MID-TERM ELECTIONS

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't care if you cling to your deflective 'but, but, but, percentages!" idiocy.

Percentages are precisely not relevant to the point I made, no matter how much some of you pretend or refuse to grasp that simple concept. My point was about the NUMBER of people affected, regardless of percentages.

And, I provided the percentages for those of you who indicated interest in them, yet you're still bitching about it.

If any of you think the racial percentage is a key factor here and advocate for slashing welfare because a larger percentage of blacks rely on it than the percentage of whites............that's telling, to me. And, you can tell it to the more than 6 million white Americans you'd be affecting.

[Duchess]

Percentages are sometimes an inconvenient fact, only to be used when the democratic dirty tricks playbook dictates.

I really should put on my left handed glasses when reading this stuff. Otherwise I won't be able to see whats not there.

You defend and support a racist, corrupt individual.

[HairOfTheDog]

I really should put on my left handed glasses when reading this stuff. Otherwise I won't be able to see whats not there.

You've really the jumped the sharp Mags.

You complain when too many stats/data are provided to suit your tastes, or when the stats/data don't support your beliefs.  

And, you complain when you perceive not enough stas/data are provided and whine about it, even when I accommodate and provide the additional requested data right away.

I'm not gonna bother further humoring deflective whine bags on this topic.

[BigMark]

Percentages are sometimes an inconvenient fact, only to be used when the democratic dirty tricks playbook dictates.

I really should put on my left handed glasses when reading this stuff. Otherwise I won't be able to see whats not there.

You defend and support a racist, corrupt individual.

Sorry, not voting for Feinstein or Waters.

[Duchess]

Sorry, not voting for Feinstein or Waters.

You don't have to justify jack shit to me.

[Maggot]

So being "lifted out of poverty" does not mean "lifted out of poverty"...........check.

[HairOfTheDog]

Maybe it really is an eyesight rather than a comprehension and mental-block problem you're dealing with Mags.

I've already answered that question for you upthread.

If your weren't too lazy to put on your specs, actually read my reply, and still don't get it......... it's beyond my power to make you more astute.

[BigMark]

[Maggot]

It just means that the percentage of poor whites is lower and they're not as poor as poor minorities before receiving the same amount of government assistance.

i just don't get that from the chart. I looked to see if it said anywhere that the white people were not as poor as the black people. 

[HairOfTheDog]

It just means that the percentage of poor whites is lower and they're not as poor as poor minorities before receiving the same amount of government assistance.

i just don't get that from the chart. I looked to see if it said anywhere that the white people were not as poor as the black people. 

Minorities earn less than whites on the whole, which contributes to higher and deeper poverty rates.  

That's a well documented, unfortunate, and long-standing fact that applies to the working poor, which makes up a large portion of government assistance recipients.   

As previously posted, government assistance helps push 44% of poor whites over the poverty line.  That doesn't mean they've stopped needing government assistance.  It just means they're not as poor.  

As covered in the posted/linked article, government programs also help pull 43% of poor blacks over the poverty line.  Government programs also help pull 28% of poor Hispanics over the poverty line (a lower percentage of poor Hispanics are assisted by the government, in part, because undocumented Hispanic adults are counted in census, but not eligible for government assistance).

While the amount of some government assistance programs is based on income, other government programs distribute set amounts to all recipients. 

There are a lot of factors involved, which is why my initial point was specific.  I'm not interested in getting into the weeds on this topic here again.  

While white people generally earn more than minorities and the percentage of white people who are poor is lower than the percentage of black people who are poor, there are millions more poor white citizens receiving 'welfare' than there are black citizens receiving welfare at any given time.  Most of those poor white citizens live in areas of the country largely supportive of President Trump.

That's my point, which is not debatable. And, I don't think it's difficult to grasp.  I'm moving off this topic now Mags.  But, if you're really interested in becoming better informed on the topic, there's plenty of government and private data, statistics, percentages, and analysis available on-line.

[Duchess]

That's what I do when I'm in the mood to be argumentative and want to debate something, I look for information to fight with and then POW, right in da kissa.

I don't always get that POW in, but I sure do try.

[Fry Guy]

It just means that the percentage of poor whites is lower and they're not as poor as poor minorities before receiving the same amount of government assistance.

i just don't get that from the chart. I looked to see if it said anywhere that the white people were not as poor as the black people. 

Minorities earn less than whites on the whole, which contributes to higher and deeper poverty rates.  

That's a well documented, unfortunate, and long-standing fact that applies to the working poor, which makes up a large portion of government assistance recipients.   

As previously posted, government assistance helps push 44% of poor whites over the poverty line.  That doesn't mean they've stopped needing government assistance.  It just means they're not as poor.  

As covered in the posted/linked article, government programs also help pull 43% of poor blacks over the poverty line.  Government programs also help pull 28% of poor Hispanics over the poverty line (a lower percentage of poor Hispanics are assisted by the government, in part, because undocumented Hispanic adults are counted in census, but not eligible for government assistance).

While the amount of some government assistance programs is based on income, other government programs distribute set amounts to all recipients. 

There are a lot of factors involved, which is why my initial point was specific.  I'm not interested in getting into the weeds on this topic here again.  

While white people generally earn more than minorities and the percentage of white people who are poor is lower than the percentage of black people who are poor, there are millions more poor white citizens receiving 'welfare' than there are black citizens receiving welfare at any given time.  Most of those poor white citizens live in areas of the country largely supportive of President Trump.

That's my point, which is not debatable. And, I don't think it's difficult to grasp.  I'm moving off this topic now Mags.  But, if you're really interested in becoming better informed on the topic, there's plenty of government and private data, statistics, percentages, and analysis available on-line.

I love seeing the intellectually dishonest react all haughty and indignant when challenged and then run the intellectual superior (and/or moral superior) tactic.

It is laugh in their face hysterical

[Rootilda]

Ah, bliss.

The contents of this message are hidden because Fry Guy is on your ignore list.

[BigMark]

Pussy.

[Rootilda]

I'm okay with that. Having a gibbering monkey screaming in your ear at every turn on here wasn't worth the effort to see if he had anything of interest to say. Which he didn't.

[BigMark]

Rootilda, what is your story?

[Rootilda]

I posted on the wrong thread, sorry about that. Your one word posts are like shaking a magic 8 ball and getting a vague answer for any question so I didn't bother to read up. So this is basically your fault and I'm fine.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm okay with that.  Having a gibbering monkey screaming in your ear at every turn on here wasn't worth the effort to see if he had anything of interest to say.  Which he didn't.

I used to really want a monkey when I was a kid.

I got over it when I saw how they constantly fling shit all over the house.  They just can't help themselves.

Anyhow, I'm very glad you don't let the shit drive you away and instead just turn it off, tune it out, or fling it back.....whatever works for you is cool.

[Fry Guy]

Ah, bliss.

The contents of this message are hidden because Fry Guy is on your ignore list.

I have often commented how admirable and non-child-like closing your eyes and blocking your ears whilst yelling "I can't see you and I can't hear you. Haha"

It is very mature and certainly the refuge of rational and sensible people.

I'm okay with that.  Having a gibbering monkey screaming in your ear at every turn on here wasn't worth the effort to see if he had anything of interest to say.  Which he didn't.

I used to really want a monkey when I was a kid.

I got over it when I saw how they constantly fling shit all over the house.  They just can't help themselves.

Anyhow, I'm very glad you don't let the shit drive you away and instead just turn it off, tune it out, or fling it back.....whatever works for you is cool.

I get it. No, I do. Anyone with a different opinion is a monkey.....or perhaps a rape apologist and a supporter of child molestation. Yes you are very moral and your dehumanisising your detractors (or simply people with differing opinions) whilst touting a moral or intellectual standard that you could not hope to reach, is awesome. You are pretty scummy, aren't you Snowflake?

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm going to vote at City Hall in a few hours and still trying to get through the sample ballot.

I chose between all of the candidates pretty quickly. But, the measures take some time to review -- most of them are related to bonds for housing for the homeless and mentally ill, health care initiatives, taxes, and water/environmental protection.

The odd prop out is Prop 7 which would allows the State of California to do away with bi-annual time changes because:

(a) compared to typical workdays, on-the-job injuries increase by 5.7% on the few days following the “spring forward” time change as a result of less sleep,
(b) data shows deadly vehicle accidents increase on the Monday after the “spring forward” clock shift jumped to 83.6 per day compared to a typical Monday deadly accident rate of 78.2,
(c ) losing an hour of sleep has resulted in a 25% spike in heart attacks over the few days following the “spring forward” time change. Additionally researchers found strokes are 8% more likely to occur in the two days following the “spring forward” time change, with that figure jumping to 25% among people with cancer and 20% for those age 65 or older,
(d) studies show that there is no benefit to fuel conservation as a result of daylight savings time.

The argument against it is that winter mornings would be darker, which could be less safe and less convenient for school children.

That's one of three measures I'm still on the fence about.