Why do Blacks vote Democrat?

[rightwinger]

Black unemployment is much higher than Hispanic unemployment and even higher still than White unemployment, just under TWICE THE RATE OF WHITE UNEMPLOYMENT.

WE on the Right dont believe Black voters are stupid, we beleive many of them are BRAINWASHED into voting against their own interests by a non-stop barrage of left-wing victimhood pandering that says to Black people ALL IS LOST, and hopeless; and incredibly, that there is no "HOPE" unless it comes from the Left.

What are Republicans doing that is in their interest?
Why should blacks vote Republican rather than Democrat?

1. Black unemployment fell under twice the rate of White unemployment under Bush for the first time almost in our history, in decades.

2. Progressives have set back race relations decades with their incessant racial pandering

Here is what Bush did for black unemployment

Blacks were the first to lose their jobs in the great Bush recession of 2008

1. blacks are always the first to lose their jobs genius; despite decades of Progressive pandering
2. there was no "Bush recession"; unless and until you can show where Democrats didnt willingly and repeatedly vote for every single Bush policy and continue most of them long after Bush was gone
3. as i said; under bush Black unemployment dropped to under twice the White rate of unemployment for the first time in a long period
4. remember you are the so-called saviors of black people; the ones claiming to be the only major Party that cares about them; and here you are using a Bush comparison. doesnt matter that i raised Bush unemployment; remember you are the so-called saviors of minorities'
'
any other idiotic and irrelevant points to make?

The unemployment rate for blacks nearly doubled under Bush

Not something that will get blacks to vote Republican

 

[JQPublic1]

Well, what are you waiting for? Show me where the numbers are wrong! Here is my table again:

Number of people on welfare: 109,631,000

Well, I hate to school an engineer...a man of numbers like this...I almost feel embarrassed to do so ....but you asked for it:

Your numbers just don't add up! Take that up with the Department of Commerce.

FYI 41m is not 4% of the population of the USA. We don't have a billion people in the USA. Clearly the people who put that together were looking for people like you to cut and paste them.

Show me where I posted anything indicating that 41m is 4% of the population of the USA? Don't start making things up now, I thought we were more civil than that!

Hint: In the figure YOU POSTED on welfare statistics, you will find 41m and 4.1%. I didn't make it up.. the figure you posted did.

Then why can't you use a perma link to show me where that post is? If I had been aware of it I wouldn't have posted it, so show me....IF YOU CAN! Quit stalling!

 

[RKMBrown]

Number of people on welfare: 109,631,000

Well, I hate to school an engineer...a man of numbers like this...I almost feel embarrassed to do so ....but you asked for it:

Your numbers just don't add up! Take that up with the Department of Commerce.

FYI 41m is not 4% of the population of the USA. We don't have a billion people in the USA. Clearly the people who put that together were looking for people like you to cut and paste them.

Show me where I posted anything indicating that 41m is 4% of the population of the USA? Don't start making things up now, I thought we were more civil than that!

Hint: In the figure YOU POSTED on welfare statistics, you will find 41m and 4.1%. I didn't make it up.. the figure you posted did.

Then why can't you use a perma link to show me where that post is? If I had been aware of it I wouldn't have posted it, so show me....IF YOU CAN! Quit stalling!

I'm not sure what's wrong with you. You posted an image with welfare statistics from the CATO institute. In the image that you quoted it shows a table with welfare statistics. In the table in the image that you posted it contains a row titled TOTAL NUMBER OF AMERICANS ON FOOD STAMPS. On that line it says the total is 41,700,000. I rounded that down but I can round it up to 42m if you prefer. In the line above that one it says total number on welfare is only 11m. Which is wrong because the next line says total on food stamps is 41m and everyone knows food stamps is welfare. Then it goes on to say 4.1% are on welfare. This after it just said 41m are on welfare. Then it goes off and has another line that says total spending on welfare minus food stamp welfare and minus unemployment is 131b. IOW this table makes no sense. It has no numbers for medicaid and we all know it's not included in the table yet in the description it says welfare includes medicaid.... In translation the 11m on the chart is some magic number that does not include any of the larger welfare systems like medicaid or food stamps. Now why would someone come up with a row called total welfare that does not include the largest two major welfare programs that we have?

 

[JQPublic1]

Just to keep you honest I took the liberty of posting this from your link. The fact that people are counted in the survey just for being in he same household as a person receiving one or ore benefits does inflate the numbers considerably. If there are only 11,400,000 registrants for multiple benefits and if everyone in their household is counted with every additional benefit, it is no wonder that 109 million figure comes up.

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

 

[RKMBrown]

Just to keep you honest I took the liberty of posting this from your link. The fact that people are counted in the survey just for being in he same household as a person receiving one or ore benefits does inflate the numbers considerably. If there are only 11,400,000 registrants for multiple benefits and if everyone in their household is counted with every additional benefit, it is no wonder that 109 million figure comes up.

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL But good try

 

[JQPublic1]

Just to keep you honest I took the liberty of posting this from your link. The fact that people are counted in the survey just for being in he same household as a person receiving one or ore benefits does inflate the numbers considerably. If there are only 11,400,000 registrants for multiple benefits and if everyone in their household is counted with every additional benefit, it is no wonder that 109 million figure comes up.

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL

Read what I said, not what you think I said. No, the entire family does not benefit financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid; at least not necessarily, DUH! What if no one in the family has a job? DUH!

Your scenario of a family of four all on medicaid being counted as 16 is hilarious...too bad I didn't say that. Here is th thrust of my example using that same family of four. All four are on medicaid so they are counted as four for medicaid. One of the four is on SSI so all four are counted for SSI. One is receiving food stamps so all four are counted
for food stamps. One is on financial assistance and all four are counted;
Add it up! Now we have an inflated figure of 16 people on "welfare."
ROFLOL: Nice try...But thats the way it is.... heh heh heh!

 

[bedowin62]

Black unemployment is much higher than Hispanic unemployment and even higher still than White unemployment, just under TWICE THE RATE OF WHITE UNEMPLOYMENT.

WE on the Right dont believe Black voters are stupid, we beleive many of them are BRAINWASHED into voting against their own interests by a non-stop barrage of left-wing victimhood pandering that says to Black people ALL IS LOST, and hopeless; and incredibly, that there is no "HOPE" unless it comes from the Left.

What are Republicans doing that is in their interest?
Why should blacks vote Republican rather than Democrat?

1. Black unemployment fell under twice the rate of White unemployment under Bush for the first time almost in our history, in decades.

2. Progressives have set back race relations decades with their incessant racial pandering

Here is what Bush did for black unemployment

Blacks were the first to lose their jobs in the great Bush recession of 2008

1. blacks are always the first to lose their jobs genius; despite decades of Progressive pandering
2. there was no "Bush recession"; unless and until you can show where Democrats didnt willingly and repeatedly vote for every single Bush policy and continue most of them long after Bush was gone
3. as i said; under bush Black unemployment dropped to under twice the White rate of unemployment for the first time in a long period
4. remember you are the so-called saviors of black people; the ones claiming to be the only major Party that cares about them; and here you are using a Bush comparison. doesnt matter that i raised Bush unemployment; remember you are the so-called saviors of minorities'
'
any other idiotic and irrelevant points to make?

The unemployment rate for blacks nearly doubled under Bush

Not something that will get blacks to vote Republican

YAWN


actually under Obama the black unemployment rate went BACK TO TWICE THE WHITE RATE; having fallen below that under Bush

stop lying to yourself

 

[RKMBrown]

Just to keep you honest I took the liberty of posting this from your link. The fact that people are counted in the survey just for being in he same household as a person receiving one or ore benefits does inflate the numbers considerably. If there are only 11,400,000 registrants for multiple benefits and if everyone in their household is counted with every additional benefit, it is no wonder that 109 million figure comes up.

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL

Read what I said, not what you think I said. No, the entire family does not benefit financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid; at least not necessarily, DUH! What if no one in the family has a job? DUH!

Your scenario of a family of four all on medicaid being counted as 16 is hilarious...too bad I didn't say that. Here is th thrust of my example using that same family of four. All four are on medicaid so they are counted as four for medicaid. One of the four is on SSI so all four are counted for SSI. One is receiving food stamps so all four are counted
for food stamps. One is on financial assistance and all four are counted;
Add it up! Now we have an inflated figure of 16 people on "welfare."
ROFLOL: Nice try...But thats the way it is.... heh heh heh!

Wrong, that's not what you said. Learn to write. Additionally it's not how that chart works. Note the 89m on the chart for medicaid.. now add up the other numbers and tell me if they add up to 109m then come back. They don't so your statements are nonsensical. Even if your statements were meant to focus on one number at a time they are still wrong.

Family budgets don't work the way you think they do. But I'm not surprised that you don't understand this given that you probably still live in your mother's basement.

If I have to pay a 50k bill that comes out of the family budget. It effects everyone in my family. If I get the government to cover the 50k that 50k comes out of the income taxes on the 50% that pay income taxes. That leaves 50k in my budget to fork over to my kids. That means my kids benefit from the welfare provided to the family. Just yell if you need more explanation regarding family budgets.

 

[bedowin62]

exactly!!! Obama's own DHS; Department of Human Services defines welfare recipient as anybody on ANY ONE of three government programs; TANF, SSI, or SNAP


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[rightwinger]

What are Republicans doing that is in their interest?
Why should blacks vote Republican rather than Democrat?

1. Black unemployment fell under twice the rate of White unemployment under Bush for the first time almost in our history, in decades.

2. Progressives have set back race relations decades with their incessant racial pandering

Here is what Bush did for black unemployment

Blacks were the first to lose their jobs in the great Bush recession of 2008

1. blacks are always the first to lose their jobs genius; despite decades of Progressive pandering
2. there was no "Bush recession"; unless and until you can show where Democrats didnt willingly and repeatedly vote for every single Bush policy and continue most of them long after Bush was gone
3. as i said; under bush Black unemployment dropped to under twice the White rate of unemployment for the first time in a long period
4. remember you are the so-called saviors of black people; the ones claiming to be the only major Party that cares about them; and here you are using a Bush comparison. doesnt matter that i raised Bush unemployment; remember you are the so-called saviors of minorities'
'
any other idiotic and irrelevant points to make?

The unemployment rate for blacks nearly doubled under Bush

Not something that will get blacks to vote Republican

YAWN


actually under Obama the black unemployment rate went BACK TO TWICE THE WHITE RATE; having fallen below that under Bush

stop lying to yourself

The black unemployment rate has dropped under Obama
It nearly doubled under Bush

 

[JQPublic1]

Just to keep you honest I took the liberty of posting this from your link. The fact that people are counted in the survey just for being in he same household as a person receiving one or ore benefits does inflate the numbers considerably. If there are only 11,400,000 registrants for multiple benefits and if everyone in their household is counted with every additional benefit, it is no wonder that 109 million figure comes up.

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL

Read what I said, not what you think I said. No, the entire family does not benefit financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid; at least not necessarily, DUH! What if no one in the family has a job? DUH!

Your scenario of a family of four all on medicaid being counted as 16 is hilarious...too bad I didn't say that. Here is th thrust of my example using that same family of four. All four are on medicaid so they are counted as four for medicaid. One of the four is on SSI so all four are counted for SSI. One is receiving food stamps so all four are counted
for food stamps. One is on financial assistance and all four are counted;
Add it up! Now we have an inflated figure of 16 people on "welfare."
ROFLOL: Nice try...But thats the way it is.... heh heh heh!

Wrong, that's not what you said. Learn to write. Additionally it's not how that chart works. Note the 89m on the chart for medicaid.. now add up the other numbers and tell me if they add up to 109m then come back. They don't so your statements are nonsensical. Even if your statements were meant to focus on one number at a time they are still wrong.

Family budgets don't work the way you think they do. But I'm not surprised that you don't understand this given that you probably still live in your mother's basement.

If I have to pay a 50k bill that comes out of the family budget. It effects everyone in my family. If I get the government to cover the 50k that 50k comes out of the income taxes on the 50% that pay income taxes. That leaves 50k in my budget to fork over to my kids. That means my kids benefit from the welfare provided to the family. Just yell if you need more explanation regarding family budgets.

Kiss my ass bitch. I know how to write you just can't read very well. I know what I wrote but you don;t seem to remember what YOU wrote, asshole! Anyone stupid enough to try and add figures from 2012 to figures from 2015 is beyond reach for any plausible understanding! ROFLOL!

 

[bedowin62]

Under Obama, black unemployment back to twice the white ...
Political News and Political Analysis about Congress the President and federal government.under-obama-black-unemployment-back-to...
Black unemployment, ... Under Obama, black unemployment back to ... Digg Mail Print SMS More. Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration

 

[bedowin62]

Black unemployment dropped under bush to less than twice the White rate for the first time in decades. then it rose under Obama before falling again


stop lying to yourself

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Black unemployment fell under twice the rate of White unemployment under Bush for the first time almost in our history, in decades.

2. Progressives have set back race relations decades with their incessant racial pandering

Here is what Bush did for black unemployment

Blacks were the first to lose their jobs in the great Bush recession of 2008

1. blacks are always the first to lose their jobs genius; despite decades of Progressive pandering
2. there was no "Bush recession"; unless and until you can show where Democrats didnt willingly and repeatedly vote for every single Bush policy and continue most of them long after Bush was gone
3. as i said; under bush Black unemployment dropped to under twice the White rate of unemployment for the first time in a long period
4. remember you are the so-called saviors of black people; the ones claiming to be the only major Party that cares about them; and here you are using a Bush comparison. doesnt matter that i raised Bush unemployment; remember you are the so-called saviors of minorities'
'
any other idiotic and irrelevant points to make?

The unemployment rate for blacks nearly doubled under Bush

Not something that will get blacks to vote Republican

YAWN


actually under Obama the black unemployment rate went BACK TO TWICE THE WHITE RATE; having fallen below that under Bush

stop lying to yourself

The black unemployment rate has dropped under Obama
It nearly doubled under Bush

ROFL Yeah cause an average of 8% under bush is higher than an average of 16% under Obama. ROFL...

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a clue: The means test for welfare includes stuff like number of people in the household and income of the household. For example, just because a wife is out of work does not get you welfare if the husband has tons of income. One may register but it's the entire household that benefits from the welfare. Further, the amount of welfare is based on the need of the entire household. Thus the household is the thing receiving welfare.

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL

Read what I said, not what you think I said. No, the entire family does not benefit financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid; at least not necessarily, DUH! What if no one in the family has a job? DUH!

Your scenario of a family of four all on medicaid being counted as 16 is hilarious...too bad I didn't say that. Here is th thrust of my example using that same family of four. All four are on medicaid so they are counted as four for medicaid. One of the four is on SSI so all four are counted for SSI. One is receiving food stamps so all four are counted
for food stamps. One is on financial assistance and all four are counted;
Add it up! Now we have an inflated figure of 16 people on "welfare."
ROFLOL: Nice try...But thats the way it is.... heh heh heh!

Wrong, that's not what you said. Learn to write. Additionally it's not how that chart works. Note the 89m on the chart for medicaid.. now add up the other numbers and tell me if they add up to 109m then come back. They don't so your statements are nonsensical. Even if your statements were meant to focus on one number at a time they are still wrong.

Family budgets don't work the way you think they do. But I'm not surprised that you don't understand this given that you probably still live in your mother's basement.

If I have to pay a 50k bill that comes out of the family budget. It effects everyone in my family. If I get the government to cover the 50k that 50k comes out of the income taxes on the 50% that pay income taxes. That leaves 50k in my budget to fork over to my kids. That means my kids benefit from the welfare provided to the family. Just yell if you need more explanation regarding family budgets.

Kiss my ass bitch. I know how to write you just can't read very well. I know what I wrote but you don;t seem to remember what YOU wrote, asshole! Anyone stupid enough to try and add figures from 2012 to figures from 2015 is beyond reach for any plausible understanding! ROFLOL!

ROFL what a fucking dumb ass. But yes I'll take your deflection as you finally understanding your mistaken views about welfare statistics.

 

[bedowin62]

38% Unemployment: Black Teens Continue to Suffer Under Obama
38 Unemployment Black Teens Continue to Suffer Under Obamaunemployment-black-teens...under-obama
Black teens continue to suffer under the economic ... This number is staggeringly higher than the overall teen unemployment rate of 21%. In Obama’s ...

 

[JQPublic1]

Under Obama, black unemployment back to twice the white ...
Political News and Political Analysis about Congress the President and federal government.under-obama-black-unemployment-back-to...
Black unemployment, ... Under Obama, black unemployment back to ... Digg Mail Print SMS More. Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration

I don't blame Obama! I blame Blacks for not establishing their own businesses and employing themselves like they did during segregation.
White people are never going to hire blacks in the numbers neessary to overcome the discrepancy in unemployment rates.

NOTE TO BLACKS: Stay the hell out of white stores and spend all your hard earned money or welfare checks in BLACK OWNED STORES.

 

[JQPublic1]

DId you figure that out all by yourself. The synopsis of the link doesn't seem to follow your narrative. I read that if one person in a household is receiving a means tested benefit everyone in the household is counted whether they are benefitting or not. For instance, there might be a medicaid recipient in a household where everyone else has no coverage or has health insurance. The way the script reads is that all members of that household will be counted regardless. But lets take it a step further. If a household of 6 has 2 individuals receiving 8 benefits each, your statistical survey magically turns the household of 6 into 96 individuals.

The Statistical Brain Website I used reports the entire gamut of statistical welfare. There is no dodging any of it. It is all there in a 2015 format but similar to your 2012 format. Why SB seems to differentiate between welfare (11,400,000) and the other government programs is a matter of contention but I have contacted them and now waiting for a reply!

That's not what it says. Why are you making shit up? Are you really not familiar with the term "one or more?" Read it again. Then tell me if you did not figure out the part that says one or more.

The point is that in a one or two income family of four, the entire family benefits financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid. Duh!

That does not mean this report would count a family with 4 people who are all on medicaid as sixteen people. ROFL

Read what I said, not what you think I said. No, the entire family does not benefit financially if anyone in the family is on medicaid; at least not necessarily, DUH! What if no one in the family has a job? DUH!

Your scenario of a family of four all on medicaid being counted as 16 is hilarious...too bad I didn't say that. Here is th thrust of my example using that same family of four. All four are on medicaid so they are counted as four for medicaid. One of the four is on SSI so all four are counted for SSI. One is receiving food stamps so all four are counted
for food stamps. One is on financial assistance and all four are counted;
Add it up! Now we have an inflated figure of 16 people on "welfare."
ROFLOL: Nice try...But thats the way it is.... heh heh heh!

Wrong, that's not what you said. Learn to write. Additionally it's not how that chart works. Note the 89m on the chart for medicaid.. now add up the other numbers and tell me if they add up to 109m then come back. They don't so your statements are nonsensical. Even if your statements were meant to focus on one number at a time they are still wrong.

Family budgets don't work the way you think they do. But I'm not surprised that you don't understand this given that you probably still live in your mother's basement.

If I have to pay a 50k bill that comes out of the family budget. It effects everyone in my family. If I get the government to cover the 50k that 50k comes out of the income taxes on the 50% that pay income taxes. That leaves 50k in my budget to fork over to my kids. That means my kids benefit from the welfare provided to the family. Just yell if you need more explanation regarding family budgets.

Kiss my ass bitch. I know how to write you just can't read very well. I know what I wrote but you don;t seem to remember what YOU wrote, asshole! Anyone stupid enough to try and add figures from 2012 to figures from 2015 is beyond reach for any plausible understanding! ROFLOL!

ROFL what a fucking dumb ass. But yes I'll take your deflection as you finally understanding your mistaken views about welfare statistics.

What a fucking arrogant ignoramus who wants to add 2012 statistics to 2015 statistics to arrive at his 2012 infated welfare numbers.
Get off my planet you dumbass Neanderthal! You suck at math, no wonder the H1Bs are replacing your dumb ass!

 

[bedowin62]

stand back!! I think this leftard is about to blow a gasket!!!!

 

[bedowin62]

Under Obama, black unemployment back to twice the white ...
Political News and Political Analysis about Congress the President and federal government.under-obama-black-unemployment-back-to...
Black unemployment, ... Under Obama, black unemployment back to ... Digg Mail Print SMS More. Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration

I don't blame Obama! I blame Blacks for not establishing their own businesses and employing themselves like they did during segregation.
White people are never going to hire blacks in the numbers neessary to overcome the discrepancy in unemployment rates.

NOTE TO BLACKS: Stay the hell out of white stores and spend all your hard earned money or welfare checks in BLACK OWNED STORES.

blaming the "victims"?? if I did that you'd call me a racist leftard.

explain