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.
Back it up after adjusting for population differences.
It's not an adjustment for population differences. FACT: whites out number blacks. If out of the entire 70% of Whites, around 30% of Whites receive, what is 30% of the larger number?
You can't add to something which isn't already there. In this case it would be population.
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
It appears as though the largest recipient, as a percentage of welfare distributed, blacks are slightly higher than whites.
If you go by population of each race, blacks, as a percentage of their population, have a much greater participation in the welfare program than any other race.
So we have a chart where the bulk of the money is related to government insurance payouts for Medicare and Social Security. Programs that the recipients in most cases paid into (along with their employers) for decades.
Portraying those dollars as some sort of "living off the government freeloading" exhibits a disheartening degree of dishonesty or lack of education.
Even though they are in the minority in red states, blue citizens suck up a disproportionate share of resources. True, true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
Interesting map. It is the percent of income by county that comes from gov't, things like SS disability, welfare, food stamps, etc.
I thought Red State people believed in getting the gov't off their backs and making it by their own hard work... so why is 25% to HALF of total income in most Red States coming from non work??
If out of the entire 70% of Whites, around 30% of Whites receive, what is 30% of the larger number?
Before adjusting for population about 40% of welfare recipients are white, about 40% of welfare recipients are black. That's why it is easy to do this comparison because you only need the population ratios, it's a 6 to 1 ratio. Therefore once you adjust for population for every white person receiving welfare 6 blacks are receiving welfare.
If you can't understand this math go slap your fifth grade math teacher for me.
If you go by population of each race, blacks, as a percentage of their population, have a much greater participation in the welfare program than any other race.
Correct, if you had parity it would about 72% whites and 13% blacks.
Before adjusting for population about 40% of welfare recipients are white, about 40% of welfare recipients are black. That's why it is easy to do this comparison because you only need the population ratios, it's a 6 to 1 ratio. Therefore once you adjust for population for every white person receiving welfare 6 blacks are receiving welfare.
If you can't understand this math go slap your fifth grade math teacher for me.
They're trying to push the "total dollars" argument.
Using that argument would mean that since more TOTAL whites are arrested than blacks that police are actually out to get white people and are biased positively towards blacks.
Same stupid total dollars argument that was pushed in 2008 with regards to oil companies "record profits". The fact that the pols pushed that argument when any decently educated person could see right through it is a sad indictment of both their dishonesty and their (correct) opinion of how stupid the average voter is.
It appears as though the largest recipient, as a percentage of welfare distributed, blacks are slightly higher than whites.
If you go by population of each race, blacks, as a percentage of their population, have a much greater participation in the welfare program than any other race.
Good numbers, thanks.
With blacks we have to factor in that for their first 350 years here most were slaves with zero economic rights. That's bound to take a heavy toll on people as a group. After that they lived under racial apartheid for another 100 years with limited social and economic participation. That only ended recently (in my adult lifetime).
It would be interesting to see the trends. How is the percentage of people on welfare changing by demographics over the last 20, 40, 60 years, etc.?
BradPiff, Mississippi hopes to reach 3rd world status, someday. That would be progress.
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.
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.
The fact that the pols pushed that argument when any decently educated person could see right through it is a sad indictment of both their dishonesty and their (correct) opinion of how stupid the average voter is.
