Why should white people be blamed for African American's collective social status?

look, your study is old. thats my point. get it? old read that twice because you dont seem to understand how things have changed since 2004. the study could be published 100 years from now the data is still from 2004. old. see? old
a few laws have changed since 2004 when the data was collected.

oh no the republicans. then danged big business republicans took over and never left since 2007 and their decisions are irreversible to this day. (sarcasm)

 

Average in all sectors. If we create an index on religious violence, stability, and corruption, Iraq would rank poor. I am not arguing that Iraq is stable, peaceful, or politically ethical. Just that the socio-economic situation of citizens is superior to many other nations across the globe, especially in Africa and Asia. http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map

 

Some parts of Africa perhaps, like Liberia and Nigeria, but I'm pretty sure there are some places in Africa that would be considered more stable and more prosperous than Iraq. Same with Asia. Those are continents, so it's a bit difficult to compare them to Iraq, the country.

 

According to the index, Liberia and Nigeria are more developed than Iraq. I didn't need an index to tell me that.

 

Conservatives*

 

The people in those places are hurting really bad. Watch some documentaries.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/liberia

 

Not sure why you say that sarcastically. Yes, conservatives have controlled the Supreme Court since 2007 and aren't reversing their decisions.

The Court was sort of right of center, but fairly moderate, for a while before 2005. From 2005 or 2006 (when Roberts and Alito replaced moderates) to the present it has been hard right. The balance hasn't changed since 2005. Two liberal justices retired and were replaced by President Obama by other liberals, so that didn't shift the balance of power.

 

No, I meant what I said. YOU need to go fish for the answers you 'need' to realize the 'truth'.

If you are satisfied with where you are, so be it. I'm not going to play games with adults who live in the same world I have lived in for over half a century. Now, that's not a lot compared to my parents... but it's enough to have an idea when to stop arguing with certain individuals about certain things. So honestly... go teach yourself (if you really 'want' to know).

Regards.

 

Actually "progressive" white people can be blamed (plus the race industry), since its their policies that have resulted in the destruction of the black family, and trapped so many blacks in a welfare enslavement spiral.

 

I guess it started in grade school. There were only two black kids in my class. The other kids really did not have a whole lot to do with them. I have always hated bullying and the type of behavior some kids exhibit so I just started hanging out with them. All thru grade school and junior high we became best friends. Both of them had a great sense of humor and I always admired how they kept their cool even when being bullied.

When it came time to go to high school which was a consolidated county school we remained friends. The high school we went to was at least 50% black. While some white and black kids had a lot of problems then we got along great. I stuck up for them and they stuck up for me.

Now I live in an area that is at least 50% black. I get along great. Why would I not like black people?

 

Conservatives certainly say that a lot, but it isn't actually true. In fact, the more both states and countries spend on welfare, the fewer people they have in poverty. And the poverty level is calculated on pre-transfer income, so that means that the more you spend on welfare, the fewer people need it in the long run. It lifts people out of poverty and then they carry on on their own. What we're doing in the US is basically just giving enough help that they don't starve, but not enough that they're able to get up out of poverty.

Countries:


http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/poverty-safety-net


States:


http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/welfare-poverty

 

Several problems with those plots:

A plot of a single point in time is not very useful.

GDP is not a good measure of poverty spending - a nation with a robust economy can have a large GDP, and spend a huge amount of money per person in poverty, but that amount of money as a % of GDP can be low.

The amount of money is not as important as how the money is spent.​

Poverty goes far, far beyond something as simple as the govt spending money. If all it took was money, explain this:

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

The United States has dramatically increased federal spending fighting poverty over the last 50 years. Total welfare costs have risen from $415 per person in poverty in 1960 to $13,910 per person in 2013. That totals $55,640 for a family of four even though the Poverty Threshold for such a family is $23,834. Total federal welfare costs include the expenditures of 13 large government programs (see Safety Net Programs Page) plus the Medicaid Program which supplies health care to low-income Americans. The figures have been adjusted for the costs of inflation and stated in 2013 dollars​

.

Did you catch that fact that for a family of 4 the poverty threshold is $23,834 but the US govt spends $55,640 on poverty programs to help that family? It seems its more profitable to stay in "poverty" than get a job.

And look at the graph in the link showing spending and poverty rates over time, the spending per person in poverty has gone through the roof, yet poverty rates are constant.

And explain why the US has a multi-generational problem of poverty in the black community in inner cities?

 

That stat is misleading at best. What that blogger is doing is just adding up the total budgets of various programs that help the poor and dividing by the number of people in poverty. But many of those programs do a lot of things other than help the poor. For example, Medicaid is primarily for people with disabilities, but he lumps the whole cost of the program in there. In fact, just that one program is almost half the total. Likewise, Pell grants go to a lot of people who aren't in poverty. Many people get job training who aren't in poverty, the HUD programs he includes span a lot more than just poverty amelioration. SSI mostly goes to disabled people and elderly people, but he lumps that in there. He counts the cost of school lunches too. He also counts the EITC tax credit as "spending". Definitely tax credits and spending are very similar in many ways, but probably good to note that you're counting tax credits as spending.

So, really what he is giving you is money spent on the poor and the disabled and non-poor children and retirees divided by the number of people in poverty. That doesn't actually give you any indication of how much we spend on poverty amelioration. It mostly just tells you that we have a lot of retirees these days.

He also doesn't provide any source for his claim that we only spent $415 in 1960. Given that the data he did provide for 2013 doesn't actually match what he is saying, I wouldn't place too much confidence in that claim.

 

You made a statement that there is some kind of "white culture" here in America, and I say that there really is not, since Americans are a product of MANY different cultures.

 

To be fair, there are people who actually do work but still have to collect some form of public assistance because they cannot live on a minimum wage job, and because a college education is so expensive, they are stuck. Do you know that in some other countries, a college education is free for anyone who is applicable? In our country, it's all about the almighty dollar. You can be bright enough, motivated enough, but if you don't have the money, then you get no college education. We send BILLIONS of dollars to other countries in "aid," but mention doing something to help our OWN poor people here in America, and the conservatives start throwing a hissy fit.

 

And while I cannot define that for you so that you might fully understand what I implied, I DO have a fair amount of confidence that you will eventually find out why you are wrong and also understand why. I see it as being a matter of time before you do.

 

Sorry, I think it is you who is wrong since America is a combination of a whole bunch of different cultures. That is why we are referred to as "the melting pot" and why we have no specific "culture."

 

Okay. We're done. Take care.

 

Yes, America is a collection of cultures. Europe, northern Africa and western Asia are genetically similar, but they have and continue to wage some of the worlds' bloodiest wars against each other. Here in America, they don't even farm the same way. Northwest Iowa has a Dutch enclave which in the past has discriminated against neighboring Germans. Years ago, a largely Irish mob tried to drive all of the Greeks from Omaha.Now, Ukrainians and Iranians are adding to the mix in parts of the Heartland.

An American culture has overlaid the polyglutt of old ways to bring a sense of unity. The process is fading now, but it still exists. Americans did it naturally while Tito recognized the dangers of hostile disparate people when he became leader and a founder of Yugoslavia. He forced a uniform identity until it fell apart with the fall of the Soviet Union. We could also disintegrate as Yugoslavia did under the right conditions.

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

I believe that in the basic sense, people need to learn that cooperation (as human beings) leads to some very good outcomes. I would never expect all people to easily relate to one another or identify with all the experiences of others... but it does help for people to realize that as 'human' beings, we have a tremendous number of interests in common. We can be so mutually beneficial to one another (across all social barriers), that give us great reason to respect and tolerate one another.

So, while the immense diversity in this society is sometimes problematic, with a bit of sanity added to the mix America can still prosper... even well beyond its present status.

 

He is not the only one making the claim. No matter how you try to dance around it, the USA has spent a fortune on in the "war on poverty" with nothing to show for it. The bottom line is that simple plots of spending at a single point in time (as you provided earlier) are meaningless.

 

There are multiple issues there, not all related.

Very few people (something like 2% of all workers) earn minimum wage, and the majority of those are young people just starting out on life. Most people on minimum wage have risen above it within 1 year.

I have no sympathy for people who take on massive debt over college. Those people chose to go to a college they could not afford, they chose to study a field that resulted in their inability to repay their debt, and they chose to assume the debt. Responsible, honest people think ahead and do not deliberately get themselves into a deep hole, and then shirk their self-incurred obligation to pay the debt.

If you can't afford Harvard, then get a job and save money. Join the military, or learn a trade like plumbing or air conditioning (good paying jobs), or work 2 lower paying jobs. Or go to State U that you can afford, work hard, get a job, save money, and then go to Harvard. Many people go down one of those routes. I did.

For decades, conservatives have led the fight to stop all these foreign aid handouts. Some have even made the argument that the foreign aid should be spent at home (which is not really a conservative argument).

The US has a massive welfare system, its ineffective and wasteful. Dumping more money into is not that answer.

 

We actually spend very little on poverty amelioration. Only 9% of our safety net spending goes to the non-working, non-elderly poor. Of that 9%, 7% is for medical care. Only 2% of of our safety net spending is actual poverty amelioration. And even our entire safety net spending is significantly less than other developed countries spend.

The reason we have more poverty than other developed countries is obvious- because we're doing very little to combat it. Not only do we spend virtually nothing on poverty amelioration, but we also have regressive state taxation, we undermine collective bargaining, we structure corporations to give all power to the investors, etc., etc., etc.

 

Some clearly want this nation to be an 'oligarchy' and that will be resisted tooth and nail.

People can be fooled/abused for a time... but never in absolute perpetuity.

 

First, I looked at your source (always a good first step), the CBPP, to see what if any political bias it might have. Board Emeritus is Marian Wright Edelman - about as far left as you can get when it comes to policy and budget regarding children and poverty. A look at their donor list, particularly the donors who contributed more than $500,000, is a list of the biggest leftwing organizations in the nation, and also includes the infamous George Soros Open Society Foundation.

Sorry, your CBPP source fails the test. I would not trust anything they claim.

Your second source, the Economic Policy Institute, is one I am already very familiar with partly through their staff member Christian Dorsey who used to show up on tv all the time as the "left" side on various talk shows. EPI is a left wing front group.

EPI is biased as well.

Your last paragraph is a short litany of left wing talking points.

If you want to go to the actual federal budget or some objective sources, I'm open to reading them. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend time on left wing talking points backed by left wing front groups.