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.
Which is what I said in my second paragraph.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Aug 16th, 2011 at 03:31 AM
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.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
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.
Thyroids only affect about 2% of the population anyways, last I checked.
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.
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:
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.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 16th, 2011 at 02:52 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
It's okay: the link worked when I wrote it up and it was more up to date than yours.
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.
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.
"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. "
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.
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).
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.
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".
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 16th, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
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.
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.
Yes they are.
No one says "lazy white people" they say, "lazy white trash" or "lazy redneck."
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.
K. But that's not true, either. Thanks for playing.
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.
So you want to redefine welfare? Cool. I'm not interested in that discussion. I'll stick with the US government and textbook definition.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I'm busy myself. No big.
Oh lord, now I see what topic has touched your nerve. I didn't really think of all of this discussion of anything a big deal and I was actually going to say that the best route would be to look at the census. Since that would be the newest data and the most relevant. Neither of us know the exact information at the beginning of this discussion. But if it is a pissing contest you want then, well…
http://search.census.gov/search?q=t...-8&ie=UTF-8
From the census itself, go and click on the links to bring up the data. The only info that matters, as it is *from* the government.
You know what? I went on google and posted the sites I came across, because I thought that would be enough. But since you wanted to use your own “source” and dismiss mine (because you didn’t like it) apply your “math” (which I only looked at briefly) and then shove it in my face, I have no choice but to actually go to the actual source that should matter, the actual census. I could post links from several places by the way, all of which you would have rejected.
But you know what, you want the actual meat and bone from something recent and there you go. I knew I was right on this and nowhere has it said otherwise.
No they aren’t, not the majority anyways. Most are very clearly labeling black people and other minorities as the ones “sucking up welfare”, and it gets white people angry when you bring up the fact that they use the most. Just like they default the most mortgages. And again, I’ve already mentioned the percentage in terms of population. But I’ve also mentioned the amount of poor black people to white people, something you continue to ignore because you don’t like it. Irony much?
There’s also a far higher percentage of poor black people here than white people. And white people still use it the most.
Oh and that second comment is also wrong, sorry pal, but white people use up by far the most amount of government assistance (welfare) than any other group. It’s not even close.
Social security, medicare, veteran benefits, general welfare, school lunches, etc. White people use up these services by an overwhelming amount. Not only *that*, but many of these services were only available to white people at first as blacks were not allowed to have them. Of course there are more impoverished black people considering the conditions and discrimination (it isn't an excuse now though). Welfare was only for white people at first and then it passed on to other races. White people have gotten the absolute bulk of these services and whoever says otherwise is ignorant or lying.
Program Recipients Black White
Social Security (1)
Retirement insurance 26 Million 7.7% 90.4%
Disability insurance 3.7 Million 18.3% 79.3%
Survivor’s benefits 1.8 Million 24% 72%
Widow’s benefits 4.9 Million 9% 90.1%
Supplemental
Security Income 5.8 Million 26% 48.2%
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (2)
3.8 Million 39.2% 55.2%
Medicare 37 Million 8.1% 88% (3)
Medicaid 33.4 Million 25.1% 46.1% (4)
Food Stamps 27.5 Million 34.9% 42.3% (5)
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Food Program (6)
5.8 Million 27.8% 44.3%
National Student Lunch Program (7)
44.5 Million 17% 75%
Veterans’ Benefits 26 Million 8.0% 86.4% 8
Housing Subsidies 4.7 Million 40% 46% (9)
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 18th, 2011 at 04:16 AM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Sure it is. There are a far lower percentage of poor white people, and more of them receive government aid, so of course they do. Even if we used your “stats” it would still be true percentage for percentage.
They were links in all of those links, you didn’t look (although most of *those* seemed to had 404’ed like your own page). All you sent me was some old post from 2008. Doesn’t matter anymore as I used the census, the true authority on all of this anyways.
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.
Texting and crashes has nothing to do with this, and statistics can be skewed…. please. It’s no different than saying since serial killers eat food, that eating food will make you a serial killer. There’s more to it.
A better comparison would be the “women earn less than men for the same amount of work myth/lie”. When they do those stats they don’t take into account that women work less hours, take less risky jobs, drop out of the work force more often, and don’t take their careers as seriously or wish to work as long as men. They simply lumped the numbers together and came up with that myth. In fact women get paid more per hour often in many industries.
I don’t believe everything I read, on the contrary. You must have looked hard for that data because anything I’ve looked up has supported my point. Even your “fact” did. And by the way, that *fact* is almost 10 years old anyways.
*sigh*. I’ve done a lot of looking and I’m not seeing these articles about blacks taking up more welfare, just that they have a higher percentage amongst their population (and are also more poor) like I said.
Don’t bother. I’ve already taken care of your “wrong points”.
Uh….
wel•fare
[wel-fair] Show IPA
noun
1.
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
2.
welfare work. 3.
financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 18th, 2011 at 04:09 AM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Government assistance, or money going to a certain demographic (poor, veterans, old, etc.) especially when it is taken unwillingly from other individuals *is* welfare.
How about we use the actual definitions instead of what pleases you for the moment.
How about we look up the definition of hypocrite. hyp•o•crite
[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
No, more whites use it than black, a higher percentage of blacks use it (tanf) per capita, and more white people who are not poor use government assistance anyways, even though they are the least poor group.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You proved something, with something else wrong. I showed you my proof and you dismissed it. Doesn’t matter. The census is better and it is also more current. No need to go further than the government to find government facts. Next.
I showed you facts you must accept, something certain people have a problem accepting.
Oh and by the way, I actually wouldn’t have minded being wrong about this if it was more recent, because I didn’t know what the numbers were more recently, which is why I was going to say go to the census. But since you are parading around with these “facts” and are so vehement and smug about them I have no choice.
I didn’t miss anything, you disagreed with what I said because you didn’t like it. No need to argue now since I used the census.
You will respond, trust me.
Enough with the 404 excuse since I found a replacement webpage.
Doesn't matter since I was right to begin with and you literally cannot prove me wrong. You can quote or cite any number of web pages: if they conflict with what I have shown, they are wrong.
Why?
Because I used the official government sources and did very simple math with them showing, quite clearly, that conclusions to the contrary were false.
It does and I explained why.
That...was my point.
News outlets were skewing information about the hazards of texting while driving. Some even tried to say that a quarter of all accidents were related to cellphone usage.
The data showed that traffic has increased, texting has geometrically increased....and all measures of accidents have decreased over the last 10 years.
This directly contradicted the claim that cellphone usage is making up a quarter of all accidents: the numbers do no match. No massive transportation polices have been made that drastically reduced all areas of accidents that could also magically allow for only cellphone usage to bridge the gap.
Someone was lying somewhere and it was obviously not the cellphone usage. Based on those news outlets' logic, we could actually say that cellphone usage has decreased accidents.
Things such as experience and qualifications were controlled for. Men still made more.
It's an open and shut case: men make more money, on average, even when controlling for the various compensation factors.
Moving on...
Yes, I looked VERY hard for that data because every website on the internet continually uses the 1991 or 1993 data.
That website I found had data from the 2001 census and was compiled by the Department of Health and Human services in 2003. The website doesn't work anymore because it's now "hhs" instead of "dhhs" and I searched for more annual reports but they don't provide them anymore. You have to request it with FOIA.
But, when I compiled this data a few years back, all links worked and Bardock42 checked over my work.
You are still trying to use data that's from 1991 or 1993. So I'll take the 10 year old data over the 20 year old data, sir.
Seriously, did you even look at the sources for all of those websites you keep talking about? Most of them are using the 1991 data. Others use 1993 data.
You won't find it, like I said. You would need to request it from HHS or the Census Bureau with FOIA. At least that's what I got.
However, there's three very big obvious reasons why I'm even more correct than you realize:
1. The welfare laws changed in 1991-93.
2. I found even more recent data that shows African American families as being even larger (2.74 from 2006) and white families are even smaller (2.4x), which changes the math I did, significantly. Making my point even more solid.
3. The most important reason of all: African Americans have had access to Welfare for only 4 decades. They have gradually increased their share on welfare since they initially got access. Their rates showed signs of slowing in the early 90s, but it wasn't a steep drop. Meaning, despite the early 90s numbers showing African Americans having 37% and whites at 38%, they were still catching up. It should be no wonder that 10 years later, they overtook all other race demographics.
It's too late. You talked in circles so I was forced to requote myself.
"Aid could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits."
If you want to define it beyond that, fine. I don't wish to discuss that.
Touched a nerve? Really?
You're the one that ignored actual information. You are the one that seems to be getting nerved touched.
1. Derp derp! TANF is the only form of welfare! . Sorry, bud...you've got to try something else.
Additionally, from your own sources:
"Figure 2 shows that Black mothers
represented a higher share of
recipients of TANF benefits than
non-Hispanic Whites, people of
other race,7 or Hispanics (who may
be of any race). Black mothers constituted
38 percent of total recipients
of TANF benefits. Non-
Hispanic Whites were 31 percent of
TANF recipients, people of other
race were 9 percent, and Hispanics
constituted 25 percent of TANF
recipients."
2. It's quite clear that you're getting irritated. Those links worked when I did the math on them. Not my fault that the government re-organized. You can't dismiss it just because the links no longer work. The data was real, there were witnesses, and the math was checked. Get over it.
It's sad that this is what you think "being right" means.
Yes they are. No what?
And, minorities, excluding asians, are quite disproportianately "sucking up" welfare. You even agree to that.
You want to try and place "personal feelings" on this? Don't troll because you're mad.
And I showed you that despite the fact that there's more poor black people... whatever, I'll just requote:
KMC Community Forums
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.
Aug 16th, 2011 03:29 AM
)
. Sorry, bud...you've got to try something else. 
