this is great

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Welfare Demographics

The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Curious - who did you order sort?

A-B:

• Asian – 2.4%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• White – 38.8%

Numeric:

• Black – 39.8%
• White – 38.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Other – 3.3%
• Asian – 2.4%

What other sorts can we use?

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you and I can invest $500 in the same dividend-generating stock, and earn the same 6%.

The wealthy have more extra income to invest, Nebe, that is true. But is it bad?

If Bill Gates earns a million dollars in dividend income today, how exactly does that harm you or me?

[PaulS]

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?Yes, but what about us who no longer have a mortgage bc we either took a less than normal term (like 15 or 20 years) or made extra payments to bring down the mortgage - housing expert say the average price of a house will fall 10% - 20%. The price of a house is where most of middle America has the majority of their wealth. Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? Those folks are not middle America. I actually don't think there sb a mortgage deduction.

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit. Like $ towards meals on wheels, WIC, fuel subsidies for the poor, etc. Otherwise we end up like Pakistan - The rich living in gated communities.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance. I don't either but that is what the CBO says will happen W/Trumpcare - 23M while the top 1% benefit from decreased taxes.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money. When taxes got cut in the past, much of the $ was given out as dividends so while I would benefit, the people that Pres Trump appealled to the most are prob. not going to get a dividend check.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Curious - who did you order sort?


What other sorts can we use?

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit.

Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yes we can
and by %0f population Black 1,448,636 on welfare and white would be % 7,519,079

feel better..

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo. Thanks TDF...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

12.2% of the us population is black, yet 39.8 % of welfare recipients are black, 63.7% of the population is white, but 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

I'm pretty sure that's where Jim was going with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I figure that much.. . Sure it make him feel better about the numbers ..
but thats not really what he point was .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I figure that much.. . Sure it make him feel better about the numbers ..
but thats not really what he point was .

Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist. The numbers make that clear with zero ambiguity. The numbers are not racist, they just are what they are.

An ignorant racist might say there's a genetic reason for that. Nonsense. But there is a cultural reason for that, starting with the fact that almost 75% of black children born today, are born into a home without a dad. That is staggering and appalling, and until we fix that, blacks will continue to live in poverty at a heartbreaking rate. When you give girls a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock, guess what? More of them will have kids out of wedlock.

In my opinion, liberalism also contributes significantly to this. Because instead of giving blacks the tools they need to actually rise out of poverty in big numbers (which is precisely what conservatives would love to do), liberals pat them on the head and say "there there, it's not your fault, here's your welfare check, and keep voting for me so the big mean republican doesn't take this check away from you". Liberals give blacks just enough to stay alive (and dependent, and therefore a reliable voting block), not nearly enough to get ahead. Liberals don't want blacks to get ahead, because if they did, many of them would no longer feel the need to vote for Democrats.

I remember what Hartford and New Haven and Bridgeport looked like 40 years ago. And I see EXACTLY what 40 years of pure, unchecked liberalism has done for those people. I say it's a disgrace and they deserve a different outcome. Liberals advocate for more of the same.

I'd say that makes liberals the racists, because I want a better outcome for all of them. But according to the media, somehow, that makes me the racist.

That makes all kinds of sense.

Where am I wrong, WDMSO? You may answer freely and openly, I am a big boy and can take it.

When the current form of welfare reform came about, a man in Washington, the late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a very liberal Democrat, who later was a senator from NY) warned that the welfare changes would annihilate the black nuclear family, which would lead to a cultural disaster in the black community. It was a bold thing to say. Moynihan was vilified by the left for saying what he said. He was called a racist and a bigot. And yet history shows that he was exactly, EXACTLY correct.

We're committing cultural genocide against them. It makes me sick. I don't see how my concern for their welfare makes me a racist.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist. The numbers make that clear with zero ambiguity. The numbers are not racist, they just are what they are.

An ignorant racist might say there's a genetic reason for that. Nonsense. But there is a cultural reason for that, starting with the fact that almost 75% of black children born today, are born into a home without a dad. That is staggering and appalling, and until we fix that, blacks will continue to live in poverty at a heartbreaking rate. When you give girls a financial incentive to have kids out of wedlock, guess what? More of them will have kids out of wedlock.

In my opinion, liberalism also contributes significantly to this. Because instead of giving blacks the tools they need to actually rise out of poverty in big numbers (which is precisely what conservatives would love to do), liberals pat them on the head and say "there there, it's not your fault, here's your welfare check, and keep voting for me so the big mean republican doesn't take this check away from you". Liberals give blacks just enough to stay alive (and dependent, and therefore a reliable voting block), not nearly enough to get ahead. Liberals don't want blacks to get ahead, because if they did, many of them would no longer feel the need to vote for Democrats.

I remember what Hartford and New Haven and Bridgeport looked like 40 years ago. And I see EXACTLY what 40 years of pure, unchecked liberalism has done for those people. I say it's a disgrace and they deserve a different outcome. Liberals advocate for more of the same.

I'd say that makes liberals the racists, because I want a better outcome for all of them. But according to the media, somehow, that makes me the racist.

That makes all kinds of sense.

Where am I wrong, WDMSO? You may answer freely and openly, I am a big boy and can take it.

When the current form of welfare reform came about, a man in Washington, the late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a very liberal Democrat, who later was a senator from NY) warned that the welfare changes would annihilate the black nuclear family, which would lead to a cultural disaster in the black community. It was a bold thing to say. Moynihan was vilified by the left for saying what he said. He was called a racist and a bigot. And yet history shows that he was exactly, EXACTLY correct.

We're committing cultural genocide against them. It makes me sick. I don't see how my concern for their welfare makes me a racist.

So let see I post numbers and whites are listed before black and people take exception .. and questioning the Order ? then you post

"We can sort based on the % of each ethnicity on welfare, relative to each race's makeup of the general population. He won't like that sort one bit."




"Let's be clear about my point so there's zero misunderstanding then. If you want to call me a racist, be a man and say it, don't dance around it like a coward.

My point was this...blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites. Saying that doesn't make me a racist."

So Why would I not Like that bit of info ?? But I'll be clear Was I to infer you're meaning was what you wrote in your follow up response? I made the statement "but thats not really what he point was ..." . but if you say your only point was "blacks are far more likely to be poor, than whites" we'll leave it at that