Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the point. AA's make up 13% of the US population and make up 38% of welfare recipients. The southern states that have the highest concentration of AA's would also have higher welfare usage. The particular problem the southern states have is culture. Kentucky has the same demographic makeup as MN, but people in MN believe in education and have higher educational acheivements. Another thing to note is the claims that red states receive more welfare are skewed by government land ownership and military installations.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
I assume nothing. You only posted maps, but did not make a point. Please, and quickly because I have to leave for work soon, make that point.
Here my point that you missed. I don't care if Blacks made up only 2% of the population and 38% of welfare, it still makes little sense to me to blame Blacks and to only think of Blacks when you think of welfare while, only paying attention to welfare alone, they only account for 38%.
For example. Rats/Whites make up 70% of the rodent population. Mice/Blacks make up 13% of the rodent population. I'm a farmer with a crop of corn. Welfare=I have 60 rats eating my crops and 40 mice. Looking at it from my problem point of view, what does it matter that only 13% of the rodent population are mice if the problem is the population of pest that's on my farm only. When it come to the pest/welfare problem on my farm, Mice aren't the majority, so why would I only target mice.
I'd also like to point out that food stamps does not allow someone to buy luxurious food like filet mignon, salmon, king crab, ribeye, etc. in decent quantities like so many tea partiers have allegedly witnessed on here. $250 a month per person is not a lot of food and usually is enough to buy cheap, unhealthy, per-processed crap and soft drinks. $1.80 for a 2 liter soda or almost $4.50+ for a gallon of milk. Talk about the easy life
Tea partiers? Rather be affiliated with those guys than whatever species your type evolved from.
Using the term evolved loosely of course heh heh
I'd also like to point out that food stamps does not allow someone to buy luxurious food like filet mignon, salmon, king crab, ribeye, etc. in decent quantities like so many tea partiers have allegedly witnessed on here. $250 a month per person is not a lot of food and usually is enough to buy cheap, unhealthy, per-processed crap and soft drinks. $1.80 for a 2 liter soda or almost $4.50+ for a gallon of milk. Talk about the easy life
I'd also like to point out that food stamps does not allow someone to buy luxurious food like filet mignon, salmon, king crab, ribeye, etc. in decent quantities like so many tea partiers have allegedly witnessed on here. $250 a month per person is not a lot of food and usually is enough to buy cheap, unhealthy, per-processed crap and soft drinks. $1.80 for a 2 liter soda or almost $4.50+ for a gallon of milk. Talk about the easy life
I don't know where you shop but I get plenty of "healthy" food on my budget of $150/month.
$2.50 for the store brand 12 pack of CANE sugar soda.
$3.00 for a gallon of milk.
I assume nothing. You only posted maps, but did not make a point. Please, and quickly because I have to leave for work soon, make that point.
My point is the red states with the higher black population would also have a higher welfare participation rate. The problem is culture though, not race. MN and Kentucky are 85% white, but MN believes in education, while KY does not. I don't think there is much of a welfare difference between KY and AL, even though there is a demographic difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
Here my point that you missed. I don't care if Blacks made up only 2% of the population and 38% of welfare, it still makes little sense to me to blame Blacks and to only think of Blacks when you think of welfare while, only paying attention to welfare alone, they only account for 38%.
I don't think anyone was blaming blacks, just explaining why the red states would have a higher welfare rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
For example. Rats/Whites make up 70% of the pest population. Mice/Blacks make up 13% of the pest population. I'm a farmer with a crop of corn. Welfare=I have 60 rats eating my crops and 40 mice. Looking at it from my problem point of view, what does it matter that only 13% of the pest population are mice if the problem is the population of pest that's on my farm only. When it come to the pest/welfare problem on my farm, Mice aren't the majority, so why would I only target mice.
You would target the pest that is overrepresented. For every 2 rats you have you lose 1 ear of corn. For every 1 mice you have you lose 3 ears of corn.
Asians are the most underrepresented on welfare roles.
Whites are also underrepresented.
Blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented.
The welfare usage and incomes are tied into the educational achievements.
For the record, I think there is too much focus on blacks. Every available indicator indicates that blacks are having less kids, getting more education, and committing less crime.
You missed the point. AA's make up 13% of the US population and make up 38% of welfare recipients. The southern states that have the highest concentration of AA's would also have higher welfare usage. The particular problem the southern states have is culture. Kentucky has the same demographic makeup as MN, but people in MN believe in education and have higher educational acheivements. Another thing to note is the claims that red states receive more welfare are skewed by government land ownership and military installations.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
Also, why aren't Blacks in these red states doing better? That was the question I poised. and way my main point. I never argued that red states didn't have more blacks which is what you and HappyTexan changed the argument to.
Also, I'm not completely familiar with this government land ownership & military installation angle of yours. Please explain.
Like I said, these crazies whine that poor people have babies, yet demonize birth control and abortion.
I don't. I'm the exact opposite. I complain and moan about people having children they cannot afford all the time. However, I'm all for birth control. Free, accessible and yes, paid for by my tax dollar. Same with abortions. Yes, I am PRO ABORTION. There is no such as Pro Choice which is just another PC term wasted in this world. In fact, I believe NOT ENOUGH abortions are being done.
At the sometime, if you are on ANY governmentally assisted program, paid for by the tax payers, MANDATORY birth control should be prescribe for both men AND women. It should be non discussible, non negotiable. WHEN you can afford to have children, on your own, and not make me pay for YOUR mistakes, fine. Remove the birth control. Until then MANDATORY.
But you left wing lunatics wouldn't allow that and block such attempts at every step.
Also, why aren't Blacks in these red states doing better? That was the question I poised. and way my main point. I never argued that red states didn't have more blacks which is what you and HappyTexan changed the argument to.
We know that AA's are less wealthy than whites, on average.
We know that red states are less wealthy than blue states, on average.
We don't know that AA's in red states are better or worse off than AA's in blue states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
Also, I'm not completely familiar with this government land ownership & military installation angle of yours. Please explain.
The red state have most of the military bases. Federal land ownership is higher in red states as well. What this means is that money will go into a state to maintain the bases and land AND get classified as welfare.
My point is the red states with the higher black population would also have a higher welfare participation rate. The problem is culture though, not race. MN and Kentucky are 85% white, but MN believes in education, while KY does not. I don't think there is much of a welfare difference between KY and AL, even though there is a demographic difference.
Oh I completely agree. If you read the quote on my first post in this thread, a Conservative, as usual, made it about race on the first couple of pages on this thread. I was indulging him. I think crime, welfare, etc has more to do with poverty and culture than race or politics. There can be different cultures and upbringing within a race. Low income Blacks and Whites from a bad inner city neighborhood will have a different culture than those from middle case & rich areas...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
You would target the pest that is overrepresented. For every 2 rats you have you lose 1 ear of corn. For every 1 mice you have you lose 3 ears of corn.
Asians are the most underrepresented on welfare roles.
Whites are also underrepresented.
Blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented.
The welfare usage and incomes are tied into the educational achievements.
For the record, I think there is too much focus on blacks. Every available indicator indicates that blacks are having less kids, getting more education, and committing less crime.
When it comes to welfare, many people target Blacks. I agree that you have to target the whoever's over represented. In terms of welfare, Black and White are damn near equal. Blacks on their own only make up 40%, and other races make up 60%. Yet every time welfare comes up, the only race the usually get mentioned are A.A.s which makes little sense to me.
We know that AA's are less wealthy than whites, on average.
We know that red states are less wealthy than blue states, on average.
We don't know that AA's in red states are better or worse off than AA's in blue states.
The red state have most of the military bases. Federal land ownership is higher in red states as well. What this means is that money will go into a state to maintain the bases and land AND get classified as welfare.
So why are Blue states more wealthy than Red states? Aren't Blue states like CA and NY usually deemed high taxes, big government, pro regulation, and antibusiness?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.