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

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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.

Strawman and red herring much?

I think so.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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.

K. But I already showed you that out of the eligible poor, less whites use it than blacks. Stop talking in circles.

Let's just pretend, for instance, that more whites use the two major forms of Welfare.

That still does not change the point that blacks use it far more disproportiantely. It doesn't do a damn thing to change the real problem: why are African Americans using it much more disproportiately? Even among their poor, compared to white poor, they use it more than twice as much.

Deal with that. And stop whining.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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.

If it is an open and shut case, why do other points of data disagree? Do you even know what you're looking at? (You don't.)

Do you even know how they get to those numbers? (You don't.)

Do you understand why some places show 38 white adn 37 black? (You don't.)

Do you understand why those forms show 68% white? (You don't.)

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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. 😉

You disagreed with what I said because you didn't like it.

No need to argue since I proved you wrong on pretty much every count. You don't know what you're talking about, have a strong bias against white, and still skirt around the real problem: blacks use welfare programs too much.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You’re welcome, come again.

I know, I have and continue to hand your ass to you.

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.

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.

Originally posted by cdtm
"Modified behavior".. Jesus christ.

Dear lord someone’s mad. And you clearly have too much free time. Do you sit on here every night waiting for a response. I got home late and posted that, I look on in the morning and you already posted. I saw you on making your post too. It’s pretty clear you have a vendetta and are more willing to keep using wrong information as it suits you. I can’t believe you are trying to argue the census about a *government statistic* about something that comes from the government. I used the census, so any sites you use don’t matter, nor did any sites I used prior to matter. It’s from a government site. So all the digging on the bs sites you did to find what you wanted so you could ignore the truth won’t work. Get over it.
Bias against whites? How do you know if I’m 100% black, mixed, or whatever? Besides the point, the whole reason the issue came up was because another member posted a blatantly racist comment ( not sure if he was joking or whatever, I thought he was). So I made a very basic, very casual comment. It obviously lit a fire under you, and you can’t take it. Why would I care about welfare usage myself, except for what it costs me? I damn sure don’t need it. I believe many people here do though. I see you also are trying to drive the point from the amount of white people who use it, to the proportion. Something I already said anyways. So don’t try to argue around in a circle to avoid the point I made. White people use up the most government assistance. Not a big deal in most cases since they are the most population. But since they are the least poor and use up the most welfare, that *is* a problem. I love your little racist comment. “Whites should take advantage of welfare more”.

Social security, veteran benefits, medicare, subsidized school lunches? What more do they need? You said you came form another country, maybe that’s where the racism came from. I myself, hate everyone equally, all sizes, shapes, colors, and creeds. I don’t discriminate with my hate.  I’ve also talked about lazy and underachieving people of all races and sexes in my numerous post.

I thought we were cool. I thought we were partners in crime, agreeing on things and whatnot. Should have never mentioned I was black I suppose. I remember the incident here back in 05. 

Originally posted by dadudemon
Enough with the 404 excuse since I found a replacement webpage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because I used the official government sources and did very simple math with them showing, quite clearly, that conclusions to the contrary were false.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does and I explained why.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That...was my point. 😬

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The data showed that traffic has increased, texting has geometrically increased....and all measures of accidents have decreased over the last 10 years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Things such as experience and qualifications were controlled for. Men still made more.

No it wasn’t, prove it.
In fact one of the founders of the National Organization for Women, Warren Farrel did many topics and even wrote a book about this.

It’s called “Why men earn more.”
All they did was lump in jobs of all kinds and then divide men and women and came up with the number. Men still worked more hours, did riskier work, and were more willing to travel.
When they looked at the same professions, like Doctors. Men were more likely to be surgeons, which paid more. They were also more likely to own their own practices. Women who owned their own business did it so they could have more time with their family, and men did it to make more money.
Men are driven to make more money, (because they have to), so it’s their primary motivator. Women are driven more by family. Women make more family decisions and men make more monetary decisions.
I’ve done tons of research on this matter, so pulling stuff out of your ass like you normally do won’t work. Not that it has anyways. How about you name these industries where men are being paid more, per hour, for the same amount of work, experience, and educational level? Not to mention women are paid “the same” and often have less qualifications, like in the army or being a firefighter. They also get paid even when they leave early, come in late, and take time off. So in reality, they often make more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's an open and shut case: men make more money, on average, even when controlling for the various compensation factors.

Moving on...

To show how stupid your point is. If women were earning less for doing the exact same work at the same efficiency, why don’t they just hire women? It would be cheaper labor, like when people hire immigrants. Companies that hire men would eventually fail because of the extra 23 or so percent on their work costs.

You’re going to have to do better than that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I looked VERY hard for that data because every website on the internet continually uses the 1991 or 1993 data.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, when I compiled this data a few years back, all links worked and Bardock42 checked over my work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon 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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, there's three very big obvious reasons why I'm even more correct than you realize:

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. The welfare laws changed in 1991-93. .

Originally posted by dadudemon
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. .

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

I think welfare use should SUBSTANTIALLY decrease for everybody, not increase, Regardless of skin color. You obviously don’t mind welfare when white people are using it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It really does

It's too late. You talked in circles so I was forced to requote myself.

No you’re just filibustering.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Welfare is much more..."

No, it's fairly explicitly defined in the US.

Here's a nice writeup on what it means in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States

Originally posted by dadudemon
"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."

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to define it beyond that, fine. I don't wish to discuss that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Touched a nerve? Really?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're the one that ignored actual information. You are the one that seems to be getting nerved touched.

I didn’t ignore anything. You just ignored your own wiki source in an effort to just keep on trolling, and now you’re backpedaling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Derp derp! TANF is the only form of welfare! durr. 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."

Mothers on TANF:

Non-Hispanic White: 31.3
Black: 38.2

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-85.pdf

You also ignored other conditions, like families or men. You also ignored the various other information it provided because you wanted to skip those excel tables, convenient huh?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Doesn’t matter when it did work, it didn’t work when *I* saw it. Just because someone looked at it and said “hmmm your math seems to be right” doesn’t mean a whole lot. Especially since I used the census. Go cry about something else.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's sad that this is what you think "being right" means.

Yea, actually knowing what I’m talking about, imagine that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes they are. No what? 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, minorities, excluding asians, are quite disproportianately "sucking up" welfare. You even agree to that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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:

You know you’re mad you angry hillbilly you. 😛
Honestly I think you’re still a pretty cool guy like inim, just things we disagre on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
SURE! Of TANF, that's true. But not other welfare programs. You have to do better than one single form of welfare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"SURE! Of TANF, that's true. But not other welfare programs. You have to do better than one single form of welfare."

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's also the problem of...you know...WHITE PEOPLE MAKING UP 76% OF THE POPULATION. Did you forget about that?

Not at all, which I mentioned. Stop trying to bring up discussed points as a shelter because you have none. There are still far less poor white people who use the majority of government assistance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, welfare as people commonly understand it, are mainly two programs. You've been using just one. In poor form, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strawman and red herring much?

I think so.

I guess I learned that from you. 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. But I already showed you that out of the eligible poor, less whites use it than blacks. Stop talking in circles.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's just pretend, for instance, that more whites use the two major forms of Welfare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That still does not change the point that blacks use it far more disproportiantely. It doesn't do a damn thing to change the real problem: why are African Americans using it much more disproportiately? Even among their poor, compared to white poor, they use it more than twice as much.

I was born in Mississippi, the place with the highest teenage birth rate in the country. This plays a large part to the poverty and what you see. This comes from minorities as well as white people. I know more about this than most, and I’ve also tried to help these causes myself. Not just typing about it online and mentioning it or whining about it.

I’m still right though with my facts, but don’t get under the impression that I advocate welfare for anybody. I would hope nobody would have to use it permenantly. Except for extreme cases. People having kids out of wedlock or who have too many kids are the problem. The poor do this. It will take education and will to break the cycle.
And not just Tanf or afdc, I’m talking about social security and everything else. White people benefit more from all of it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Deal with that. And stop whining.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If it is an open and shut case, why do other points of data disagree? Do you even know what you're looking at? (You don't.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you even know how they get to those numbers? (You don't.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you understand why some places show 38 white adn 37 black? (You don't.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
o you understand why those forms show 68% white? (You don't.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
You disagreed with what I said because you didn't like it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No need to argue since I proved you wrong on pretty much every count. You don't know what you're talking about, have a strong bias against white, and still skirt around the real problem: blacks use welfare programs too much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know, I have and continue to hand your ass to you.

I think you secretly enjoy your ownings. 

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's some facts:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Medicaid:

Originally posted by dadudemon
White: 43%

Originally posted by dadudemon
Black: 21%

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

Result: extremely disproportianate representation by blacks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Medicare by race:

White: 78%
Black: 10%

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

Originally posted by dadudemon
SNAP:

White: 43%
Black: 33%

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

I know more blacks use it per capita, already said that.

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

Originally posted by dadudemon
Housing: you showed that one.

Bla bla.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Just like they default on houses more.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

It would be a fallacy because more white people participate in them even though there are less poor white people.

I’ve already said poverty is a mindset, and that goes for any race, but a poor person using a program versus a non poor definitely looks a lot better don’t you think? 😉 Not to mention the mortgage defaulters who were primarily white. Why do they keep doing this? Why are there more of them on government programs if there are less of them that are poor by percentage? Why?

Most of the entitlement programs ( a huge bulk of it) goes to white people, deal with it and stop being racist.

lol

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?

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.

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..

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..."😉. 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. 🙂

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[...]white people are the devil.

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.