culture of monogamy. We've allowed the weaker to be on life support longer, but they don't prosper.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well if you go broke too bad. I'm on my way at the top baby!!! stick out tongue


Seriously though I'm all for giving. I donate 10% of my gross to numerous causes. But I give to those who are in a tough bind and plan on improving or doing something. Not to losers, or people who had too many kids, etc. Even if they are family or friends. I believe in charity because it gives me options on who I help and people realize that it is a choice I made, not an entitlement. My problem with welfare is that it is taken from us without our option and given to others who may or may not really deserve it.

But even giving is something I do because I'm interested in doing it, even though it helps out others. I get satisfaction out of it or else I wouldn't do it. We all do what is in our own self interest. Nothing wrong with that.

But even as our society advances and allows these things for losers, they can't cheat nature. They'll never be at the top if they don't do anything, they can't. People who do just enough to get by will have only enough to get by. They will never be at the top. Those who are better looking and more successful will have more options. Even in our current culture of monogamy. We've allowed the weaker to be on life support longer, but they don't prosper.

Case-in-point: My niece loves her cousin (also my niece) more than her favorite icecream. She's only 7 but she already values her cousin more than her favorite desert. I'm sure this would change with the frequency of either "choice" but the point is still there: humans have what I think is a natural tendency towards altruism.

I don't know how this altruism gets lost in the complex economic structures of today. I think our capitalistic selfishness is more learned than natural.


Kids seem nicer than adults. Jaded, cynical, bastards.

Tha C-Master
Kids I believe can be very nasty: they just lack the ability to hide their emotions and intent the way adults do. They've done experiments on this, where the kids were alone and they established a social order. There was the on in charge, and there was the one at the bottom.

Of course the better looking, better dressed kids were treated better. Fat kids, poorer kids, kids who didn't wear as nice of clothes were treated worse. This was shown in *very* young kids, like the age of 6.

I remember in school the kids who wore the same shirt too often, or were fat got picked on a lot. The better looking kids were more popular.

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
...humans have what I think is a natural tendency towards altruism.

I don't know how this altruism gets lost in the complex economic structures of today. I think our capitalistic selfishness is more learned than natural. I think our civilization's at the point where we have to reconsider which tendency should dominate. I'd prefer a paradigm shift, but I'll settle for modified behavior.

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
This isn't about whether people think it's right or fair, because everyone disagrees on what's equal. Hell men and women disagree on what's equal. It's about what is. No matter what technological advances there are, people seek to be at the top to increase their chances of survival.

People who are poor will have many kids in hopes that one of *them* will take care of them. It's always going to be that way.

i was referring to the fact you obviously have no idea what health care, standards of living, life expectancy, or any number of other indicators of individual health are like in other nations

they are much better than in America while costing significantly less, even when a public option is used

iirc, I think only certain types of cancer treatment or other highly specialized types of care are have better outcomes in America versus other first world nations. Standard care and access are far lower however. To any random individual, the American health system is far less accessible or efficient than pretty much any other system in the West.

but then, you are mixing issues to just rant about how little you understand poverty and human psychology, so have at it hoss

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Kids I believe can be very nasty: they just lack the ability to hide their emotions and intent the way adults do. They've done experiments on this, where the kids were alone and they established a social order. There was the on in charge, and there was the one at the bottom.

Of course the better looking, better dressed kids were treated better. Fat kids, poorer kids, kids who didn't wear as nice of clothes were treated worse. This was shown in *very* young kids, like the age of 6.

I remember in school the kids who wore the same shirt too often, or were fat got picked on a lot. The better looking kids were more popular.

That sounds similar to "Bigler's Experiment." The red and blue shirt experiment.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
i was referring to the fact you obviously have no idea what health care, standards of living, life expectancy, or any number of other indicators of individual health are like in other nations

I think he does and he think they're all too high.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
i was referring to the fact you obviously have no idea what health care, standards of living, life expectancy, or any number of other indicators of individual health are like in other nations

they are much better than in America while costing significantly less, even when a public option is used

iirc, I think only certain types of cancer treatment or other highly specialized types of care are have better outcomes in America versus other first world nations. Standard care and access are far lower however. To any random individual, the American health system is far less accessible or efficient than pretty much any other system in the West.

but then, you are mixing issues to just rant about how little you understand poverty and human psychology, so have at it hoss I'm talking about much poorer, third world nations. It isn't better there because they don't have the resources. You're talking about other developed nations. Which is why I was talking about the poorest. Which only proves my point further because stronger and more prosperous nations have more access to food, money, education, etc.

People who are wealthier do have access to better healthcare as I said. While people have to wait for HMO's or other policies or other doctors who may not treat them, if you have the resources you can have an on call Dr. 24/7 who will treat you at any time. They only cost about 4k a year, good investment.

You clearly don't know much about poverty, and it's clear you know little about money. I know plenty about both from experience and studies. Poverty is a mindset. There are certain behaviors poor people do that keep them poor. In your mind money is all about "luck" and somehow people are entitled to certain things over others. I'm not ranting, only discussing. You want to put moral implications and mix your own views/problems into these debates. You had no counters to any previous points you only threw in a moral debate about the issue of money. People will and will continue to do what ensures their own survival even if it comes at a cost to others. This should be obvious as we have only a limited amount of resources for an unlimited amount of wants and demands.Originally posted by dadudemon
That sounds similar to "Bigler's Experiment." The red and blue shirt experiment. Yes.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he does and he think they're all too high. Really, and what have you done for this cause. How have you contributed to solving this issue? Or is typing on a screen about the most I'm going to see?

inimalist
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I'm talking about much poorer, third world nations. It isn't better there because they don't have the resources. You're talking about other developed nations. Which is why I was talking about the poorest. Which only proves my point further because stronger and more prosperous nations have more access to food, money, education, etc.

WOO! everyone cheer! blind individualism can give you a health care system better than that of Kenya or Zaire!

ffs, not even worth looking up a facepalm image...

you do realize the clear implications of what you are saying is that socialized, public health care is stronger and more fit for first world nations? right? you get that this is the direct extension of the logic you have presented?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
People who are wealthier do have access to better healthcare as I said. While people have to wait for HMO's or other policies or other doctors who may not treat them, if you have the resources you can have an on call Dr. 24/7 who will treat you at any time. They only cost about 4k a year, good investment.

You clearly don't know much about poverty, and it's clear you know little about money. I know plenty about both from experience and studies. Poverty is a mindset. There are certain behaviors poor people do that keep them poor. In your mind money is all about "luck" and somehow people are entitled to certain things over others. I'm not ranting, only discussing. You want to put moral implications and mix your own views/problems into these debates. You had no counters to any previous points you only threw in a moral debate about the issue of money. People will and will continue to do what ensures their own survival even if it comes at a cost to others. This should be obvious as we have only a limited amount of resources for an unlimited amount of wants and demands.

you are absolutely correct, I have no personal experience with poverty, nor do I have any insight into human behaviour and motivation, and I think the only way to achieve personal wealth is through luck

boy do you have my number

I currently live in poverty, and as to the other 2, I'm getting an MA in human psychology and neuroscience... so that is math I'm sure you can do.

at least you don't make assumptive, sweeping generalizations about people in an attempt to solve the cognitive dissonance their rational points might cause you to experience.

btw, can you name a single study in which it is shown that people in poverty are motivated to have more children as a form of long term care? like I'm serious here. One study. A STUDY.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I currently live in poverty, and as to the other 2, I'm getting an MA in human psychology and neuroscience... so that is math I'm sure you can do.

You should let me talk to him. I've never know anything remotely close to poverty in my entire life. Proof of my work ethic and innate brilliance. He'll have to accept my argument, from infancy I was strong and knew how to play the market.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Yes. Really, and what have you done for this cause. How have you contributed to solving this issue? Or is typing on a screen about the most I'm going to see? huh

I haven't seen you do anything but type on a screen. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone on KMC ever do anything but type on a screen.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You should let me talk to him. I've never know anything remotely close to poverty in my entire life. Proof of my work ethic and innate brilliance. He'll have to accept my argument, from infancy I was strong and knew how to play the market.

hey, well, apparently thats all I think it takes

you were just one of the lucky ones who, randomly, put together that working means money...

because everyone who works hard gets out of poverty. it really is that simple

Tha C-Master
No you have to work smart too. Working hard alone won't do it. Digging ditches is hard work for most people to do with their bare hands. Won't get them anywhere though. You also have to change your mindset.

Many poor people who won the lottery or became athletes/musicians ended up broke in short order. There have been many broke people given large (relative) sums of money and end up broke. There was this show on Oprah and a homeless guy was given 1 million to see what he would do with it. He was broke in a month. It's all he knew how to handle.


Originally posted by inimalist
WOO! everyone cheer! blind individualism can give you a health care system better than that of Kenya or Zaire!

ffs, not even worth looking up a facepalm image...

you do realize the clear implications of what you are saying is that socialized, public health care is stronger and more fit for first world nations? right? you get that this is the direct extension of the logic you have presented?

You're just getting worked up about this... stick out tongue . I understand it may be a tough subject for some, but this isn't about me or you per se, it's about the discussion (which has gotten a tad off topic).

I have to disagree. Ideally it would be, but it comes at a cost. Money. Who can afford all of this? Where do we draw the line? How many do we help out? For what reasons? Extents? What about social security and the other things we have going on here like welfare?


Originally posted by inimalist
you are absolutely correct, I have no personal experience with poverty, nor do I have any insight into human behaviour and motivation, and I think the only way to achieve personal wealth is through luck

boy do you have my number

I currently live in poverty, and as to the other 2, I'm getting an MA in human psychology and neuroscience... so that is math I'm sure you can do.

at least you don't make assumptive, sweeping generalizations about people in an attempt to solve the cognitive dissonance their rational points might cause you to experience.

btw, can you name a single study in which it is shown that people in poverty are motivated to have more children as a form of long term care? like I'm serious here. One study. A STUDY. I'm sure you did. So did I. Worse off than you most likely. Doesn't really matter what degree you get though; it matters what you do with them. Many people get plenty of degrees and end up more or less in the same soup they grew up in. I'm not like most people who started out poor, because I made my own success, so I obviously know there are *exceptions* to that rule.

Oh and of course we're talking about in general. I don't have the time to go on a case by case issue when it comes to problems like poverty or wealth. This is the general discussion forum. We're talking about general topics, and people in general, and from this comes generalities. Much like thread titles such as this:

"The Rich get richer yadda yadda yadda".

Threads like this go on all the time criticizing certain groups, and lately groups with money. They are all generalizations, and we're talking about general things. I have been on both sides. I know from studies *and* experience what people do on both ends. I know poorer people are more likely to have more kids, to gamble more, abuse alcohol more, not plan, not save, not care, etc. I have people in my own family who do it for God's sake. They simply lack the ambition and don't think they can do any better. I chose to wait on any possible kids and focus on my future and work smart *and* hard, and make sacrifices they thought were crazy or over the top, or that they tried to dissuade me from doing, like investing capital and starting up companies. Even people who grew up and lived with me took a totally different path.

I also know middle class people. Like my old school friends from way back when. Many are smart, or book smart, like you, but many of them also don't care to do much more than average, and some are just outright lazy. On the computer instead of doing things. Their parents would ask me to hire them or find them work in the past, and anything I brought to them they had an excuse on why they couldn't do it. Things like that. It just came to be that they simply didn't care and nothing was going to change that.

Then I met the wealthy people. They were more driven, cared more about their goals, and were less likely to have kids young because they knew they would get in the way. They wanted to make their money work for them because it was better and had more tax advantages.

Needless to say people have different mindsets.

Oh and the children thing. The nasty secret is people have kids for their own benefit, they're not motivated by society. People who live in agricultural societies have more kids because they want more help on the farm. In those countries children are cheaper and seen as an asset. Whereas in developed countries they are seen more as a luxury and a liability.

People do have more kids in places that are poorer. Poorer areas have higher mortality rates due to more crime and less *gasp* healthcare. So they have more kids to ensure that some will live on, and take care of them. People also get married for this reason. To have someone "take care of them" when they're older.

Also in poorer countries it's an absolute given that you take care of your parents and family. Here in America we have a lot of people come from other countries and you'll notice that people who are foreign and come from poorer countries have a stronger "family" mindset. That is because they grew up in lack and had to depend on each other. The US was like this around a century or more ago. Family lived very close and didn't isolate.

After World War 2 the economy increased and we had "baby boomers" during this time housing became significantly cheaper because it was the beginning of cookie cutter suburban homes (similar to the assembly line for automobiles). This allowed people to move out younger and travel more for jobs. This is where the "if you live at home past 25 you're a loser" came from. Many people in other parts of the world live at home for longer ages. A trend showing up here again since the economy is bad.

In other countries taking care of parents was a return on their investment because they "took care of you"; this practice still goes on in poorer areas, like in my hometown Mississippi, where they have many kids in hopes that one might not be a loser so they can take care of them. As we know though, monkey see, monkey do...

Not to mention those who have kids for government support. Again drawing from the resources without putting anything back in.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
huh

I haven't seen you do anything but type on a screen. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone on KMC ever do anything but type on a screen. You're making it seem like I'm against helping people when in fact I like to. Many who complain about the problem rarely do anything themselves about it.

inimalist
so you concede there are no such studies?

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
so you concede there are no such studies? Way to ignore my post.

I'll have to look those up. It's not like I just have a binder full of papers whenever someone asks me to show them "studies". Especially on something that is blatantly true. Old people clearly can't take care of themselves forever, and they obviously expect someone to do it. Hint: It's their kids.

inimalist
well, again, I, as a profession, study human behaviour.

we can either talk about why I don't trust biased, anecdotal, opinions or why I'm more apt to trust well researched, peer-reviewed studies if you want. Or I can just list 4-5 cognitive biases that make anything you might feel sort of irrelevant... /shrug...

but yes, in the long run, if you don't provide evidence that I think is meaningful, I will probably ignore that point

Tha C-Master
Well most of your posts are obviously opinions about my opinions. I have no problem posting them (like I have in the past), but most of this discussion is an opinion.

I doubt you will ignore anything you feel apt to respond to. I said a lot more in that post than the fact people have kids in poorer areas with an expectation that their kids help them. Much more. Which is why I said what I said.
It's a no trainer the worse the economy the more people move back in with their kids, especially as people live longer and care becomes more expensive. People who don't have money expect their kids to take care of them, and poor people have many kids as an investment in the future.
Originally posted by tru-marvell
It's seems that this is a sad but true saying....my question is -is this a natural law of consequence or is it a forced rule?
I believe that it is a natural law in that we live in a finite world. But my problem is why must there be such extremes in standards of living?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43085437/Profiting_From_The_Wealth_Divide
Homes over $750,000 actually saw an increase in sales. Homes in the $750,000 to $1 million range saw a sales increase of 4.2%. Homes above $1 million saw an 11% increase. Sales of homes in the $100,000 to $500,000 range, for comparison, were down more than 20%.

It really seems to me that there is a concerted effort to create more "super wealthy"- not just rich- at the the expense of the great majority who by natural order be pushed to the other end of the wealth spectrum.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25244140/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/cnbc-special-report-who-are-super-rich/#.TkfR02PiFGw
In 1985, there were only 13 billionaires in the United States. Today there are more than 1,000. One thing to post. Being a billionaire means a lot less than it did almost 30 years ago, just like a million dollars isn't what it used to be. And with the number of options and tech available it is becoming easier for people to become more successful younger.

inimalist
ok, but here is the thing, considering we don't live in agricultural villages, and infant mortality is exceptionally low, having a child is actually an economic burden rather than a gain in labour for people.

considering this glaring fact, and the fact I don't think poor people are stupid enough to miss it, I don't see how your idea can possibly be true.

Thus, I'd like even something remotely convincing that it is true.

which point of mine would you like me to back up? I do my best to only reiterate things that are empirical or based on such. I can dig up nation-by-nation comparisons of health care, or studies on the cognitive biases created by cognitive dissonance, comfirmation bias, attributional error, etc, if you want as well.

also, if you are really interested I can give you why I would think poor people have more babies, but I'm not sure of the relevance

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but here is the thing, considering we don't live in agricultural villages, and infant mortality is exceptionally low, having a child is actually an economic burden rather than a gain in labour for people.

considering this glaring fact, and the fact I don't think poor people are stupid enough to miss it, I don't see how your idea can possibly be true.

Thus, I'd like even something remotely convincing that it is true.

which point of mine would you like me to back up? I do my best to only reiterate things that are empirical or based on such. I can dig up nation-by-nation comparisons of health care, or studies on the cognitive biases created by cognitive dissonance, comfirmation bias, attributional error, etc, if you want as well.

also, if you are really interested I can give you why I would think poor people have more babies, but I'm not sure of the relevance I just said that in the beginning if you read my mammoth post.

People in agricultural societies do that. And we in America used to do that. As we had cheaper housing and more money, we moved out at younger ages and traveled more. This is the reason poorer people have a more "family" mindset, because they were expected to take care of the family more because they had less. Rich foreigners don't live 15 to a house. They live by themselves. Or with a spouse and a kid. Now people are at home longer because of the bad economy. Just like they were before.

I already said in my mammoth post that in those societies kids are an asset or capital good, because kids are cheaper (feed them the crops they pulled and then give them hand me down clothes). In richer countries you have college, school, healthcare, and all the other dick measuring purchases that people do here.

People who are poor don't realize that having kids set them back, and many don't care. They rely on "God" and the government, or someone else to bail them out. Many have kids because they just don't care about birth control, they're into the moment and don't plan. I've talked to many people like this. Poor people tend to be less educated, and while they know "kids cost money" they don't plan it out to see how much. They also don't realize that the real cost is the opportunity cost from having so many kids as it limits your options and stems your potential when you have them too young or unprepared. Not to mention the time consumption.

Here are a few articles/studies/whatever I found while quickly browsing I didn't read through all of them, but they seemed close enough:

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/24/evolutionary-biology-explains-why-poor-people-have-lots-of-kids-at-a-young-age/

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/10/the-rich-vs-poor-debate-are-kids-normal-or-inferior-goods/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/05/230

http://www.arinanikitina.com/the-hidden-psychology-behind-poor-peoples-mindset.html

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Uh-oh, am I sensing some tears about American health care? Guess what: if we had fewer minorities in America, we might be able to afford universal health care. Just look at Mexifornia if you want to see what happens when you let large amounts of non-whites congregate and form sub-societies subsidized by the tax dollars of white Americans. Then again, health care in America could work if we had less government collusion in the system to keep the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries making billions.

Tha C-Master
As a very successful black man, I'm *so* offended. Lol. laughing

I don't care what the color is myself. If a person isn't doing anything, they shouldn't get anything for not contributing.

Btw most welfare recipients are white, and so are most mortgage defaulters. Although percentage wise it is smaller, they definitely do play their part.

Also fat people cost more in insurance and we subsidize that, just like we subsidize other things.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As a very successful black man, I'm *so* offended. Lol. laughing

I don't care what the color is myself. If a person isn't doing anything, they shouldn't get anything for not contributing.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Btw most welfare recipients are white,

Not true.

The plurality, based on race demographic, is actually African American. meaning, despite African American's representing less than 20% of America's population, that demographic still has more actual numbers on Welfare than any other race dem.


And, to be fair, you'd have to do a per capita comparison, not a plurality comparison. That's because over 70% of Americans are "white" so it makes the number very misleading.

Regardless, the number is wrong.



But, to be fair, per capita, iirc, it goes like this: African American, Native American, Hispanic, White, Asian.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Also fat people cost more in insurance and we subsidize that, just like we subsidize other things.

I love the response, "they can't help being fat."

I can understand having a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, etc. But not to putting too much food in your stomach.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I love the response, "they can't help being fat."

I can understand having a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, etc. But not to putting too much food in your stomach.

Seriously? The feeling of hunger comes from your brain all kinds of things influence your brain, including genetics. There's a thing called Prader-Willi syndrome that apparently causes a constant feeling of hunger, no matter what.

Obviously this doesn't apply to most fat people and even a person who is more hungry than normal holds most of the responsibility for their health on an issue where they have so much influence but, well, yeah, there are totally genetic influence there.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true.

The plurality, based on race demographic, is actually African American. meaning, despite African American's representing less than 20% of America's population, that demographic still has more actual numbers on Welfare than any other race dem.


And, to be fair, you'd have to do a per capita comparison, not a plurality comparison. That's because over 70% of Americans are "white" so it makes the number very misleading.

Regardless, the number is wrong.



But, to be fair, per capita, iirc, it goes like this: African American, Native American, Hispanic, White, Asian.



I love the response, "they can't help being fat."

I can understand having a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, etc. But not to putting too much food in your stomach.

That's what I was saying. White people make the most, but there are more of them. Hence why I was talking about percentages.

Last I checked it was white people that were the most, by 1% though. Unless it changed very recently.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Nope about what I said. White people still make up about 40% which is significant. So do blacks. Hispanics don't as much (probably because they live together instead of spreading out). Regardless the comment was in response to the comment above me which was blaming minorities. White people also made up the most mortgage defaulters as well. So everyone played their part.





And yes that is a pathetic excuse. That's the habit of losers though. It's always someone else's fault and it's all about "luck".


Luck:

Laboring
Under
Correct
Knowledge.

Unless you're winning the lottery I wouldn't plan on relying on luck. Growing up rich gives you a "step up", however that was planning on the parents part, so that wasn't luck on them.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
That's what I was saying. White people make the most, but there are more of them. Hence why I was talking about percentages.

Last I checked it was white people that were the most, by 1% though. Unless it changed very recently.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

Nope about what I said. White people still make up about 40% which is significant. So do blacks. Hispanics don't as much (probably because they live together instead of spreading out). Regardless the comment was in response to the comment above me which was blaming minorities. White people also made up the most mortgage defaulters as well. So everyone played their part.





And yes that is a pathetic excuse. That's the habit of losers though. It's always someone else's fault and it's all about "luck".


Luck:

Laboring
Under
Correct
Knowledge.

Unless you're winning the lottery I wouldn't plan on relying on luck. Growing up rich gives you a "step up", however that was planning on the parents part, so that wasn't luck on them.


Those are old stats.


Unlike that site, I backed my stats up from real sources and were more recent than 1992.

Notice I used real stats that were more granular such as average family size by race demographic.



Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/913/Comparing-New-TANF-with-Old-AFDC-LENGTH-TIME-ON-WELFARE.html

That's a slightly old statistic.


I can't find any newer ones.


At first, the numbers don't appear to directly make Knight's case(no pun intended, lol). Closer inspection, as you would do, would reveal a different story, per capita.

There is a significantly higher number, per capita, of African Americans on welfare. I just did quick math in my head....but I don't have exact numbers.

K.

300 million Americans.

12.4% are African American.

2.6 average number of family members on welfare.

this comes out to

14.82% of all African American families on welfare. This calculation is slightly flawed because we don't know how many members are, on average, in each African American family. It could be twice the average of 2.6....it could be half the average of 2.6. Both of which would greatly throw off the numbers. We can assume, to be fair, that the average number of members in each family is about the same across all the races.


Wait, I was correct, there is a difference. There are more, on average, family members in African American households than white. So that throws the numbers off even more. It is 2.68 for African Americans....or.

That changes the calculation to 15.28.

http://www.2010census.biz/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2001/tabavg1.pdf


K.



We will do the same calculation for white people.

300 million Americans

76% of Americans are white.

2.54 average members per family.

2.36% of American families are on welfare.


Now..

My math is still slightly off because the average number of family members, as the income goes down, goes up. In other words, the poor have more children than the rich. So my numbers still aren't sound for 2001s data.




However, this puts into perspective where that racial generalization comes from.




Now, chime in psychological studies that talks about poor people staying down in poor status. Bleh. I'm not much on that so I'll let someone else talk about that.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seriously? The feeling of hunger comes from your brain all kinds of things influence your brain, including genetics. There's a thing called Prader-Willi syndrome that apparently causes a constant feeling of hunger, no matter what.

Obviously this doesn't apply to most fat people and even a person who is more hungry than normal holds most of the responsibility for their health on an issue where they have so much influence but, well, yeah, there are totally genetic influence there.

ugh.

you actually quite missed the point (I thought some smartass might try and miss the point on purpose).

Regardless of the feeling of hunger or satiety, you can still prevent your obesity almost 100% of the time because it requires you to take a voluntary action in order to create the obesity.

However, there's nothing you can do to prevent sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance (the kind that is genetic).

Case-in-point: even without a thyroid, you can still prevent obesity through careful diet. So even the falsely used excuse (read: they lie) of "I have a thyroid problem" is still not good enough of an excuse.

RE: Blaxican
Are you trying to say that because you have to physically put food into your mouth, which is a conscious action, there is no good excuse for being fat?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
it requires you to take a voluntary action in order to create the obesity.

erm Not if you're kidnapped by crazed anti diet hippies who forcefeed you six, large, high fat meals every day. I think it's clear you haven't thought this through.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Case-in-point: even without a thyroid, you can still prevent obesity through careful diet. So even the falsely used excuse (read: they lie) of "I have a thyroid problem" is still not good enough of an excuse.

Which is what I said in my second paragraph.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
The problem isn't with the rich being rich. Bill Gates having billions to his name does not make you or me poorer. The problem is with the poverty level. If everyone in American made fifty large a year while the top 1% made billions, we would be better off than we are now. The problem is that the poor aren't making that much and they're trapped in poverty.

Tha C-Master
The problem is that if we jacked up how much people made, the dollar would be worth less. That or we would have to jack up the cost of everything, so it wouldn't make a difference.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those are old stats.


Unlike that site, I backed my stats up from real sources and were more recent than 1992.

Notice I used real stats that were more granular such as average family size by race demographic. Were those stats older? I just posted a link I saw.

Your stat gave me a 404. I'll look it up in the census. But even then it's quite clear that white people are the largest welfare recipients. I actually said blacks were a higher percentage although that link said it was lower.
Originally posted by dadudemon
ugh.

you actually quite missed the point (I thought some smartass might try and miss the point on purpose).

Regardless of the feeling of hunger or satiety, you can still prevent your obesity almost 100% of the time because it requires you to take a voluntary action in order to create the obesity.

However, there's nothing you can do to prevent sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance (the kind that is genetic).

Case-in-point: even without a thyroid, you can still prevent obesity through careful diet. So even the falsely used excuse (read: they lie) of "I have a thyroid problem" is still not good enough of an excuse. Thyroids only affect about 2% of the population anyways, last I checked.

Tha C-Master
Something else:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sEnJtgO7GDQJ:www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/+24.7%25+black+poverty&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Higher percentage of blacks in poverty, yet whites are still taking up a much larger percentage of welfare in proportion to their poverty. That should also be included per capita.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Were those stats older? I just posted a link I saw.

1992 was the latest date I saw.



Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Your stat gave me a 404. I'll look it up in the census. But even then it's quite clear that white people are the largest welfare recipients. I actually said blacks were a higher percentage although that link said it was lower.

If you check the thread, those sites worked when I researched it and Bardock42 checked over my work.

There was not only a greater actual number of African American families on Welfare than any other race demographic, they also had the largest per capita.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Something else:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sEnJtgO7GDQJ:www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/+24.7%25+black+poverty&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Higher percentage of blacks in poverty, yet whites are still taking up a much larger percentage of welfare in proportion to their poverty. That should also be included per capita.

The difference is 470,000 more white children are impoverished than any other race demographic by 2008's numbers. Being impoverished and being on welfare are not mutually inclusive (I show this, later).

And, no, whites don't even come close to taking up a much larger percentage. The chart shows poverty, not welfare.

Here it is by race, number (in thousands), and percent of demographic:

Hispanic: 5,610 33.1%
White: 4,850 11.9%
Black: 4,480 35.4%
Asian: 531 13.3%

So we see a plurality from Hispanic, an actual greater number from whites to blacks, and the smallest percentage from whites.


So there are less impoverished white children than any other race demographic per capita.


So when you said this:
"Higher percentage of blacks in poverty, yet whites are still taking up a much larger percentage of welfare in proportion to their poverty."

The first portion is correct. The second portion is wrong. But how do we know it's wrong?




First, let's find the total number children for each race demographic. (anyone under 18).


That's easy because you can just finish out the percentage to get your total.


74.63 million children in the US in 2008 (divide 15.35/.207 to find that, based on your website.)

76% of Americans are in the "white" category.

12.4% are in the "black" category.


Find those totals:

Whites = 56.72 million
Blacks = 9.25 million

So there's your total number of children.


Compare this to welfare.

Of whites, 2.36% are on welfare.

Of blacks, 15.28% are on welfare.


But, do the whites, out of their poor, have a greater percentage on welfare? Meaning, do the poor white take advantage of welfare more often than the poor blacks?


Percentage of impoverished white children: 11.9%

Percentage of whites on welfare: 2.36%

Percent of poor taking advantage of welfare: 19.8%



Percentage of impoverished black children: 35.4%

Percentage of blacks on welfare: 15.28%

Percent of poor taking advantage of welfare: 43.2%



So, no, a much greater percentage of poor African Americans are taking advantage of welfare than whites. More than double that of their white counterparts.



While impoverished children and a total of impoverished are going to vary a bit, they will not vary much. So the numbers will work out to be almost exactly the same if you found stats for total percent impoverished rather than by children, alone. In fact, you should see the number work more in favor of whites if you do total percentage.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
1992 was the latest date I saw.





If you check the thread, those sites worked when I researched it and Bardock42 checked over my work.

There was not only a greater actual number of African American families on Welfare than any other race demographic, they also had the largest per capita.



The difference is 470,000 more white children are impoverished than any other race demographic by 2008's numbers. Being impoverished and being on welfare are not mutually inclusive (I show this, later).

And, no, whites don't even come close to taking up a much larger percentage. The chart shows poverty, not welfare.

Here it is by race, number (in thousands), and percent of demographic:

Hispanic: 5,610 33.1%
White: 4,850 11.9%
Black: 4,480 35.4%
Asian: 531 13.3%

So we see a plurality from Hispanic, an actual greater number from whites to blacks, and the smallest percentage from whites.


So there are less impoverished white children than any other race demographic per capita.


So when you said this:
"Higher percentage of blacks in poverty, yet whites are still taking up a much larger percentage of welfare in proportion to their poverty."

The first portion is correct. The second portion is wrong. But how do we know it's wrong?




First, let's find the total number children for each race demographic. (anyone under 18).


That's easy because you can just finish out the percentage to get your total.


74.63 million children in the US in 2008 (divide 15.35/.207 to find that, based on your website.)

76% of Americans are in the "white" category.

12.4% are in the "black" category.


Find those totals:

Whites = 56.72 million
Blacks = 9.25 million

So there's your total number of children.


Compare this to welfare.

Of whites, 2.36% are on welfare.

Of blacks, 15.28% are on welfare.


But, do the whites, out of their poor, have a greater percentage on welfare? Meaning, do the poor white take advantage of welfare more often than the poor blacks?


Percentage of impoverished white children: 11.9%

Percentage of whites on welfare: 2.36%

Percent of poor taking advantage of welfare: 19.8%



Percentage of impoverished black children: 35.4%

Percentage of blacks on welfare: 15.28%

Percent of poor taking advantage of welfare: 43.2%



So, no, a much greater percentage of poor African Americans are taking advantage of welfare than whites. More than double that of their white counterparts.



While impoverished children and a total of impoverished are going to vary a bit, they will not vary much. So the numbers will work out to be almost exactly the same if you found stats for total percent impoverished rather than by children, alone. In fact, you should see the number work more in favor of whites if you do total percentage.


That first link was a updated and added article, and I never got to see your link. My second link was on poverty. My point was that there were more black people that were impoverished than whites (of course) but there were a greater number of white people on welfare. White single mothers are the single largest welfare demographic. There are also more white people than black people. That has been on every statistic I pulled up. I've not seen one study, even on the census that showed black people as the highest (number wise) of recipients.

There were a higher percentage of black people on welfare, and I agree on your "per capita" part. As I said there are more white people on it, but a higher percentage of black people. More but in terms of poverty to welfare. Yes white people use more welfare without being impoverished. Which is my point.

Even if I put it in google and look at the first page of results, none show that white people are a lower total number of welfare recipients.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=welfare+statistics+by+race&oq=welfare+statistics+by+race&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v2g-m4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1156l3547l0l3707l7l6l0l2l2l0l134l311l2.1l3l0


Sorry bud.

*shrugs*

book

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
That first link was a updated and added article, and I never got to see your link.

It's okay: the link worked when I wrote it up and it was more up to date than yours.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
My second link was on poverty. My point was that there were more black people that were impoverished than whites (of course) but there were a greater number of white people on welfare. White single mothers are the single largest welfare demographic. There are also more white people than black people. That has been on every statistic I pulled up. I've not seen one study, even on the census that showed black people as the highest (number wise) of recipients..


But there's not a greater number of white people on welfare and I proved that already.


And on the first page of results you showed, it still has more black people on welfare at 39% and 38% for white on sites that did not do nearly as good of a job of measuring and calculating it out as I did. smile

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
There were a higher percentage of black people on welfare, and I agree on your "per capita" part. As I said there are more white people on it, but a higher percentage of black people. More but in terms of poverty to welfare. Yes white people use more welfare without being impoverished. Which is my point.

If you say there are more actual on on it, you're wrong based on what I've clearly shown in the past and the first page of results you linked me to. It's actually not debatable.

Myth: more white people are on welfare than black people.

Fact: that was true for a few years in the 90s. It's actually not true, currently, nor has it been for many years. It's a misleading statistic, anyway, even if "year" is not considered.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Even if I put it in google and look at the first page of results, none show that white people are a lower total number of welfare recipients.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=welfare+statistics+by+race&oq=welfare+statistics+by+race&aq=f&aqi=g4g-v2g-m4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1156l3547l0l3707l7l6l0l2l2l0l134l311l2.1l3l0


Sorry bud.

*shrugs*

book

"And on the first page of results you showed, it still has more black people on welfare at 39% and 38% for white on sites that did not do nearly as good of a job of measuring and calculating it out as I did. smile"

Myth: more white people are on welfare than black people.

Fact: that was true for a few years in the 90s. It's actually not true, currently, nor has it been for many years. It's a misleading statistic, anyway, even if "year" is not considered.

CloverQuick
I think what it boils down to basically is human greed. Everyone always wants more than what they have, Like the lost (or at least almost everyone - I suppose there are few people in the world who do not).

dadudemon
I just checked the links. the first link, which is the most important link, more than proves my point, already. There is no need for the second link to work because all it is doing it proving the number of people per household which shows whites have less and blacks have more. Using the average of 2.6, it still works out to clearly show the more blacks are on welfare than whites...debunking the myth.

Add in that household numbers are greater for blacks and it proves the point.


You don't have to have that particular link working in order to look up the 2010 census information. That's actually unnecessary to the point. However, it can easily be found.

But here's a website that has it as late as 2006 which makes the numbers much more in my favor, based off of the census.

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/PopHsgRates/AllStatesHouseHoldSize.html

2.74 household size for black.


In other words, the more and more I look at it (and not the stats from other sites, but stats I calculate out on my own based off of the census and welfare data, it is making it much more in favor of my original point. There is obviously a bias which has spurred from the myth that started in the 90s. People are not doing their math correctly and are only furthering the myth. It makes a nice headline.), the more it supports my point.

I don't trust the math that no name "news" sites and "yahoo" answers provide. It doesn't take much effort to do your own math based on the real census and welfare data available. So why has the myth become so entrenched in society if all it takes is one person looking at the welfare and census data and making the correction? It doesn't make for a good headline because it comes off as "pro-white". no expression

Tha C-Master
Lol I wouldn't want you to look at yahoo answers, those are only good for a laugh, although some post good links.

I've posted links where it showed the opposite was true, and I've seen more statistics in that favor than in your favor. I'm not sure where you actually found your statistics to be honest. But most places I've looked showed the same thing, with little research.

Actually the myth has been that welfare recipients are black women with many kids. While there are many women like that ( I know a few myself) it was white people who were on it more. My beliefs the opposite of yours. Pointing this out makes white people "look bad" therefore the myth exists. Just like mortgage defaulters are mostly white. People want to believe that it is coming from "ghetto areas" when it just isn't the case.

Now, that first link I posted was updated. I'm not sure what the numbers are now, with the recession and all, but for many years it was white people by about 1%. Maybe it has changed somewhat, not sure. Even then I originally said that blacks did have a higher percentage per capita. So I agree there.

However the big part is also that there are less poor white people, but more on welfare who aren't poor, compared to blacks.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
I think what it boils down to basically is human greed. Everyone always wants more than what they have, Like the lost (or at least almost everyone - I suppose there are few people in the world who do not). What's wrong with having nice houses though?

People are engineered to survive.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Lol I wouldn't want you to look at yahoo answers, those are only good for a laugh, although some post good links.

I've posted links where it showed the opposite was true, and I've seen more statistics in that favor than in your favor. I'm not sure where you actually found your statistics to be honest. But most places I've looked showed the same thing, with little research.

Actually the myth has been that welfare recipients are black women with many kids. While there are many women like that ( I know a few myself) it was white people who were on it more. My beliefs the opposite of yours. Pointing this out makes white people "look bad" therefore the myth exists. Just like mortgage defaulters are mostly white. People want to believe that it is coming from "ghetto areas" when it just isn't the case.

Now, that first link I posted was updated. I'm not sure what the numbers are now, with the recession and all, but for many years it was white people by about 1%. Maybe it has changed somewhat, not sure. Even then I originally said that blacks did have a higher percentage per capita. So I agree there.

I showed you where I got my numbers from. The source.

And then I did math from that. Not the no-name websites or wiki/yahoo answers.

Then I did math from the source...simple math.

Then I adjusted it to match race demographics. Then I found an even MORE recent link that showed that the numbers are skewed in more in my point's favor.

And, no, one is a myth and one is racism.


The myth was that more white people were on welfare than black. It's a false myth that had some fact to it because of a few years in the 90s. Myths usually have some truth to them.

The racism is that black women are on welfare all the time. That's not a myth...that's just plain racism.


The facts, however, show the black people take advantage of welfare very disproportionately compared to whites and Asians...while still maintaining a plurality over whites, Asians, and native Americans. I believe the Hispanic have blacks beat out in the plurality, now...but there's also more Hispanic in the US than blacks, now.




Originally posted by Tha C-Master
However the big part is also that there are less poor white people, but more on welfare who aren't poor, compared to blacks.

I debunked that "myth" too. I showed you that, quite clearly, there is s smaller percentage of poor white people on welfare than black people. 19% of poor white people versus 43% of poor black people. In other words, white people need to start take more advantage of the welfare programs in the US.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
I showed you where I got my numbers from. The source.

And then I did math from that. Not the no-name websites or wiki/yahoo answers.

Then I did math from the source...simple math.

Then I adjusted it to match race demographics. Then I found an even MORE recent link that showed that the numbers are skewed in more in my point's favor.

And, no, one is a myth and one is racism.


The myth was that more white people were on welfare than black. It's a false myth that had some fact to it because of a few years in the 90s. Myths usually have some truth to them.

The racism is that black women are on welfare all the time. That's not a myth...that's just plain racism.


The facts, however, show the black people take advantage of welfare very disproportionately compared to whites and Asians...while still maintaining a plurality over whites, Asians, and native Americans. I believe the Hispanic have blacks beat out in the plurality, now...but there's also more Hispanic in the US than blacks, now.


You didn't though. You dismissed my several links (and I didn't directly post to a yahoo link) I posted the first page on google. I've seen no other pages that say whites are at a much less percentage than blacks on welfare. I've actually seen it at an opposite. I said that whites use the most and blacks have a higher percentage per capita.

I agree. The one that welfare is from a black welfare queen as a stereotype is racist. People aren't going around saying that welfare is coming from those "lazy white people". Where is this? People go around saying that black people suck up all the welfare.

In reality though, the demographic who should be pointed out for that are single mothers.

The math is simple. Just population by percentage. It still shows that more whites use it even when they aren't impoverished.

Stats can always be manipulated and adjusted. I've seen far more sources saying what I said than what you said.

But in reality, welfare paints a bigger picture anyways. Welfare is much more than government food stamps. Social Security, Medicare, and other huge numbers of subsidies that are given out to groups, such as veterans. We really need stats on all of that to get the whole picture anyways.



Originally posted by dadudemon
I debunked that "myth" too. I showed you that, quite clearly, there is s smaller percentage of poor white people on welfare than black people. 19% of poor white people versus 43% of poor black people. In other words, white people need to start take more advantage of the welfare programs in the US. You didn't show me there were more poor black people. I told you that.

Why would white people need to take more advantage of welfare being that they take up the most (or close to it). That would mean they are using it disproportionately compared to others in terms of the poverty to other groups.

As for people taking advantage. I don't believe anybody should "take advantage of it really. I'd like it to go down on all demographics, particularly single mothers. Not to mention the other groups that are subsidized.

inimalist
c-master:

my bad that I haven't gotten back to you, putting in mad time at work (as the comic vs board about it sad)

I haven't forgotten though, hopefully I will have something... at some point...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You didn't though. You dismissed my several links (and I didn't directly post to a yahoo link) I posted the first page on google. I've seen no other pages that say whites are at a much less percentage than blacks on welfare. I've actually seen it at an opposite. I said that whites use the most and blacks have a higher percentage per capita.

I did and you dismissed it even with the source staring you in the face.

And addressed all other points in your post. Stop talking in circles.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
People aren't going around saying that welfare is coming from those "lazy white people".

Yes they are. erm

No one says "lazy white people" they say, "lazy white trash" or "lazy redneck."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Where is this? People go around saying that black people suck up all the welfare.

Black people use it more, per person, than any other race demographic. It's not just be a little: it's "by far." 43% of their poor use welfare. That's almost half. African Americans do take advantage of government assistance much more than any other race demographic. It's so disproportionate with other demographics that you must consider sub-culture as part of the drive.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The math is simple. Just population by percentage. It still shows that more whites use it even when they aren't impoverished..

K. But that's not true, either. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Stats can always be manipulated and adjusted. I've seen far more sources saying what I said than what you said.

I addressed this point already. Your "first page" is mostly wiki/yahoo answers, no-name news sources that used out-dated data or just data that was wrong, and message boards.

You can use those sources if you want: I'll stick to official sources that are as up to date as possible. I'll make my own conclusions using my own math.


The "more white people use welfare" myth is not the only myth I debunked using source data and doing math. The idea that texting while driving has increased car crashes is also false. Looking at the numbers, it decreased as texting increased. Something does not fit in that picture. Don't believe every news source you see until you've seen the numbers yourself.


I'll just requote myself from now on when you bring up this wrong point.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But in reality, welfare paints a bigger picture anyways. Welfare is much more than government food stamps. Social Security, Medicare, and other huge numbers of subsidies that are given out to groups, such as veterans. We really need stats on all of that to get the whole picture anyways.

So you want to redefine welfare? Cool. I'm not interested in that discussion. I'll stick with the US government and textbook definition.



Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You didn't show me there were more poor black people. I told you that.

I showed you what I showed you.

Namely: more blacks use welfare than whites.

Less of the poor whites use welfare than blacks.


Naming random points that I didn't show you is not going to fly. Those were my two points. Since they were proven, they are no longer my points: they are just facts that you must accept.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Why would white people need to take more advantage of welfare being that they take up the most (or close to it). That would mean they are using it disproportionately compared to others in terms of the poverty to other groups.

Wrong. You kind of missed everything even when it was explicitly showed to you. I won't respond to these points anymore if you're going to ignore everything shown.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As for people taking advantage. I don't believe anybody should "take advantage of it really. I'd like it to go down on all demographics, particularly single mothers. Not to mention the other groups that are subsidized.

K.

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

dadudemon

dadudemon

dadudemon

dadudemon

cdtm
Originally posted by Mindship
I think our civilization's at the point where we have to reconsider which tendency should dominate. I'd prefer a paradigm shift, but I'll settle for modified behavior.

...this is a very, very scary post...

"Modified behavior".. Jesus christ.

dadudemon
Here's some facts:


Medicaid:

White: 43%
Black: 21%

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=158&cat=3

Result: extremely disproportianate representation by blacks.


Medicare by race:

White: 78%
Black: 10%

This is age specific...so it's more telling of age distribution than anything else.


SNAP:

White: 43%
Black: 33%

Blacks represent an extreme disproporition (greatly exceeding other race demographics who are also eligible.)

Veterans:
Stupid comparison because almost all vets are white and you either are a vet or aren't. It's worse than comparing medicare.


Housing: you showed that one.



Bla bla.


The comparisons are useless because they either show population representations (such as Medicare or Veterans) or they show quite clearly that African Americans are grossly represented out of proportion...even exceeding participation levels of other eligible race demographics.


Discuss they reasons why AAs participate more in entitlement programs. The answer is not "they are more poor." Even when controlling for poor, they still participate more.

Mindship
Originally posted by cdtm
"Modified behavior".. Jesus christ. It'll take a lot of M&Ms.

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Tha C-Master

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Question. If all these downtrodden white people need so much welfare, then why don't we have special government programs to assist them? Some sort of action that affirms their presence in higher education?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Question. If all these downtrodden white people need so much welfare, then why don't we have special government programs to assist them?

Like . . . welfare?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Some sort of action that affirms their presence in higher education?

White people are already well represented in higher education so there's no need to even that out. Programs already exist to smooth the difficulties that poor people have.

Between those two fact poor white people have their stuff sorted out pretty well.

alltoomany
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's still true. People still choose the most successful and desirable person they can. People still underachieve and have more kids than they can afford, while others choose to further themselves to increase the chances of survival for their own offspring.

We use laws and systems now, but the reason we even have a nation like America is because some men came over and killed, plundered, raped, and stole from others. This land and nation didn't come from out of the air. We made it our territory like animals make their own territory and those who are too weak to defend themselves pack up and leave.

You see it in gang activity amongst anything else. If others can enforce what they say, they won't enforce for long.


Yes, but we were given the brains to improvise.

Although there is nothing wrong with buying nice houses. If you can great. Don't see the problem.

In the US there are 5 bedroom 4 bathroom houses going for $30,000. If you can afford it, why not? We all had to pay for the decisions of the stupid. That's a very good price and the mortgage would be cheaper than renting a 1 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment. It's a no brainier.



WHERE IN THE U.S? Not in New york..

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
stuff

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
more stuff

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Again, more stuff

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Holy crap, more stuff

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Wow...even more.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
WTF?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Surely this is the last one.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I can't believe this.



I didn't read a single word from all EIGHT of your posts. Not a single word (I lied: I read "Dear lord..."wink. You are not worth the time.


Rather than waste my time with your whining, trolling, and ignorance, I'll address the root of your problem:




The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference. smile


I know you can't do it and you never will.


You were wrong, used wrong numbers to support your position, and now you're playing the "racism" card. Pathetic.

What's worse, in areas that can be compared, you've more than admitted the disproportionate representation of African Americans in government assistance programs. So what's the problem? Are you upset that African American's have a subculture of government entitlement? You do realize that they haven't even been allowed on Welfare programs until the last 40 years, right? I personally have no problem with them getting what they are eligible for considering the past. You just need to pull your head out and stop being such an apologetic while pretending white people are the devil.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Of course white people are already well-represented. But what about honest-to-goodness poor white trash? Not sure I saw too many of those folks while I was on campus. (The joke, of course, is that affirmative action is bullshit.)

Lord Lucien
Poor white trash are inherently racist and don't know how to spell the word "affirmative", so that means they're scum who don't deserve anything at all. QED.

Mindset
Originally posted by dadudemon
white people are the devil. I agree completely. g007-psyduck

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Of course white people are already well-represented. But what about honest-to-goodness poor white trash? Not sure I saw too many of those folks while I was on campus.

"White trash" isn't really a category, they're white and they're poor. Being white doesn't have any apparent effect on acceptance rates. Being poor does but I'm pretty sure there are programs to deal with that.

Where did you go to school? A lot of states don't have much honest-to-goodness poor white trash, a representative number of them would be be just as tiny.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
(The joke, of course, is that affirmative action is bullshit.)

Then you should stick to arguments against it that aren't so stupid.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read a single word from all EIGHT of your posts. Not a single word (I lied: I read "Dear lord..."wink. You are not worth the time.


Rather than waste my time with your whining, trolling, and ignorance, I'll address the root of your problem:




The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference. smile


I know you can't do it and you never will.


You were wrong, used wrong numbers to support your position, and now you're playing the "racism" card. Pathetic.

What's worse, in areas that can be compared, you've more than admitted the disproportionate representation of African Americans in government assistance programs. So what's the problem? Are you upset that African American's have a subculture of government entitlement? You do realize that they haven't even been allowed on Welfare programs until the last 40 years, right? I personally have no problem with them getting what they are eligible for considering the past. You just need to pull your head out and stop being such an apologetic while pretending white people are the devil. You ran out of steam, I would the piss would stop. wink

I used a census form. It was there. You used wiki and all kinds of other sites. Please, lol. Oh and you said I was biased against whites at first? Anybody who knows me knows it isn't true, I treat all morons the same regardless of color. stick out tongue

White people are the devil? Not at all. Your buddy made a blatantly racist comment and I corrected them. Besides, you know what I say about chicks: no matter what color they are on the outside. They're pink on the inside.

smile

Take care buddy. I knew you were just testing me. That 753 owning had your mouth watering and you just wanted to see me type.

http://image16.webshots.com/16/1/76/99/2708176990027393428XqkaPd_ph.jpg I imagine it's tough when the credit on the ebt card is too low for the month. Have a hug from me. sad

Tha C-Master
...Now to something more intelligent, constructive, and on topic. From people who don't pretend to "not have read my posts" when they can't come up with anything, say I'm not worth the time, and then continue to respond. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by alltoomany
WHERE IN THE U.S? Not in New york.. Different states have different housing and cost of living rates.

For instance Mississippi has very cheap housing even when the economy was good. A $100,000 house would net you a great house. Even in a good economy.

California and New York are going to be more expensive. While places that were hit hard by the bad economy are going to have really cheap houses. Namely Michigan because of the automotive industry. You can find houses in the million dollar range at a $100,000 or so.

Actually the million dollar range are where the best deals are if you can afford the property taxes and maintenance costs. In Atlanta you have million dollar homes going for 200 to 300 k. 1 house I saw behind me in one of my houses was a 10+ bedroom house, it went for $140,000, the best deal I've seen in the south so far. Needed a lot of work though.

Problem is that place is recovering the fastest, the upper class homes at least. You have time though to look at them for good investments.

Now the 30,000 dollar 5 bedroom homes can be found and many of them have first time homeowner deals that have great financing opportunities if you are just starting out and have respectable credit. Look those up and give it a try.

In New York the housing is a bit higher, but I'm sure you can find something for around $100,000 or slightly less, even there.

Look up, not down.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You ran out of steam, I would the piss would stop. wink

Troll harder, please.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I used a census form. It was there. You used wiki and all kinds of other sites. Please, lol. Oh and you said I was biased against whites at first? Anybody who knows me knows it isn't true, I treat all morons the same regardless of color. stick out tongue

You're dodging.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
White people are the devil? Not at all. Your buddy made a blatantly racist comment and I corrected them. Besides, you know what I say about chicks: no matter what color they are on the outside. They're pink on the inside.

K.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Take care buddy. I knew you were just testing me. That 753 owning had your mouth watering and you just wanted to see me type.

I imagine it's tough when the credit on the ebt card is too low for the month. Have a hug from me. sad

I wasn't testing.

I'm still looking for why even you used the 39 to 38 %...but then swapped to the 25% 60+%.


Like I said, you don't know the difference.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
Troll harder, please.



You're dodging.



K.



I wasn't testing.

I'm still looking for why even you used the 39 to 38 %...but then swapped to the 25% 60+%.


Like I said, you don't know the difference. You're the troll not me friend. smile

Selective reading and all. I never swapped anything.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You're the troll not me friend. smile


Riiiight. Cause posting 8 posts in a row, ignoring points made, pretending that a page full of yahoo/wiki/ask and forums are "evidence", and then screaming that white people troll welfare....is not trolling, right?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Selective reading and all. I never swapped anything.

Again, dodging.


You have dodged the central point. You can inject a trillion other points and argue about those (have at it: I couldn't care less about you missing more points and posting in circles). Address it the main point:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will."

Zeal Ex Nihilo
But Lawshaunda needs to get she college degree.

Tha C-Master
So does Billy Bob.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Riiiight. Cause posting 8 posts in a row, ignoring points made, pretending that a page full of yahoo/wiki/ask and forums are "evidence", and then screaming that white people troll welfare....is not trolling, right?



Again, dodging.


You have dodged the central point. You can inject a trillion other points and argue about those (have at it: I couldn't care less about you missing more points and posting in circles). Address it the main point:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will." Hmm, I thought you didn't read those posts? It's obvious you did, and you just didn't have an answer, so you'll just continue to post again and again to feel better and boost yourself but you really had no point in the first place. Not to mention you used wiki of all things which said white people get the most welfare. You should try harder. You'll keep on posting and telling me I'm a waste of time and keep posting and telling me I'm a waste of time, etc. I'm right and the census said so. Case closed.

yawn

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Hmm, I thought you didn't read those posts? It's obvious you did, and you just didn't have an answer, so you'll just continue to post again and again to feel better and boost yourself but you really had no point in the first place.

You done trolling?

Cause, no, I didn't.


Reread my post knowing full well that you're transparent and cyclical. Hint: 8 posts and all other items listed, while not mutually exclusive, refer to different posts.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Not to mention you used wiki of all things which said white people get the most welfare.

I did?

no expression

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You should try harder. You'll keep on posting and telling me I'm a waste of time and keep posting and telling me I'm a waste of time, etc. I'm right and the census said so. Case closed.

yawn

And again, you dodged.

Good one.

Tha C-Master
Coming from the person who ignored that large post? Why should someone be obligated to take *anything* you say seriously? You know you're wrong anyways and are just arguing for the sake of it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Coming from the person who ignored that large post? Why should someone be obligated to take *anything* you say seriously? You know you're wrong anyways and are just arguing for the sake of it.

Because you ignored everything prior and kept talking in circles. No need to feed your habit.


I brought it back down to the original discussion after playing your lame game.



Again, reconcile this:


"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will."

Tha C-Master
So you're "feeding my habit" by posting? It's not my fault your wiki link actually agreed with me, you're doing the work for me my friend.

You're just saving face and I understand. When people are blatantly wrong they have to. You can keep saying I'm wrong and I'm too dumb to know anything and that you're right. But if that were true you wouldn't waste your time with an "ignorant black guy" like myself. yawn

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
So you're "feeding my habit" by posting? It's not my fault your wiki link actually agreed with me, you're doing the work for me my friend.

You're just saving face and I understand. When people are blatantly wrong they have to. You can keep saying I'm wrong and I'm too dumb to know anything and that you're right. But if that were true you wouldn't waste your time with an "ignorant black guy" like myself. yawn

I see dodging but no legit reply.

I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you.


Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years. smile

Tha C-Master
I must have learned how to dodge from the best. You dodge so much you could be the next Spider-Man. You have a superhuman dodging ability.

Stop posting wiki articles that agree with me, you're only helping me out.

I already answered your question because you asked it before. Stop trolling to get your rocks off? Are you black and just secretly trolling? "Dadudemon"?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I must have learned how to dodge from the best. You dodge so much you could be the next Spider-Man. You have a superhuman dodging ability.

Done trolling?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Stop posting wiki articles that agree with me, you're only helping me out.

"I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I already answered your question because you asked it before. Stop trolling to get your rocks off? Are you black and just secretly trolling? "Dadudemon"?

No you didn't:

Again:


"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will."

Tha C-Master
Typical ABC trolling, just copying and pasting the same response while ignoring everything and saying it over and over. I'm sure the thread starter loves you though. Keeps the thread going. Why you would post wiki in the first place as a hardcore primary source and not check and see if it doesn't contradict you is beyond me. Ah well. I guess trolls can get sloppy too.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Typical ABC trolling, just copying and pasting the same response while ignoring everything and saying it over and over. I'm sure the thread starter loves you though. Keeps the thread going. Why you would post wiki in the first place as a hardcore primary source and not check and see if it doesn't contradict you is beyond me. Ah well. I guess trolls can get sloppy too.

"Done trolling?"

"I also asked you about the wiki link, but still nothing from you."

"Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years."

Tha C-Master
It just continues. Ignoring posts and then pretending I didn't respond. The trolling is legendary. The Judge would be proud.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It just continues. Ignoring posts and then pretending I didn't respond. The trolling is legendary. The Judge would be proud.


"Done trolling?" Also, you can't call someone a troll after they called you a troll for trolling. That's not how it works. That's essentially a "I know you are but what am I?"

"Can you reconcile the 38% to 60+%? Please tell me how it almost double in only 3 years."


You claim to have reconciled that when it was a point I brought up only after your 8 posts in a row.

You have yet to do so.


That's the main point of discussion, at this point. Reconcile that or concede you got in over your head and used improper data in a comparison.

Tha C-Master
Sure I can. Seeing as you feel apt to ignore posts and respond to what you want. How about you stop using information you don't understand and you were wrong all along instead of this routine to save face. I answered all of your questions in that post and I won't do it again.

alltoomany
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)



lol, those claims are fake

the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....

The Indian government is rootless...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Sure I can. Seeing as you feel apt to ignore posts and respond to what you want. How about you stop using information you don't understand and you were wrong all along instead of this routine to save face. I answered all of your questions in that post and I won't do it again.

K.

So you'll continue to dodge while trolling, right?


If you honestly answered, it would take you less than 10 seconds to requote yourself, which I've already done for you. smile

Tha C-Master
I learn from the best old friend. You might just be black and trying to pull our legs. Quite brilliant if you ask me. You had everyone fooled but I saw through your ruse. Now is the time to fess up.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I learn from the best old friend. You might just be black and trying to pull our legs. Quite brilliant if you ask me. You had everyone fooled but I saw through your ruse. Now is the time to fess up.


Originally posted by dadudemon
K.

So you'll continue to dodge while trolling, right?


If you honestly answered, it would take you less than 10 seconds to requote yourself, which I've already done for you. smile

Tha C-Master
Yep.

dadudemon
I posted last.

Tha C-Master
Nope I did. biscuits

dadudemon
Black people have been using more welfare since 1998.

Fact.

Tha C-Master
No they haven't. White people have been using the most government assistance for the longest.

Anyways the upsurge in the "TANF" type welfare comes from children being born from single mothers. That's the fact.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No they haven't.

False.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
White people have been using the most government assistance for the longest.


True. Black people didn't have access to Welfare until about 40 years ago.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Anyways the upsurge in the "TANF" type welfare comes from children being born from single mothers. That's the fact.

I disagree. Unless you're trying to tell me that

1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.

Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.




So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
False.




True. Black people didn't have access to Welfare until about 40 years ago.



I disagree. Unless you're trying to tell me that

1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.

Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.




So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again. Uh.... single mothers are the largest recipients of that type of welfare of all races. Wic, afdc, and tanf. Who do you think is taking it? Single men? Married couples without children? lol.

How about you learn your facts and stop trolling.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Uh.... single mothers are the largest recipients of that type of welfare of all races. Wic, afdc, and tanf. Who do you think is taking it? Single men? Married couples without children? lol.

How about you learn your facts and stop trolling.

You actually dodged the point entirely.

Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct referene to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post.


And, again, just because you're trolling doesn't mean everyone else is.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
You actually dodged the point entirely.

Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct referene to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post.


And, again, just because you're trolling doesn't mean everyone else is. My post was about single mothers receiving that kind of welfare the most. Which is a fact.

Trollbilly.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
My post was about single mothers receiving that kind of welfare the most. Which is a fact.

Trollbilly.

And I just replied to. Basically, your justification for more than a double jump from 2001 to 2003 is wrong and I called you on it.


I offered you another chance to provide a reason why it jumped from 30% (2001) to over 60% (2004) because that is what you're trying to pass off.


And if you name call again, I will start reporting you.

Tha C-Master
What was I trying to justify? They do take up the most.

I answered all of your questions in the previous post. You chose to ignore it and call me a troll. So I'm calling you one. You can cry and try to push the report button because you got owned all you wish after all the comments you have made. It will do you no good. You've simply decided to drag this discussion and it's going nowhere seeing as you just skip whatever you wish to ignore. You're going to keep saying the same thing regardless so why should I waste my time entertaining you? Go ahead and report and get the thread closed. It's pretty much dead now anyways. Must be nice embarrassing yourself with wiki posts that don't agree with you. smile Keep ignoring the census too. It really does suit you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What was I trying to justify? They do take up the most.

"I offered you another chance to provide a reason why it jumped from 30% (2001) to over 60% (2004) because that is what you're trying to pass off."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I answered all of your questions in the previous post. You chose to ignore it and call me a troll. So I'm calling you one. You can cry and try to push the report button because you got owned all you wish after all the comments you have made. It will do you no good. You've simply decided to drag this discussion and it's going nowhere seeing as you just skip whatever you wish to ignore. You're going to keep saying the same thing regardless so why should I waste my time entertaining you? Go ahead and report and get the thread closed. It's pretty much dead now anyways. Must be nice embarrassing yourself with wiki posts that don't agree with you. smile Keep ignoring the census too. It really does suit you.

"You claim to have reconciled that when it was a point I brought up only after your 8 posts in a row.

You have yet to do so.


That's the main point of discussion, at this point. Reconcile that or concede you got in over your head and used improper data in a comparison."

Tha C-Master
I answered it if you choose to ignore that it's on you. Otherwise why even bother with all of this effort if you are adamant that: I'm wrong, I'm ignoring you, and I'm not answering it. You're just posting to post. Why not just ignore me?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I answered it if you choose to ignore that it's on you.

You did answer it...it was just a bad and factually incorrect answer.

You missed the part where your "answer" was such complete rubbish that it bordered on being a joke.


Again:

"Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct reference to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post."





And here it is:


"Unless you're trying to tell me that

1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.

Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.




So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."



But we already know the outcome:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will."


Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Otherwise why even bother with all of this effort if you are adamant that: I'm wrong, I'm ignoring you, and I'm not answering it. You're just posting to post. Why not just ignore me?

Cause I don't have to plug my ears like a 3 year old. You do know that you can "ignore" me if you don't know the answer, right? Or you could just say, "I don't know the answer and I admit my answer was quite sh*tty."

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
You did answer it...it was just a bad and factually incorrect answer.

You missed the part where your "answer" was such complete rubbish that it bordered on being a joke.


Again:

"Reread my post. It is very direct and straight forward. I wasn't making a point about which gender demographics comprise welfare recipients. It was a direct reference to a change in "who receives" what based off of your post."





And here it is:


"Unless you're trying to tell me that

1. White mothers started having children at more than double the rate in only a 3 year period.
2. Having those children, alone, made them qualifty for TANF.
3. The "double the rate" mothers also doubly took advantage of TANF.

Meaning, despite the fact that white mothers would need to have more than doubled their birth rate in a 3 year period, they would also have to have doubled their rate of eligibility while doubling their rate of participation in TANF.




So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."



But we already know the outcome:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference.


I know you can't do it and you never will."




Cause I don't have to plug my ears like a 3 year old. You do know that you can "ignore" me if you don't know the answer, right? Or you could just say, "I don't know the answer and I admit my answer was quite sh*tty." Nah, posting here is just a little bit of fun during the day. You don't want me to prove anything to you. You want to prove it to yourself. I posted the census and made my point quite clearly. Nothing said will change your mind. I've had many debates and I know where this is going. This isn't about being and finding out the right information. It's about the boost of seeing who can piss the farthest.

It's all good though, I'm just taking it easy and chilling out. Nothing better or worse with white people taking government assistance over any other race, it just needs to reduce all around for all types of people.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nah, posting here is just a little bit of fun during the day. You don't want me to prove anything to you. You want to prove it to yourself. I posted the census and made my point quite clearly. Nothing said will change your mind. I've had many debates and I know where this is going. This isn't about being and finding out the right information. It's about the boost of seeing who can piss the farthest.


That's great and all, but this:

"So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's all good though, I'm just taking it easy and chilling out. Nothing better or worse with white people taking government assistance over any other race, it just needs to reduce all around for all types of people.

I'm black. no expression

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's great and all, but this:

"So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."



I'm black. no expression

i'm just a casual observer, nothing more, so don't take my word for anything.

Such a change could be introduced through a number of factors, including: population blowouts; a large number of deaths; unemployment blwoouts or reductions... Or any combination of the above. Note that these are only some factors, there may be many others, including more outlandish ones.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
i'm just a casual observer, nothing more, so don't take my word for anything.

Such a change could be introduced through a number of factors, including: population blowouts; a large number of deaths; unemployment blwoouts or reductions... Or any combination of the above. Note that these are only some factors, there may be many others, including more outlandish ones.

While quite true...


Do you honestly think that any of those apply to the white American population?



Maybe I'm wrong and white people, in 3 years, experienced a paradigm shift in single mother births. But that's so extremely unlikely. I could easily look up the birth rates by race for those years, but that's not the point. The entire point is he has using an apples to oranges comparison to make a point.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's great and all, but this:

"So, try again. What is the REAL reason there is such a stark difference from 2001 (or even 1991 which had significantly more white people using the "TANF" than any other race demographic) to 2004? I've already given you a hint by telling you those are apples to oranges comparisons...but I'm willing to "sit back" and allow you to try again."



I'm black. no expression I knew it was all just a game, that or it's an inner hatred or something.

Single mothers do use the most, kids born in wedlock is a huge reason. There were a lot less single mother births decades ago, and the percentage of people using them wasn't as high.Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
i'm just a casual observer, nothing more, so don't take my word for anything.

Such a change could be introduced through a number of factors, including: population blowouts; a large number of deaths; unemployment blwoouts or reductions... Or any combination of the above. Note that these are only some factors, there may be many others, including more outlandish ones. Right, well I've mention all of government assistance, which in the US whites still use more anyways. He's flip flopping from different points of welfare to prove some "point".

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I knew it was all just a game, that or it's an inner hatred or something.

Single mothers do use the most, kids born in wedlock is a huge reason. There were a lot less single mother births decades ago, and the percentage of people using them wasn't as high. Right, well I've mention all of government assistance, which in the US whites still use more anyways. He's flip flopping from different points of welfare to prove some "point".

K, so, you still didn't provide a reason. You just said the same stuff.



Again, read this and explain:

"The same sites you've tried to use as evidence (39% white versus 38% black participation circa 1991-93) are also documented in a trend over time up to 2001. I provided a site for that to show you the trending. What was the trend? Less and less white participation and more and more African American participation. Up to the point of AA's overtaking white people in participation (something that should not occur considering they only represent a bit over 12% of the population.)


You are using spreadsheets from TANF that show as much as 60+% participation from white just a mere 3 years later.


I asked you to explain why there was such a difference. I hinted that those numbers are not comparable numbers. You don't understand them.


Unless, of course, you want to say that white people started participating in these programs by more than double since 2001 to 2004. Yes, from 30% to over 60% in 3 years time.


So, please explain to me why there's such a difference. "


And, of all people, I thought you would have my back. Why do young AA's think the US government owes them? It certainly is not the older blacks taking advantage of the programs: it's the younger ones. Why?

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by dadudemon


And, of all people, I thought you would have my back. Why do young AA's think the US government owes them? It certainly is not the older blacks taking advantage of the programs: it's the younger ones. Why? Woah woah woah, back up. Let's make this clear now in case it wasn't.

I've said this numerous times. I don't think *anybody* is entitled to a damn thing, women don't deserve special laws, and nor does anybody else. Why would a self made man like me with my own successful company and investments advocate rampant welfare abuse? I can't stand it when a single mother of *any* race does this. And I know black people who do it as well as white and to me it is immoral. This is why I never give money to losers, even if they are friends or family. It's not about color or any of that, it's about what you do as a person.

I have a problem with people spending their money and relying on social security. I have a problem with people borrowing money and then not paying it back. It all shows a lack of character. If you can't afford something, don't buy it. Don't have kids you can't afford to do so, this is immoral. And it's not just black people who think the government owe them, it's poor people. I have white friends like this from way back when that do this. "It's not my fault, it's the world's fault". "The rich are evil and the poor are victims." "The government is entitled to help us." Hell I have had several discussions on this website about this. I hate that mindset. I've seen all ends of it so I know what it is about. The poor are the ones who have lots of kids and then expect "God" or someone else to bail them out. It's an entitlement mentality and Americans are very entitled.

Why would someone like me who worked my ass off, and sacrificed *so* much, and took *so* many risks, who saw much of this first hand in my hometown advocate it? I think poverty is a mindset and it should be done away with. The thing is there are way less of a percentage of whites living below the poverty level who take up the large percentage of government assistance, that's a fact. They're no better or worse than anybody else. I'm not one of those black people who just crack down on black people by saying "They need to get their act together." I'm not one of those black people who crack on white people by saying "It's all the white man's fault." That's stupid and ridiculous. People need to take responsibility with themselves. Black people hating black people the most is often true. No different than how women hate each other and stand together only when it benefits them. I crack on *everyone* equally.

Now on topic, the rich get richer because they educate themselves more to gain leverage to gain more wealth. People in the middle class take out too much debt to keep up with the Joneses, and poor people just rely on someone else to take care of them. The rich predict trends and adapt and adjust. They make things happen, which is why they become rich.

For instance people are complaining about the global economy. Complaining won't change it, so I choose to adapt and take advantage of it, and see how it can benefit my enterprise. Trying to stay the same when everything is changing will leave you behind. The strongest survive and the weak perish for this very reason.

753
lmao at the naturalization of social inequality. unequal distribution of wealth is not a "natural law" at all. if it were, economically based social stratification would be universally found across human cultures and, historically, this was never the case. wealth concentration is a product of our current economic organization, which is not an expression of "nature" at all, but of culturally defined behavior and its global pervasiveness is a product of the expansion of capitalism. justifying wealth accumulation as a natural process, which is demonstrably false, is nothing but an ideological justification of the status quo. just like blaming poverty on the poor for their supposed sloth and incompetence while ignoring the increasingly assimetrical accumulation of wealth produced by collective labour in the hands of proprietaries and high ranking employees no matter how hard the bottom of the pyramid works and how much they contribute to wealth production.

furhtermore, even if the birth rate among lower classes were 5 or 6 higher than in the higher ones, a pseudomalthusian fallacy commonly used to explain poverty away, this would not account for the income disparity which is far higher than that. not only this, but birth rates decline following development and not the other way arround, this is an extremely well known and well documented phenomenon and the greatest force behind it are the increase in participation of women in the labour force and improvements in punblic education, both of which are quickly incremented by social wellfare programs.

bottomline is that the rich get richer because they receive a share of socially produced wealth that is not proportionate to their labor or contribution to production and hold likewise assymetrical control of the means of production, this is class privelege and is ensured by law and culture, not by nature.

investments in social wellfare have historically proven themselves as the most effective way to raise living standards in the populational level and to reduce the birth rate.

Tha C-Master
Originally posted by 753
lmao at the naturalization of social inequality. unequal distribution of wealth is not a "natural law" at all. if it were, economically based social stratification would be universally found across human cultures and, historically, this was never the case. wealth concentration is a product of our current economic organization, which is not an expression of "nature" at all, but of culturally defined behavior and its global pervasiveness is a product of the expansion of capitalism. justifying wealth accumulation as a natural process, which is demonstrably false, is nothing but an ideological justification of the status quo. just like blaming poverty on the poor for their supposed sloth and incompetence while ignoring the increasingly assimetrical accumulation of wealth produced by collective labour in the hands of proprietaries and high ranking employees no matter how hard the bottom of the pyramid works and how much they contribute to wealth production.

furhtermore, even if the birth rate among lower classes were 5 or 6 higher than in the higher ones, a pseudomalthusian fallacy commonly used to explain poverty away, this would not account for the income disparity which is far higher than that. not only this, but birth rates decline following development and not the other way arround, this is an extremely well known and well documented phenomenon and the greatest force behind it are the increase in participation of women in the labour force and improvements in punblic education, both of which are quickly incremented by social wellfare programs.

bottomline is that the rich get richer because they receive a share of socially produced wealth that is not proportionate to their labor or contribution to production and hold likewise assymetrical control of the means of production, this is class privelege and is ensured by law and culture, not by nature.

investments in social wellfare have historically proven themselves as the most effective way to raise living standards in the populational level and to reduce the birth rate.

Unequal distribution of wealth based on what? Especially not in America. You are paid what you're worth and for what you do, you're not forced to take any job or any pay. You have more options than "ever" to gain wealth, and the only thing stopping people is themselves. Wealth is higher at certain levels because people know how to create wealth. Which is making money building assets. Most people don't even have wealth. Most work for income, which is being paid while you work for the job you do. Wealth is having income producing assets that make money for you. Most choose not to take this form of making money and search for the easy way out, which is working for someone. Only they do it for their whole lives and never transfer over. There is a difference between simply working hard, and working hard and smart. If you chop trees with an axe you'll be far behind someone who uses a chainsaw. Or someone who hires a bunch of employees to use chainsaws for them. You may be working very hard, but that alone won't get you ahead. You have to know how to work smart and create demand. Now people who start out in a wealthier background have a bit of extra leverage (strong provide for their offspring), but if they don't have the mindset they won't built their own wealth anyways. It's just extra leverage

This is the era of the "noveau riche". Where people can create something and become rich overnight. If you can make the next Google or Microsoft, you can become wealthy too, it's all out there. People are building wealth at younger and younger ages while others are waiting around at 50 hoping they can retire.

Look at the middle class in this country. Most owe way more than they make or have. They spend money on consumer goods, and junk, fast food. We're the fattest nation in the world and pretty much the largest debtor nation. We have a huge problem with people borrowing money and not paying it back. This is not because of some "unfair law and distribution" it's because of personal choice. Other countries where people make less don't have their citizens spending so recklessly, that's a trend here. Our middle class are really poor when it comes to wealth and that is because of bad financial decisions that have been passed down from generation to generation, not because of some "unfair distribution" Even people who become rich overnight or win the lottery lose it most of the time, and that's because they have no financial skill. The vast majority of people have horrible financial literacy and that's fact. It's "Go to college, take out cards, get drowned in debt, buy a house, get in more debt, buy cars, crap for wife and kids, etc." That's why people don't get ahead, they're too entrenched in debt that doesn't make them money. There's good debt and bad debt and the poor and middle class choose bad debt. Then they stay working for income and paying high percentage of taxes and interest rates and wonder why they can't get ahead. Anybody with financial literacy can see why they don't. Look at the morons buying houses they can't afford. Was that "unfair distribution" or was that nature working it's course. Now houses are cheaper than ever for the smart to pick up on the leftovers.

And please, there have been numerous statistics on how people who are poorer have more kids and how having more kids holds one back. Paying other people who have kids and can't support them is not a benefit to society at all. It is a drain on everybody. All they do is perpetuate the cycle and create kids they can't support nor educate, leaving more cheap labor for the few who choose to go to the top. I've seen this myself. Where is welfare making people richer? It's making countries poorer. The increase of welfare and support also showed an increase of childbirth because women know they can get the support even if they can't afford it themselves. Now to some extent people needing support from time to time is on thing, but people staying on it for long periods of time or for life is an absolute burden, that's a fact. I prefer charity and giving to that so I can choose who to give it to and it isn't an entitlement. It's funny how the people who suggest all of this "support" and say the "rich is evil and the poor are victims" never reach in their pocket or give anything, they expect someone else to do it. The entitlement mentality keeps people from getting ahead. It's no different than the lazy child laying at home and their parents paying all of their expenses at 25 years old. They need to get out and be productive. People who are poorer spend less on education and more on things like booze, drugs, etc. This has also been proven. When was the last time most of them used some of the programs available and voluntarily helped themselves? Not often and not many. Saying kids don't have something to do with poverty when the poorest people always have the most kids is just absurd. The less educated and poorer a person is the more kids they have at a younger age, and the more they get married at a younger age, that's also a fact.

What a load about the amount of contribution. Working smart is and hard> working hard. Would you rather ride a vehicle or walk? Which would get you somewhere faster?

People who generate wealth build to planes and locomotives, those who work for income are the walkers and the bike riders passing by. I know as I've seen it from both sides.

YankeeWhaler
It is to do with the Bell Curve. You see it sports, why kids of sports stars are also able to compete at that same level. The Mannings, Barry Bonds, they all hung as young kid, kids and teens with people who had those skills and were able to get the so called soft skills, the inside scoop on how things are done and what to avoid.

There is no inborn talent to be an NFL QB or MLB ballplayer, diamonds in the rough so to speak. That is why parents who got a college degree usually have kids that do too. Not always. And they ones that don't have kids that usually don't either, but not always.

YankeeWhaler
Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
It is to do with the Bell Curve. You see it sports, why kids of sports stars are also able to compete at that same level. The Mannings, Barry Bonds, they all hung as young kid, kids and teens with people who had those skills and were able to get the so called soft skills, the inside scoop on how things are done and what to avoid.

There is no inborn talent to be an NFL QB or MLB ballplayer, diamonds in the rough so to speak. That is why parents who got a college degree usually have kids that do too. Not always. And they ones that don't have degress their kids usually don't either, but not always.

YankeeWhaler
sorry getting late, computer fatigue.

YankeeWhaler
A bit like My Cousin Vinny, the Tomei character knowing auto mechanics, well yeah she was around it when growing up.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>