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

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.

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. 😐

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

sorry getting late, computer fatigue.

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

well if the poor get poorer that means that their money is going to richer people.. even if it's a penny at a time

I was trolled quite hard by C-Master in this thread. Holy shit, 8 posts in a row in this thread. That's 40k-80k of characters he typed just to be wrong.

Data doesn't lie:

https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Both as a 1. raw number, as a 2. dollar amount, and a 3. percentage (which is the same representation as #2), blacks consume the most welfare in the US.

The "White's consume more welfare than any other race" idea is a myth perpetuated by people who have problems with the idea that there may be a racial minority problem.

Indeed. 👆

BTW Even at this page there are some misconceptions or not well-thought out ideas, for instance 753 states: "lmao at the naturalization of social inequality. unequal distribution of wealth is not a "natural law" at all.".... Which is not entirely a clear cut matter tbh, but he/she seems to believe so.

I won't pretend to be an expert on this or anything else.

I will submit, that this very thread proves something basic about human nature.

A competitiveness? Maybe.. But also to share ideas, knowledge, seek validation..

All half baked thoughts from a non expert, but in the end we act on "feels" then anything else. Learning stuff feels good, sharing feels good, winning feels good, respect.feels good.

So on that basis, hoarding a crap load of money probably feels VERY good.

Sharing that money with people, to the point you're left with only a quarter of a lump sum of unimaginable wealth probably feels less good. People are pigs, excess is a drug.

Otoh, a set amount of charity can feel pretty good. Not half your wealth, or a quarter, or any amount to put a dent in your money bin, but more than you have to. For someone working a regular job, that could be 50 dollars, and you did your civic duty. For a billionaire, maybe a million or so (I honestly wouldn't know.)

Think of it like being a kid on Halloween. As a kid we shared and enjoyed sharing, but if our parents tried keeping most of it from us, we'd pitch a fit.

Originally posted by cdtm
I won't pretend to be an expert on this or anything else.

I will submit, that this very thread proves something basic about human nature.

A competitiveness? Maybe.. But also to share ideas, knowledge, seek validation..

All half baked thoughts from a non expert, but in the end we act on "feels" then anything else. Learning stuff feels good, sharing feels good, winning feels good, respect.feels good.

So on that basis, hoarding a crap load of money probably feels VERY good.

Sharing that money with people, to the point you're left with only a quarter of a lump sum of unimaginable wealth probably feels less good. People are pigs, excess is a drug.

Otoh, a set amount of charity can feel pretty good. Not half your wealth, or a quarter, or any amount to put a dent in your money bin, but more than you have to. For someone working a regular job, that could be 50 dollars, and you did your civic duty. For a billionaire, maybe a million or so (I honestly wouldn't know.)

Think of it like being a kid on Halloween. As a kid we shared and enjoyed sharing, but if our parents tried keeping most of it from us, we'd pitch a fit.

My interests in this thread were to debunk some myths while also drawing attention to what seems like politically incorrect facts.

The sooner we acknowledge the problems and address them, the better. Pretending like we do not have an education, violence, and poverty issue in our African American communities is racist. And our American Liberals need to stop being racist. I often get lumped in with the "conservatives" on this board because of how critical I can get of American liberals but that's only because I lump myself in with them and feel we can "do better."

There are probably only 2 areas that I could be lumped in with American conservatives: killing off several federal agencies and gun rights. The problem is, those are liberal positions but the US is so backwards that someone who wants more rights is labeled "conservative." That's just stupid.

Anyway, yes, poor black people: America has them. We need to do better. Throwing money at black people is not the solution. That's insulting/racist and less effective.

After reading the original OP and then reading these last few post. A lot of you guys are quite "racist".
The opening comments was speaking of a concerted movement to artificially create a growing super rich sect at the expense of the greater majority. Had nothing to do with black vs. white and yet this is what many( not all) of the comments have turned to.

But anywho...I do find it strange that we have greater poverty and a weaker (lessened) middle class and a booming super rich class....
What happened to the idea of greater technology advancement leading to greater wealth for everyone?
Perhaps I'm looking at what defines "wealth" from a wrong perspective.
What does it mean to be "poor" here in the U.S.? Does having shelter, meager close and access to food include you in the ranks of being impoverished?
If you live amongst the very well to do does that automatically qualify you for a "better life style"?
What if you are a hard working "servant" (meaning low paying wage job)in this society? Does it mean you should benefit from others success or does it mean they are succeeding at your behest, and so they-the well to do's- owe you something?

Originally posted by Gadabout
.But anywho...I do find it strange that we have greater poverty and a weaker (lessened) middle class and a booming super rich class....

Originally posted by Gadabout
What happened to the idea of greater technology advancement leading to greater wealth for everyone?