Whites, not Blacks, Collect Greatest Share of Public Aid Dollars

The myth will always push back the facts.

The strongly held negative perception is that blacks take while contributing nothing. Folks are not going to stop demonizing blacks because of facts that whites get more of the public aid dollars.

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

BostonMan-3128434
Do you think that could be because the population of whites is more than of blacks?

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people living off the government are white. This is very similar to Republicans whining about government spending while red states get a lot more money than they give.

Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.

But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.

The government keeps reclassifing more and more groups as "white". It's liberal logic at its finest, errr...for a public educated liberal that is. I noticed there is no mention of percentage.

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black. Those numbers break down to 5% of the white population vs. 30% of the black population, I really must have missed that part in the article, theres no possible reason it would have been left out, right?

The Republican American narrative has always been that the predominate groups on governmental assistance was African and Latino respectively when fact simply do not bear that out. We as a country can certainly discuss lowering the need for assistance by everyone but you can't do so if you make the false implication that you will only be cutting off African American and Latinos. If you want to really deal with this some honest dialogue about racism and class/income disparity is the only way to do so.

cannonballer you didnt miss that part of the article. at the same time, you've got to ask "why such a disparity?"

so i put that question right to you. why do you think there's such a disparity?

as a matter of fact, i'll put that question to anyone willing to answer.

Because the system is set up to keep people dependant on the Government. Why would somebody go out and look for a job when the Government will hand out money? There's no incentives to get employed if you can get enough to live on for free. That goes for whites, blacks, asians, martians, whatever.

explain why there are ANY Whites collecting public assistance in numbers this great.

Pretty easy to explain. Whites numbers are so great. Explained.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between numbers and percentages.

There's no incentives to get employed if you can get enough to live on for free.

Are you kidding me? Do you know how little welfare pays out? And this article is from 1992. It's hardly up to the minute news.

Those numbers break down to 5% of the white population vs. 30% of the black population, I really must have missed that part in the article, theres no possible reason it would have been left out, right?

Maybe you should take a look at black unemployment it's pretty close to 25%!

The official number is 15.6%...but almost any economist will tell you it's pretty close to 25%.

The natioanal % (all races) is 8.6%...but it's actually closer to 15%.

Do the math!

-sigh-

We had this argument 2 days ago. Please learn why you normalize statistics when you have two groups of disparate numbers...

What a disingenuous seed. Thank you cannonballer for doing the normalization.

Don't tell Newt!

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

You're using statistics from 22 years ago to argue this

Whites, not Blacks, Collect Greatest Share of Public Aid Dollars

today??? Just when I think one side cannot possibly skew a story worst than the other..BAM we have a winner!!

Because the system is set up to keep people dependant on the Government. Why would somebody go out and look for a job when the Government will hand out money? There's no incentives to get employed if you can get enough to live on for free. That goes for whites, blacks, asians, martians, whatever.

You are almost there. Why would someone work if they are getting a government handout? Well:

1. to increase their net household income and have a better quality of life.
2. the self-esteem that comes from being independent
3. the self-esteem that comes from being a productive member of society
4. the pride that comes from doing a good job and accomplishing something
5. a whole list of various psychological and sociological reasons

It is not the assistance that traps people on assistance. It is the rate at which assistance decreases with earned income that has this result. When one loses more in assistance than one increases their earnings, it is fiscally logical to avoid increasing one's earnings. This is a problem with our current system. Reform is needed to guarantee that assistance, total from all forms, decreases at a lower rate than earned income increases. Say at a rate of $0.50 in total assistance for every $1 increase in earned income. Now the incentive is to take the job, raise, promotion.

How dare this article present facts to our low information brethren. They don't give a damn about truths and facts. Their whole universe is based on beliefs. And they will believe what ever their favorite peddler tells them, rather that be Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Trump, FauxNews etc...

Pure bs like death panels,birth certificates,lapel pins etc... Is what gets their juices flowing... Real problems fall into the oops column.

• Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at
  some ... The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is increasing to
  record ..... About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6
  million in .... opponents of welfare programs and government regulation of the
  free market. ...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

snarky68

More current numbers are not radically different. As others have said we just discussed a related subject on another seed. Specifically food stamps:

• 8% of Whites use them
• 24% of Native Americans
• 28% of Blacks

Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.

I wonder if being the group least likely to complete high school has anything to do with that? At least according to that post from the NY Times. Yes, I understand requiring a high school diploma will have a disparate impact on African-Americans, since only about 62% are getting their diplomas in 4 years of high school.

73% of the Poplulation is White

12% is Black

Is this article trying to say that blacks are doing well relative to whites?

All sorts of percentages can be used but the fact still remains that nothing has been done on the "ROAD OF SHAME" the President Obama campaigned on . Nothing ,zip, notta. If a politician mentions anything about raising the tide for everyone, nay sayers come out of the woodwork. This just convinces me that this country is divided and it's for the party and not the people. So all of you proud people push your chest out and be proud of the destruction you are allowing to America. Example: Solyndra and now ten more companies filing bankruptcy, wind and sun power are too far in the future we need energy TODAY , the oil pipeline, The NLRB telling a state what it can do, the penalizing of oil companies for not using a bio-gradable additive( it doesn't even exist yet) then allowing Unions to bankrupt states and towns saying that want to protect the teachers when all they want is dues so they can be stronger politically. Let's do this , all college grads can be teachers and all there students will have $5000 vouchers so now we would have private schools at 1/3rd the cost of todays public schools. The teacher would get 20 students , earn $100,000 and the student would get an education. Hey private schools are good for the presidents kids why not for everyone else. now the results would be educated white , black, yellow and green people who would be working and less dependent on the government.

cannonballer.....I would like to see you try to live on x dollars when you are used to make 5 times that and your bills are based on that 5x. Please. I'd like to see you and any of your (r)egressive little friends try!

Whites, not Blacks, Collect Greatest Share of Public Aid Dollars

Though this may be true, but aren't there more whites in America than there are blacks. If you break town by the number of whites and the number of blacks, I think percentage wise they are about equal. some stats have more whites than blacks so those numbers would be higher in states like Iowa, but if you take places like LA, New York, Georgia, N & S Carolina, New Orleans and Florida, the black population is much higher in those states than they are in places like Iowa. So for me, it all balances out, and I feel if you need food-stamp assistance, who cares what color or race you are. If you need the assistance, you should be getting them.

:)

White persons, percent, 2010 (a)
72.4%

Black persons, percent, 2010 (a)
12.6%

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black.

so,,,

12.6% of our population uses 33% of our welfare money

while..

72% of our population uses 61% of our welfare money.

so.... yes whites use more welfare as the odds of being white in america is about 6 times greater than the odds of being black in america but whites only use just over half of the welfare being spent... hmmmm...

if whites used 72% of welfare money and blacks used 12% of welfare money then things would be equal and no one could complain on either side...

unless one spins things like this article does and assumes the number of blacks and whites in america is an equal number... which as any sane person knows is just not the case.

the avg black person is more than 3 time more likely to be on welfare than the avg white person...

Article = Busted

Cheers :)

There's the spin!!! I knew there was going to be some type of response in this direction. So sheer numbers don't count now, the rules of the game have been changed by the white supremacists, and we have to play by their rules?

No we don't.

The problem in America is all of those poor white people in Republican states that vote against their best interests for Teapublicans or corrupt to the hard core veteran Republicans like Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor.

And there is a high percentage of Black Americans in the NBA and NFL. You want to talk to some of those giants about your racial attitude? They are millionaires.

Sounds a little racist. First it's the white supremacists and then domination of the NBA by blacks. So what you're saying is there aren't any black racists or whites in the NBA? Sorry, but what's your point ?

Welfare is welfare. Doesn't matter who's on it or what the color of their skin is. The goal should be getting them off of it, not perpetuating the cycle.

If the average stay on welfare is 18 months, and there's a 5-year LIFETIME cap on benefits, where's the "cycle" that needs to be broken? I just don't see it...and I shouldn't have to add that monthly welfare payments are so low that no one of PA's buying a Mercedes.

Regardless of what some folks would have you believe...

And i just have to point out, in response to Newt's statement that blacks should "demand paychecks not handouts," those demands for paychecks (and JOBS) seem usually characterized as "affirmative action"----- yes, another handout to the unqualified and undeserving.

Damnned if you do, damnned if you don't.

It's their terminology thats confused Baron.

When they say "welfare" I think many times they mean "disability".

They don't understand that "welfare" is limited...it's disability that goes on forever (potentially).

They would much prefer to trash "welfare" because discussing "disability" opens people they care about up to debate.

I hate it when people take one statistic and draw a complete conclusion from just one set of numbers. Giving only proportional numbers is just as bad as only giving disproportionate. They are two different questions and if we are talking about poverty basing it entirely on public assistance is about as inaccurate as one could get.

@Angry Left,

I understand...and your last sentence explains it clearly.

Thanks!

@cannonballer, so you think $400 or less in aid in a month is desirable? and that assistance is enough to keep someone in an often crummy neighborhood (when housing is involved) with the rest of their bills unpaid? please. there's always going to be an element of society that's lazy, but there's no way that the majority of people would not take a decent job over an insufficient hand-out.

what gets me though is how the stigma is attached to the 33% of the issue & not the 66% of the issue. ask yourself: if you were budgeting for your own household & some calamity was likely to happen--would you address the 33% probable calamity or the 66% probable calamity first?

it's a political ploy to play on the sentiment of lazy blacks; it's just another way to continue race-based division among the population.

um, post #6.7. I was going to type something similar, but no need to now.

the fact that more whites than blacks are on food stamps has been pointed out many times, even by conservative pundits. So what I can't understand is when Obama is called the "food stamp president", why is that considered a racist comment by some on left??? this was done by, two that come to mind immediately, David Gregory and Juan Williams, as well as others.

Compare public aid to corporate welfare. Especially big oil subsidies and tax breaks for the rich.

What kind of tax rate are you proposing for the "rich", Gary? I can't understand how someone that pays no income tax, which is now estimated at about 47% of the people, gets upset with someone paying millions in income taxes and wants them to pay more. Cut spending!!!!!

Furthermore, it has been estimated that ALL assets owned by wealthiest 500 people in US amounts to less than $2 trillion. I'm speaking of the Waltons, Bill Gates, Buffett, etc. So, if we didn't just raise their taxes, but the govt confiscated ALL OF THEIR ASSETS, we'd only balance Obama's budget for ONE year. What do we do the next year drop down and take EVERY asset from about the next 10,000 richest people. It wouldn't take many years till the govt would own EVERYTHING. "A govt large enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away."

I'm curious, darrell-473614, name another "food stamp president". Are there other food stamp presidents?

If it wasn't for the idiotic Reagan/Bush tax cuts our deficit wouldn't be anywhere near what it is because there wouldn't have been a depletion of that tax base. The ultra-conservative tax cut philosophy has and always will be a complete and utter GOP/RNC neoNazicon ponsi scheme a hoax and an absolute lie. Reagan and Clinton both raised taxes and their budgets evened out with a surplus in Clinton's administration. B1tch all you want about taxes but the Republican policy on taxes has never ever been correct!

The new deal instituted a progressive tax rate that topped out at over ninety percent.

That tax was progressively killed over a couple of decades after Roosevelt instituted the New Deal. That period of time was a boom period. Lots of infrastructure got built, lots of people working, life was a lot better then.

I guess this is the problem I have with fiddling around with tax numbers like 47% of the people don't pay any taxes. Are they supposed to? Do they have enough money to pay taxes?

If %47 of the people are not required to pay tax, that has nothing at all to do with those people that are supposed to pay taxes.

Finally, a quick look at who has the money will kind of cut through the thicket here.

It is manifest that those that are rich have benefited the most from our system. If these people pull the most money out of that system in the form of profits and interest why shouldn't they be expected to pay more? In fact why shouldn't the bear their proportion of the total load.

For example if Mitt Romney is making 1 million dollars in income, and George is making $25,000 dollars per year. Mitt is using vastly more public services than George, yet only paying a 15% tax rate. We are not taxing capital gains and most of Mitt's income probably comes from that source . So someone making 25,000 per year has a much greater overall tax burden that Mitt Romney. Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of how paying income tax, sales tax, and other taxes actually removes money needed to survive or progress.

This is never the situation with Mitt. He's paying whatever he pays out of excess and is never forced to eat Ramen instead of meat because he's has to pay sales tax.

This is the injustice buried in the tax code. Mitt uses the infrastructure to make his money, to a vastly greater extent than George and yet is never inconvenianced by burdensome taxation.

If fact Mitt pretty much gets the use of our infrastructrue for free, because he is taking way more out in profits that he pays in taxes. This is never the case for George who has to pay more taxes because Mitt is avoiding paying the same market price for the use of infrastructure than George.

Do you think that could be because the population of whites is more than of blacks?

I can't believe this valid comment was collapsed.

I'm sure native americans on reservations are comforted by the fact that "whites" get more welfare than they do.

I apologize if this is a duplicate...Captain..you are comparing two different sets of stats..one set from 22 years ago and one from 2 years ago..it is not a valid comparison. We either need to see the population percent from 22 years ago or we need to see the updated wewlfare recipient percentage from the 2010 census.

The truth? Of the 46 million people living in poverty in America in 2010, the U.S. census revealed that 31 million were white. Ten million were black. Of the 49 million people without health insurance coverage, 37 million were white; 8 million were African American. Latinos of every race and Asian Americans represented the remaining largest ethnic groups.

The face of poverty in America is overwhelmingly white, but as sociologist and professor William O'Hare explains in a 2009 study on children in poverty, the white American poor, especially those in rural areas, are "forgotten."

So What Do the Numbers Tell Us About Poverty?

White Americans, poor and middle-class alike, receive the vast majority of tax-funded government assistance programs, from monthly assistance to Social Security to food stamps.

http://www.theroot.com/views/food-stamp-fallacy?page=0,1

So What Do the Numbers Tell Us About Poverty?

If we ( and it seems some) want to make this all about RACE... Then lets act like adults and play this out! Respectfully !!!!

If the problem is the complaint that Whites took more than their share of the available funds for aid lets examine that ...

Since Whites out number Blacks 6 to 1 in the population it would reason that as a group whites pay in more at that same or similar ratio to the tax base and therefore are entitled to receive a larger portion of the available assistance funds... Correct?

The Numbers tell us that if we want to decide on allocation of funds used to support citizens... And if activists really want to break down who receives what based on skin color..Then we should allocate the available funds based on money in... to money out to each sub-group... (race) ... Fair enough?

And if activist really want to complain that Whites receive a larger portion of funds than Blacks ... The only way to correct this problem and ensure that Blacks receive their fair and equitable share and Whites theirs ... would be to allocation the outgoing funds on the same ratio as the population distribution...6 to 1 ! That would be fair Right?

So simply to make it fair for every dollar that goes to a Black citizen then 6 should be ear marked for Whites...

There... all Fair ...And Equal...

Imagine

Now.... I don't believe anything I just wrote should be done... But I also think its a ridiculous issue to point out that the majority on our population (a 72% segment) receives a majority of the Aide Funds given to our citizens...

This is an issue to divide Americans along Race... The most troubling thing that all these numbers pointed out to me was that a disproportionate number of our Black citizens need to receive Aide (33%) and that is a Problem that should bother all Americans ...

And we should be working together to help fix that problem and not pointing fingers ...

Good Day!

shaunb:

I'm not sure where your $400 a month for welfare came from. When I lived in NorCal I knew people that had kids early and stayed on welfare, not disability, for years and years, there wasnt any expiration.

My cousin and his ex wife were on welfare and they lived pretty damned good, he got to lay around and smoke weed all day, eat fast food/pizza every day, have parties all the time. I worked at a siding plant, belonged to the Teamsters and worked my ass off and didn't live near as good as my welfare cousin.

Rickeroo

Hey you're here too. It's almost like a reunion from the other seed.

You made a very similar statement on the other seed, to which I responded, and asked for clarification from you. Maybe you just didn't see it.

What is the rate at which assistance is given either as cash payments or payments in kind to Native Americans on reservations? You keep making reference to it, but I've yet to see what that rate is? Because using just gross dollars would be completely misleading as we both know.

Because across the US the rate of assistance for Native Americans for food stamps is 24% vs 8% for whites. Remember you came up with that brilliant idea to limit the rate at which white people receive assistance to the rate that Native Americans get it.

There's the spin!!! I knew there was going to be some type of response in this direction. So sheer numbers don't count now, the rules of the game have been changed by the white supremacists, and we have to play by their rules?

Part of that spin is the denial that the effects of racism are still a large factor in these numbers. The underlying problem is socioeconomic discrimination. The race disparity arises from the centuries of racial discrimination. But low income families living in low income communities do not have equal opportunity. The schools are not as effective, the social reinforcement of the value of an education is not there in these communities. Hunger and squalor are negative factors in learning. Poor access to health care hurts a child's ability to learn. Look at all the socioeconomic metrics published by the UN and see where the US falls on that list. All of these metrics impact on the ability of the poor to obtain equal access to opportunity in this country. Add the institutionalize impoverishment of the blacks in 4 centuries of this countries history and is it any wonder that on a per capita basis they have high use of assistance programs?

The solution is not to cut these programs. It is to solve the underlying problems that perpetuate poverty in this country across racial and ethnic lines.

cannonballer, i'm in the midwest & there's all types of timeframes on welfare assistance.

maybe you should've taken some notes from your cousin? at the same time, know that all which glitters isn't gold.

recipients i've seen jump through major hoops to keep their assistance; live in squalor or relative squalor; do nothing to prepare for the future, which is what really leaves them poor in the long run. just because you see a little flash of goodness, doesn't mean that'll be a sustained life for the recipient. and if they do stay solvent over the long haul, it's because they're doing something extra on the side.

still, you can't paint everyone else with the same brush. the overwhelming majority of w.recipients are financially broke.

but what's the alternative? if someone's lazy & they don't wanna work, i'd rather pitch in via taxes than watch them die on the street or worse, watch crime shoot thru the roof because they can't eat. there are a lot of people hoping to get rid of "entitlements," but know your history & the reason why entitlements came about. making sure people eat & have some housing goes a long way for society as a whole.

if someone's lazy & they don't wanna work, i'd rather pitch in via taxes than watch them die on the street or worse, watch crime shoot thru the roof because they can't eat.

Interesting concept !!!! We teach and reward people based on their behavior... What are you teaching them that their behavior gets them? And is that really the behavior you want to reward?

If someones lazy and doesn't want to work ...It doesn't matter? The tax payer will take care of them? That's really what you want people to learn?

Sadly I fear people that think like you do have been teaching generations of people that poor behavior not only can be ...but will be REWARDED! And until we change that thinking and make people take responsibility for their own actions ... We will continue down the Drain ...................

Watch them die in the streets ...Come on !!!! America's poor are the worlds 1 % !!!!

reward?! where's the reward? survival? subsistence? Jim44...you're joking--right?

sadly, it's a fact of life. crime & violence are directly related to employment within an area. know also that the majority of people will work if work is available.

pfft...their reward (in cases of generational povery & welfare) is often a run-down community with little hope, low educational attainment & incarceration & violence? i mean, it's better than a refugee camp but to act like a welfare community is the backdrop of a dream life--get real.

if you attend church, it's the basic tenent of church because the poor & infirmed will always be among us. the gov't stepped in because the church can never do enough.

while we're talking about responsibility--won't someone be responsible for draining a community dry? no incarceration for that...that's the way it's supposed to be--right? i just listened to a talk show about private equity firms & some of their tactics. not all of the callers had horror stories, but the effects were dramatic. swoop in, split the company, sell the assets, make a profit, then leave the town in shambles. is that what you've been taught?

i guarantee you that enough of those stories will bring nothing but strife.

lastly, it's all relative. i recognize poverty in the US is nothing like poverty in many other places.

peace to you, Jim44.

Woo there ......

reward?! where's the reward? survival? subsistence? Jim44...you're joking--right?

Joking ..No.... Not .. When the premise of you idea is ......

if someone's lazy & they don't wanna work,

Sorry but that statement removes societies responsibility and to first go to the take care of the poor angle.... Ah Bull Crap !!! And then to point to the church ....Bull Crap again...

So anything these people that YOU singled out would in fact be getting a REWARD for bad behavior!!!

You said they were " lazy and they don't wanna work" That makes them poor by CHOICE , not by circumstance...

So you can drop the feel sorry for them pretense... they are what they have chosen to be ...in your words ... because of the action they have chosen...

Now you want to come back with excuses ... Sorry that doesn't fly!!!!

That makes their lot in life their frickin problem ....

Not the Tax payer

Not the Church

Not the good people of America !!!!

Its THEIR FAULT ....

Because as you said .....

"They don't wanna work" not that they can't work ...

And now you think you can excuse poor behavior ...which I think the average working American would call it ....when someone is "too lazy to work" ...

Sorry you explain to the hard working citizen that YOU THINK its their responsibility to take care of those that are self admittedly to lazy to work with their tax dollars...

So Sorry Bull Crap .... And no I am not JOKING !!!! People make choices in life and they should live with those choices...

And then your attempt to divert the attention to Corporate actions ? Really ...nothing to do with people that are as you put it ... to lazy to work .... but it really was a nice try !!!!

I can't believe this valid comment was collapsed.

I'm sure native americans on reservations are comforted by the fact that "whites" get more welfare than they do.

It's not valid because one tells you who collects more, the other tells you who collects disproportionately more..and no they are not interchangeable.

The element in society that's too lazy to work is minimal. What's your solution for those people? It sounds like homelessness, blight, & incarceration are your answers (let me know if i'm wrong). Homelessness & blight have their negatives but aren't as costly to tax payers. But the costs of incarceration are currently more than the cost of living.

LOL @ you thinking that you're not already paying for the lazy among us. have you ever heard of people doing crimes so they can be put in jail because it's too cold outside? ever heard of people committing crimes so they can get some health care? LOL @ you & it's exactly what poverty drives a person to do.

I think it's laughable that you have no thoughts on how corps can ruin entire towns...it's just a result of the capitalist game, huh? Corps do no wrong?

at any rate, i can tell by your responses that you haven't really researched poverty, so this is kinda pointless with you. However, recognize the shades of gray. Who doesn't want 100% employment of the able bodied? I do. I just know that there's always going to be the lazy among us, the abusers among us, the cheaters among us etc. The answer has to go deeper than jail/rot on street.

With all that typed--what's your solution to the lazy among us?

Well, You used a lot of words to really say nothing other than its easier to reward them and pay them now than to have to arrest them for a crime they committed to beat poverty...

I believe that being we are really talking about as you said a small portion of the populous and ....

I just know that there's always going to be the lazy among us, the abusers among us, the cheaters among us etc.

There is nothing more than is already being done for those people... You ever heard the saying you can't help those that won't help themselves.... Well its true !

You can assume me heartless, you would be wrong .. but you are entitled to your opinion...

LOL @ you thinking that you're not already paying for the lazy among us. have you ever heard of people doing crimes so they can be put in jail because it's too cold outside? ever heard of people committing crimes so they can get some health care? LOL @ you & it's exactly what poverty drives a person to do.

Sure I have, but anecdotal and the hypothetical, really are not the type of statistic we should base any action on to correct a problem, are they?

at any rate, i can tell by your responses that you haven't really researched poverty, so this is kinda pointless with you.

Ah... of course from a couple of posts you now know all about me ...when in fact about all you did was demonstrate that if someone disagrees with you ...you just dismiss them as uninformed...

In my travels during my military career I have seen the faces of poverty that I would pray you never see... You know those sad TV commercials for things like Save the Children...Well I have been there .... I have looked with my own eyes... So please don't attempt to tell me what real POVERTY is!

I could be resentful toward you for being so damn presumptuous but I am not ...

Because the average American thinks poverty is the homeless people that they see on the street or on TV !!! But one day the 99% will wake up and realize that by world standards they are the 1 % ... America's poor have Cars, places to live food to eat and frickin cable TV along with a Cell Phone...

So no after actually living around and seeing first hand with my own eyes true POVERTY...

I have no sympathy for the LAZY !

Jim44, thank you for your service.

fernando , it was an honor and the pleasure was all mine.. But believe me going off to 3 rd world countries will open your eyes to what POVERTY really is !

Have a great Day !

I have been to my fair share of 3rd world countries. I know exactly what poverty is.

one day the 99% will wake up and realize that by world standards they are the 1%

AMEN!! Very few Americans know what true poverty really is.

i think i already stated that poverty in the US isn't like poverty elsewhere.

thanks for your service to the country.

but just because you observed poverty doesn't mean you researched it.

to bring it full circle: newt started talking about african americans "demanding a paycheck" (as most do). the seeder of this article noticed the BS & submitted an article. i commented.

speaking of presumptuous, i commented that there are always going to be the lazy among us to which i was told (paraphrasing) "Jim44--you want to teach/reward people for being lazy." That happens to be far from what i said. My question was & is: what's to be done? Because the "lazy" will always exist.

the bottom line: poverty is pervasive for a reason much larger than race. Politicians use it to play against your sensitivities. And as soon as you started talking that percentage nonsense, I knew they had you.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist." --Hélder Câmara

And as soon as you started talking that percentage nonsense, I knew they had you.

Who are "they" ?

Statisticians.

Nice try, Baron. What's your take--in the context of what newt was talking about (demanding paychecks)--does it make sense to say what newt said?

The politicians, Jim44. The comments from the politicians that make viners go get articles to expose BS.

Y'all sound kinda conservative. I'd like your opinions.

The demanding paychecks statement did not make sense. From who? For what? Companies are not in existence to give people jobs, they exist to make money. In other words, they aren't going to hire unless there is a need for additional personnel. There is no simple demanding of paychecks, paychecks must be earned. Race is not relevant to that, the answer is to make it profitable for companies to do business here, including and especially manufacture.

baron, i can dig those sentiments.

my initial thought was "who doesn't want a paycheck?" and then i arrived at your line of thinking regarding demand & hiring needs.

so then i had to ask myself, "why's this guy saying this?" i haven't come up with a good answer yet. anyway, newt plans on elaborating with some people. i'd like to hear how he thinks demand should sound.

oddly enough, i don't think the child labor views are that bad (although i'd personally not like to clean a toilet for a living)...i've been working since i was 10-11, though.

My first job was shoveling shxx at a dog show.

i don't envy that job...

did you have to run out real fast like the mop/towel boys & girls in the nba? haha

Then there's some that know that there's professional welfare reciepients that work the system for every cent, for some it's the family business.

Who hasn't heard someone tell them that getting a job would mean giving up their benefits? Why work when you can suck off the gov teat. Families should be proud of the fact that they've learned to make govt assistance the family career. Personally, I think benefits should gradually be cut off to enable the taking of a job without worrying about losing benefits. It would provide an incentive to seek employement and act more like a safety net than a way of life.

It is always good to dig deeper into issues like this. I am a moderate indepenedent voter, so Iam just to be fair about this article.

With regard to AFDC the figures are:

White 38.8%
Black 39.8
Hispanic 15.7
Asian 2.4
other 3.3

To break down these numbers, we look at how many Whites are in the population as a WHOLE. If Blacks make up less 14% of the population and are almost 40% of all receipients, then they represent about 2.5 times their actual population. Since Whites are over 50% of the total US pop., they represent less than their overall piece of the pie, population-wise. Hispanics are at least 15% of the general population, so they take only about as much as what their population represents. Why am I writing this? Because I am tired of the misrepresentations on this issue. I read so many on here claiming that more Whites are on welfare than Blacks (true, in terms of raw numbers), yet not accounting for the fact that there are over 4X as many Whites in this country than Blacks! In statistics, you cannot go by mere numbers. Only if the playing field is exactly equal, which is rarely is! This thread was started, not to be racist, but to keep it real. After all, there are some legitimate reasons for Blacks to be on welfare more than Whites. But the worst thing anyone can do is be in denial.

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_2.pdf

Use unemployment benefits as example. Someone who goes 99 weeks or longer collecting unemployment benefits no longer has any desire to work and simply moves on to the next govt welfare program.

Of course the good thing about that (for Obama) is that they then are taken off the unemployed rolls which helps Obama's jobless numbers.

uva,

gingrich is all about division and subtraction. the only thing he adds to the debate on any issue is the standard "i am a reagan conservative" which means that his intent is to multiply our misery. talk about your fuzzy math!

You need a refresher course on modern American political history. "Willie Horton" was used in the 1988 Presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush (look it up on Wikipedia after their blackout ends).

Yes, xray. . . But Reagan gave us the Philadelphia, Mississippi speech - which means that between Willie Horton, McCain's "black child" and the GOP "southern strategy" in general, Ronnie's still the king!

White families have been affected most by job losses, that began with the 2007 recession, forcing many to take lower-paying, part-time jobs with pay rates far lower than their cash-outflows can sustain.

Really? Then why is black unemployment 16%? Officially that's the number but in reality it's closer to 25%.

White unemploymet is under 8%...

When are we going to start blaming Mexicans? If it wasn't for the tan people no black or white people would be on unemployment.

Oh contrare, Fernando, only partially correct. Hispanics do many of the hard labor jobs now, but you'd have a hard time getting blacks OR whites to do many of them. At least to this point, Hispanics seem to have a better work ethic. However, if US continues to maintain bi lingual schools and not putting English as official language, many hispanics have no chance of improving their lives. What kind of higher paying jobs are available in US for someone who can't speak English?

I'll tell quick story I've told b4 on here.

I'm old enough to have been involved with picking cotton by hand on our farm when I was growing up. We discontinued that until I was about 14-15, then not enough money to be made. I remember my grandfather driving to town with his old pickup (this was about mid 60's). He would come back with a couple of blacks riding in truck and a bunch more on back of the truck (yes, at that time, it wasn't illegal to ride on back of a pickup truck).

My grandfather, father, two brothers and I all picked cotton together. Some of the blacks worked hard, some did not. Everyone got paid based on how many pounds of cotton you picked, so the harder and more efficiently you worked , the more money you could make (what a unique concept, eh?).

If we did what the extreme greenies want, not have anymore gasoline or diesel engines, and go back to picking cotton (and harvesting all crops) by hand, you would find almost no blacks OR whites to do the work, since it would be "demeaning" to them.

uva,

of course, white america has been the primary beneficiary of the new deal. of course, the democratic party benefited most from the enactment of new deal programs. this is precisely why the republican party, knowing that they couldn't destroy these programs at the ballot box, has turned to the "starve the beast" strategy. they stressed tax cuts while spending like drunken sailors(apologies to the navy) in order to place us in the position where we now find ourselves.

gingrich and his ilk do not wish to see a society where upward mobility is possible for us all. their desire is to make us into a bee colony.

In 2003, Senator Rick Santorum
(R-Pa.) declared: "I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a
deficit hawk. I'll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to
say no"

If an outside nation developed a plan to bankrupt us we and was perpetrating it , we would go to war against them. Bin Laden stated the reason for 9/11 was to bleed us dry financially like Afghanistan did to Russia, among other, and we went to war with them and killed them. Why is such a reckless policy allowed by internal enemies?

If an outside nation developed a plan to bankrupt us we and was perpetrating it , we would go to war against them.

It is time we fought back in this class war started by the regressives on the right. We have been pacifists for far too long in this war. The very existence of the country is at stake.

Since I have a job and am not on welfare, does that mean I'm still Black?? If I'm laid off and end up on welfare, does this make me White?

What if I don't have a job, collect unemployment, but not welfare?? Does that make me Michael Jackson??

"I'm soooo confused" (Vinnie Barbarino)

ROFL!

They do count many Hispanics as white though. The fact of the matter is that per capita blacks are much more likely to be on welfare than whites. Now why this occurs or how to address this disparity is another issue.

Like most things its never a black and white issue so to speak. Shades of gray people.

What if I don't have a job, collect unemployment, but not welfare?? Does that make me Michael Jackson??

Hee Hee!

(grabs crotch with white Michael Jackson glove and Moonwalks to the public aid office)

Midnight Toker 4+20

As far as I know, no person named per capita has ever cashed a welfare check or spent a food stamp.

And the plain fact is that more white people cash welfare checks and spend food stamps than black people.

Fed- Well to put it bluntly no @!$%#! The fact remains though that blacks as a demographic are much more probable to be on welfare. Its fact whether your white guilt/black victimhood allows you to accept it or not.

This dependence per capita hurts blacks as a demographic the most.