Americans Are Mistaken About Who Gets Welfare

[Truth Detector]

Yep and Blacks took more shit than anyone else in America,

WTF does this have to do with the stupidity you posed in this thread? What "shit" are blacks taking other than dishing a LOT of it out? You think society OWES them something?

You do know that a young black youth in some BLUE state urban sewer is 95% more likely to be killed by another young black than any cops or whites?

You really are too stupid for words; but then, that defines you as a liberal.

 

[Flash]

The majority of people on welfare are children. Damn lazy kids .

But whether those kids get that money or not depends on their parents. When states like CA put cash benefits on debit cards the state found a lot of it was being spent at casinos.

 

[CFM]

What failure?

They face greater levels of poverty because the majority stole their labor from them for several generations, treated them as chattel and then as second class citizens who were not eligible for the same benefits as white Americans. Intergenerational transfers of wealth and educational benefits have long lasting effects on the wealth/earning capacity of future generations. Because they face greater levels of poverty they disproportionately use welfare.

Look at the numbers then look at them wanting to blame anyone but the way they choose to live.

 

[CFM]

Uh huh, quit making excuses for your failure to understand how to properly analyze the date and for the need to create control groups to determine the reasons for the disproportionate use of current programs, race realist.

I know the reasons. You want to make excuses.

 

[Timshel]

Look at the numbers then look at them wanting to blame anyone but the way they choose to live.

People are poor for a simple reason, they don't have money. It's not an excuse, it's a simple fact.

I have made no excuses. Individuals can and do escape it. But if you start poor then you are more likely to end poor than if you start rich/middle class.

 

[PraiseKek]

No shit sherlock ... Perception based on race . . .

. . . the word is often loaded with racial meaning. As a new HuffPost/YouGov survey shows, much of the public has a distorted view of which groups receive the bulk of assistance from government programs. Fifty-nine percent of Americans say either that most welfare recipients are black, or that welfare recipiency is about the same among black and white people.

The numbers reflect a significant overestimation of the number of black Americans benefiting from the largest programs. Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown. (Food stamps are formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.)

In one sense, HuffPost’s survey asked an abstract question: The federal government doesn’t run a program that is actually called “welfare.” The word can describe any instance of the government helping people or businesses, though it’s most commonly used to describe programs that benefit the poor.

These days, to Republican lawmakers, welfare means Medicaid, food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Paul Ryan and hardline conservatives in the House of Representatives have said they want to make changes to those three programs this year under the banner of welfare reform.

Historically, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is probably the program that has most frequently been called welfare, as it was created in the famous “welfare reform” of 1996. As a result of that reform, the program today is much smaller than its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and it only served 2.7 million people in 2016. Of those, 36.9 percent were Hispanic, 27.6 percent white, and 29.1 percent black ― meaning that if they had this particular program in mind, HuffPost’s survey respondents who said the number of white and black beneficiaries are “about the same” were basically right.

Survey respondents’ estimation of who receives welfare tracked closely to their estimation of who gets food stamps. Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents said the program’s recipients are mostly black or that there are as many black Americans as white Americans receiving benefits. Only 21 percent correctly said there are more white than black food stamp recipients.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...0cde4b0d3df1d13f60b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


Let just ignore the facts and move to the good old standby of percentages

Lol another fucktard who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "disproportionate," as in as a % of the population blacks and hispanics receive welfare in disproportionate amounts. Blacks only make up 13% of the population and hispanics only make up 17% of the population and whites make up 63% of the population.

 

[PraiseKek]

yeap near the levels of just population percents

It's not even close you lying bitch. Blacks receive more than double the welfare as their % of the population, hispanics almost double, and whites recieve less than half. Learn basic math you fucking retard.

 

[Timshel]

Lol another fucktard who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "disproportionate," as in as a % of the population blacks and hispanics receive welfare in disproportionate amounts. Blacks only make up 13% of the population and hispanics only make up 17% of the population and whites make up 63% of the population.

Again, control for poverty. If we consider the population of the poor (the ones that are eligible for benefits) rather than the population in general that all goes away. Minorities are no more likely to ask for help than white people. They are JUST more likely to be eligible for the help due to disproportionate rates of poverty.

 

[PraiseKek]

Again, control for poverty. If we consider the population of the poor (the ones that are eligible for benefits) rather than the population in general that all goes away. Minorities are no more likely to ask for help than white people. They are JUST more likely to be eligible for the help due to disproportionate rates of poverty.

Spare me, the welfare is the causative factor for the poverty not the other way around, the government check has brought about a sense of entitlement, laziness, and complacency amongst the black and hispanic communities. Furthermore, minorities are eligible for entitlements that whites are not; such as, better access to housing assistance. Moreover, the poverty rate and welfare recipient rate of Asians compared to Hispanics who have a nearly identical American experience.

 

[Timshel]

Spare me, the welfare is the causative factor for the poverty not the other way around

You have offered no proof of that. You are just shit posting.


White Americans benefited from the welfare program of slavery for many generations and it did not make individuals poorer. One could argue that it was the reason the South remained poorer than the North but that's a different argument than the one you are making.


Again, white Americans benefited from the welfare of New Deal housing programs that were not available to african americans, but that did not lead to a reversal of which demographic held the wealth. It exacerbated it.

Look at the poverty rate and welfare recipient rate of Asians compared to Hispanics who have a nearly identical American experience.

LOL, no they don't have an identical experience. Asians started immigrating en masse much sooner, were already established here and had equal incomes with whites when LBJ's programs went into effect.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/

Those hispanic families that were early settlers in the southwest and were not completely dispossessed by encroaching white settlers, do quite well. There is also the fact that many of the established hispanics now self identify as white, which makes it harder to tease out the truth when comparing the data.

You are a shit poster and if you know the facts that you are just misusing them to manipulate.

 

[cawacko]

What failure?

They face greater levels of poverty because the majority stole their labor from them for several generations, treated them as chattel and then as second class citizens who were not eligible for the same benefits as white Americans. Intergenerational transfers of wealth and educational benefits have long lasting effects on the wealth/earning capacity of future generations. Because they face greater levels of poverty they disproportionately use welfare.

For the sake of discussion what say you to the argument made by Jason Riley and others that the focus on black political, rather than economic, power actually impeded black mobility and that A.A. and Great Society programs slowed down the advances blacks gained prior to their implementation?

 

[PraiseKek]

You have offered no proof of that. You are just shit posting.

If you actually need evidence for how disincentives to work; such as, government handouts, perpetuates the poverty cycle then you're not really worth talking to.

The culture of poverty is a concept in social theory that expands on the idea of a cycle of poverty. It attracted academic and policy attention in the 1970s, survived harsh academic criticism (Goode and Eames, 1996; Bourgois, 2001; Small M.L., Harding D.J., Lamont M., 2010), and made a comeback at the beginning of the 21st century.[1] It offers one way to explain why poverty exists despite anti-poverty programs. Critics of the early culture of poverty arguments insist that explanations of poverty must analyze how structural factors interact with and condition individual characteristics (Goode and Eames, 1996; Bourgois, 2001; Small M.L., Harding D.J., Lamont M., 2010). As put by Small, Harding, and Lamont (2010), "since human action is both constrained and enabled by the meaning people give to their actions, these dynamics should become central to our understanding of the production and reproduction of poverty and social inequality."

Lewis gave 70 characteristics (1996 [1966], 1998)[3][4] that indicated the presence of the culture of poverty, which he argued was not shared among all of the lower classes.

"The people in the culture of poverty have a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of dependency, of not belonging. They are like aliens in their own country, convinced that the existing institutions do not serve their interests and needs. Along with this feeling of powerlessness is a widespread feeling of inferiority, of personal unworthiness. This is true of the slum dwellers of Mexico City, who do not constitute a distinct ethnic or racial group and do not suffer from racial discrimination. In the United States the culture of poverty that exists in the black community has the additional disadvantage of perceived racial discrimination.

People with a culture of poverty have very little sense of history. They are a marginal people who know only their own troubles, their own local conditions, their own neighborhood, their own way of life. Usually, they have neither the knowledge, the vision nor the ideology to see the similarities between their problems and those of others like themselves elsewhere in the world. In other words, they are not class conscious, although they are very sensitive indeed to status distinctions. When the poor become class conscious or members of trade union organizations, or when they adopt an internationalist outlook on the world they are, in my view, no longer part of the culture of poverty although they may still be desperately poor."

(Lewis 1998)[5]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_povertya

White Americans benefited from the welfare program of slavery for many generations and it did not make individuals poorer.

A) Slave owners were in the extreme minority of whites in the US.

B) It absolutely did retard growth in the US in that it prevented industrialization in the South relegating them to a primitive agrarian based economy lagging decades behind the north.

One could argue that it was the reason the South remained poorer than the North but that's a different argument than the one you are making.

It's absolutely not a separate argument, free labor was a disincentive to industrialization.

Again, white Americans benefited from the welfare of New Deal housing programs that were not available to african americans, but that did not lead to a reversal of which demographic held the wealth. It exacerbated it.

Care to point out where in the National Housing Act of 1934 there is a racial criterion:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAQegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw0gllKcyUXDu8aGdUGmWHGb

LOL, no they don't have an identical experience. Asians started immigrating en masse much sooner, were already established here and had equal incomes with whites when LBJ's programs went into effect.

Absolute nonsense, Hispanics started immigrating to the US at the same time as Asians during the California gold rush:

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, concluding the Mexican War, extended U.S. citizenship to approximately 60,000 Mexican residents of the New Mexico Territory and 10,000 living in California. An additional approximate 2,500 foreign born California residents also become U.S. citizens.

In 1849, the California Gold Rush attracted 100,000 would-be miners from the Eastern U.S., Latin America, China, Australia, and Europe. California became a state in 1850 with a population of about 90,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/

Those hispanic families that were early settlers in the southwest and were not completely dispossessed by encroaching white settlers, do quite well. There is also the fact that many of the established hispanics now self identify as white, which makes it harder to tease out the truth when comparing the data.

You are a shit poster and if you know the facts that you are just misusing them to manipulate.

A) Asian and Hispanic immigration both started at the same time during the California gold rush.

B) Mass Hispanic immigration to the US began in the late 1800s.

C) Is your argument actually that recent Hispanic immigrants are an economic burden? That sounds like a fantastic argument in favor of ending immigration from Latin America.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

No shit sherlock ... Perception based on race . . .

. . . the word is often loaded with racial meaning. As a new HuffPost/YouGov survey shows, much of the public has a distorted view of which groups receive the bulk of assistance from government programs. Fifty-nine percent of Americans say either that most welfare recipients are black, or that welfare recipiency is about the same among black and white people.

The numbers reflect a significant overestimation of the number of black Americans benefiting from the largest programs. Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown. (Food stamps are formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.)

In one sense, HuffPost’s survey asked an abstract question: The federal government doesn’t run a program that is actually called “welfare.” The word can describe any instance of the government helping people or businesses, though it’s most commonly used to describe programs that benefit the poor.

These days, to Republican lawmakers, welfare means Medicaid, food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Paul Ryan and hardline conservatives in the House of Representatives have said they want to make changes to those three programs this year under the banner of welfare reform.

Historically, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is probably the program that has most frequently been called welfare, as it was created in the famous “welfare reform” of 1996. As a result of that reform, the program today is much smaller than its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and it only served 2.7 million people in 2016. Of those, 36.9 percent were Hispanic, 27.6 percent white, and 29.1 percent black ― meaning that if they had this particular program in mind, HuffPost’s survey respondents who said the number of white and black beneficiaries are “about the same” were basically right.

Survey respondents’ estimation of who receives welfare tracked closely to their estimation of who gets food stamps. Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents said the program’s recipients are mostly black or that there are as many black Americans as white Americans receiving benefits. Only 21 percent correctly said there are more white than black food stamp recipients.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...0cde4b0d3df1d13f60b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


Let just ignore the facts and move to the good old standby of percentages

Fucking lazy white trailer trash. And I bet the large majority voted for Trump.
Idiots!!!

 

[PraiseKek]

Fucking lazy white trailer trash. And I bet the large majority voted for Trump.
Idiots!!!

"Lazy white trailer trash," who receive welfare at half the rate as blacks and hispanics.

 

[Cypress]

The word welfare is a loaded word, and is carefully constructed to convey a certain ideology and even, racist mindset.

No idea why social security and medicare are not considered "welfare", i.e., a public service funded by taxes and available to people when they qualify. It is a pure form of welfare, dare we even say a variant of your garden vareity European Socialist-Kenyan-Marxist social welfare programs.

I am sure it is probably because nobody want to offend old people, and even a lot of republicans collect this kind of "welfare".

 

[cawacko]

The word welfare is a loaded word, and is carefully constructed to convey a certain ideology and even, racist mindset.

No idea why social security and medicare are not considered "welfare", i.e., a public service funded by taxes and available to people when they qualify. It is a pure form of welfare, dare we even say a variant of your garden vareity European Socialist-Kenyan-Marxist social welfare programs.

I am sure it is probably because nobody want to offend old people, and even a lot of republicans collect this kind of "welfare".

I'm sure you are aware people refer to S.S. and Medicare as entitlements at which many people get offended by. Originally FDR created S.S. as an 'earned right' and we are taught we pay into it and thus it's not welfare. But with how it has been expanded and liberalized over time it's become a massive income redistribution program. I'm sure you've heard the progressives who argue against calling it welfare because they feel it will make the program easier to cut.

The reality today is over half our federal budget goes to entitlement/welfare programs. And the programs today are a far cry from what they were at their creation.

 

[PraiseKek]

The word welfare is a loaded word, and is carefully constructed to convey a certain ideology and even, racist mindset.

So now the word "welfare," is racist? You're a fucking nut.

No idea why social security and medicare are not considered "welfare", i.e., a public service funded by taxes and available to people when they qualify. It is a pure form of welfare, dare we even say a variant of your garden vareity European Socialist-Kenyan-Marxist social welfare programs.

People pay into their own social security accounts out of their paychecks, the less you earn the less social security you get the inverse is true for actual welfare.

 

[Timshel]

For the sake of discussion what say you to the argument made by Jason Riley and others that the focus on black political, rather than economic, power actually impeded black mobility and that A.A. and Great Society programs slowed down the advances blacks gained prior to their implementation?

I am not familiar with it, but I don't think know of any reason to believe that AA or Great Society programs slowed their progress. Our current social safety net programs are too paternalistic and could be better, but I don't think they are doing more harm than good to beneficiaries.

Certainly it is not doing as much harm as continuing discrimination within the criminal justice system.

http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/

 

[Cypress]

I'm sure you are aware people refer to S.S. and Medicare as entitlements at which many people get offended by. Originally FDR created S.S. as an 'earned right' and we are taught we pay into it and thus it's not welfare. But with how it has been expanded and liberalized over time it's become a massive income redistribution program. I'm sure you've heard the progressives who argue against calling it welfare because they feel it will make the program easier to cut.

The reality today is over half our federal budget goes to entitlement/welfare programs. And the programs today are a far cry from what they were at their creation.

Word salad. Entitlement. Welfare. Don't care about any alleged distinction.

I have never been interested in the attempts of politicians, message boarders, or anyone else to word-smith ideas in the service of selling them.

The constitution refers to the "general welfare", and I am pretty sure they had a broader concept of that than food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Conservatives constantly wail about the European socialist "welfare" states, and we know exactly what they are talking about: the broad array of publically funded services and programs that provide a societal benefit that is generally feasibly unavailable through for-profit corporations.

I am pretty sure if you went to your CATO websites, they would have decades of reports, opinion columns, and studies referring to Medicaid and Social Security as hallmarks of European style "welfare".

The way the word "welfare" is used by the right is carefully calculated, and I think we all know that.

As for the budget, half going to social programs, healthcare, education, does not bother me in the least. This is not 1844 anymore, and modern civilized nations have decided we have a different set of standards today, than the Kaiser of Germany or the Tsar of Russia had in 1855.

 

[dukkha]

Word salad. Entitlement. Welfare. Don't care about any alleged distinction.

I have never been interested in the attempts of politicians, message boarders, or anyone else to word-smith ideas in the service of selling them.

The constitution refers to the "general welfare", and I am pretty sure they had a broader concept of that than food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Conservatives constantly wail about the European socialist "welfare" states, and we know exactly what they are talking about: the broad array of publically funded services and programs that provide a societal benefit that is generally feasibly unavailable through for-profit corporations.

I am pretty sure if you went to your CATO websites, they would have decades of reports, opinion columns, and studies referring to Medicaid and Social Security as hallmarks of European style "welfare".

The way the word "welfare" is used by the right is carefully calculated, and I think we all know that.

As for the budget, half going to social programs, healthcare, education, does not bother me in the least. This is not 1844 anymore, and modern civilized nations have decided we have a different set of standards today, than the Kaiser of Germany or the Tsar of Russian had in 1855.

"word-smithing" is problematic?
So a well reasoned argument is nothing more then "smithing" 'eh? Because we want to dumb it down for you where needed.

The general welfare clause is NOT a catch all for spending the federal government broke by a zillion programs that state and locals can do,or individuals can do on there own..you are advocating a "welfare state"