"False premises" >proceeds to showcase how blacks statistically live shittier lives than whites

Racism is not the cause of a lower quality of life. BLM would have you believe that institutionalized racism keeps them impoverished, when that is simply not the case.

What is the cause? "Black people are lazy?"

[quote]What is the cause? "Black people are lazy?"[/quote] I included it in the post, but I can spell it out for you. [quote]The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter. Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960. For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty. The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[/quote]

So, in short, you believe this is continuously occurring because the broken family situation is perpetuated by mothers who want more benefits? Lol?

[quote]So, in short, you believe this is continuously occurring because the broken family situation is perpetuated by mothers who want more benefits? Lol?[/quote] First off, adding a condescending "lol" to the end of your rhetorical question is just a sophist trick. Make an argument or leave it alone. Don't try to disguise condescension as a rebuttal. To answer your question, yes. The black family has collapsed because the father has been pushed out of the picture. To further illustrate this point, we can compare poverty rates between married blacks and unmarried blacks, or even just married couples in general. (http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/) [quote]Poverty rates for Black families vary based on the family type. While 23% of all Black families live below the poverty level only 8% of Black married couple families live in poverty which is considerably lower than the 37% of Black families headed by single women who live below the poverty line. The highest poverty rates (46%) are for Black families with children which are headed by single Black women. This is significant considering more than half (55%) of all Black families with children are headed by single women.[/quote] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty) [quote]Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.[/quote] There's an economic incentive for black mothers to stay single and have more children. That particular family structure is the only one where a child is an asset and not an expense to the family.

So, you're saying that black mothers leave black fathers for more benefits?

[quote]So, you're saying that black mothers leave black fathers for more benefits?[/quote] Yes, although that's likely not the only motive.

Have you considered fathers who get female's pregnant and don't care for the child? Or is this completely the mothers who choose not to stay with the father for economic benefits fault? Do 1/3 of kids in the US live without their biological father because of an economic incentive? Is that really what you're trying to argue right now? I'm just a little taken aback by this line of logic, so my apologies for just asking this simple questions. It just seems like you're connecting dots that fit your world view rather than speaking on dots that are actually connected.

[quote]Have you considered fathers who get female's pregnant and don't care for the child? Or is this completely the mothers who choose not to stay with the father for economic benefits fault?[/quote] Why do we have to lay blame? People are following economic incentives out of self-interest, and it's destroying families. Blame could be placed on a case-by-case basis, but there's no point. What's relevant is that dependence destroys families, and one demographic is particularly dependent. [quote]Do 1/3 of kids in the US live without their biological father because of an economic incentive? Is that really what you're trying to argue right now?[/quote] You can make it sound outlandish if you'd like, but that's still not a substitute for rebuttal. Again, to answer your question, yes. Is social spending the only incentive? Certainly not. American family courts are definitely responsible for keeping some fathers absent, especially considering that these courts are infamously biased against husbands and fathers, and that women initiate most divorces. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/why-women-are-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/) [quote]I'm just a little taken aback by this line of logic, so my apologies for just asking this simple questions. It just seems like you're connecting dots that fit your world view rather than speaking on dots that are actually connected.[/quote] Frankly, I don't care if you're "taken aback." I also don't care how or why you think I've "connected the dots" this way. The facts and my reasoning are both present, and mere incredulity isn't enough to detract from them. You're welcome to connect the dots yourself.

You've massively oversimplified an extremely complex topic down to profit motive, which itself doesn't add up in the context you're using.

[quote]You've massively oversimplified an extremely complex topic down to profit motive, which itself doesn't add up in the context you're using.[/quote] Be more specific. Are the facts I've provided wrong? Does the reasoning not make sense?

Il not doubting your facts, I'm doubting the conclusions you are drawing, because they do not make sense. You're literally playing into the welfare queen stigma, but attributing to a single skin color.

[quote]You're literally playing into the welfare queen stigma, but attributing to a single skin color.[/quote] Wrong. This issue is not isolated to one race. Look back at the statistics. There's a huge difference between poverty rates among married and unmarried couples. It just so happens that black Americans have been made far more dependent on the state, which makes the problem worse.

So basically welfare Queens. You're not showing or even explaining how that might be true. You're just making that conclusion based on demographic data.

[quote]So basically welfare Queens. You're not showing or even explaining how that might be true. You're just making that conclusion based on demographic data.[/quote] I certainly did explain how it works. [quote]Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960. For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty. The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[/quote] It's the collapse of the family structure.

That's not explaining anything. Thats giving stats and correlating them to a conclusion, and not even attempting to look at any other reasons as to why those numbers are what they are. No economic analysis of sample neighborhoods or anything.

[quote]That's not explaining anything. Thats giving stats and correlating them to a conclusion, and not even attempting to look at any other reasons as to why those numbers are what they are. No economic analysis of sample neighborhoods or anything.[/quote] Do you disagree with my reasoning and evidence? You can say that a bigger picture exists, and it certainly may, but let's first establish whether or not state-dependence erodes the family structure.

First, how do you decide if it's state dependence or systemic poverty?

[quote]First, how do you decide if it's state dependence or systemic poverty?[/quote] They aren't exclusive. State-dependence is the root of this systemic poverty. The state subsidizes single-mother households, which 1) are far more likely to live beneath the poverty line, and 2) are notorious for churning out delinquents, which only exacerbates the poverty problem. (https://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf) (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/25/report-marks-growing-educational-disadvantage-children-single-parent-families)

State dependence is the root of systemic poverty? Cmon man. You've gotta be smarter than that.

[quote]State dependence is the root of systemic poverty? Cmon man. You've gotta be smarter than that.[/quote] Blatant sophistry. That is not an argument.

Because what you said is complete nonsense. If what you said made any sense, then simply removing state dependence, the root cause according to you, would end systemic poverty. Which is very obviously not what would happen.

[quote]Because what you said is complete nonsense. If what you said made any sense, then simply removing state dependence, the root cause according to you, would end systemic poverty.[/quote] It would certainly help. I won't say that it will end poverty, but it will certainly put black Americans back on the right track. [quote]Which is very obviously not what would happen.[/quote] Obvious, is it? Apparently not, since it runs contrary to the facts provided.