Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 20th, 2011 at 11:32 AM
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.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 21st, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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. Keep ignoring the census too. It really does suit you.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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?
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."
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
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.
"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 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.