New study links racism, prejudice and conservatism to low IQ

Thiat IS my opinion rlm. Of the folks that have responded to this thread I would say HollysMom is the closest to a conservative. You have your moments as well.
Now, if the "com-padre" of mine you refer to is Moen. You're wrong.

Of course you are entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine.

 

Well put compardre!

 

And I will be the first to admit that I am not a hard-line conservative. I am a social conservative with some liberal attributes and politically I am more of a centrist that leans hard to the right. Very hard--but not hard enough to tolerate Rick Santorum (ew).

I'd like to see some backup figures, also. That claim does not meet with my experience.

 

Peter and HM, I questioned this figure also. I couldn't find any official ".gov" sites (most of the websites were blogs or opinion pages), but I found this on Wikipedia:

Welfare Stereotypes
Welfare has come to be associated with poverty. Additionally, blacks have overwhelmingly dominated images of poverty over the last few decades.[31] As Martin Gilens, assistant professor of Political Science at Yale University, states, “white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare”.[32] This perception possibly perpetuates negative racial stereotypes and could increase Americans’ opposition and racialization of welfare policies.[31]

In FY 2009, African-American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[33] Since the implementation of TANF, the percentages of black and Hispanic families have increased, while the percentage of white families has decreased.[34] In 1992, blacks represented 37% of those on welfare; by 2002, this number increased slightly to 38%. In that same time period, the percentage of Hispanics rose from 18% to 25%. On the other hand, the percentage of welfare recipients who were white decreased from 39% to 32% in that same time frame.[34]

[31] ^ a b Gilens, Martin (1996). “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, pp. 515-541.

[32] ^ Gilens, Martin (1996). “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, p. 516

[34] ^ "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients - Fiscal Year 2009". United States Department of Health and Human Services.

[34] ^ a b Schram, Sanford F (2005). "Contextualizing Racial Disparities in American Welfare Reform: Toward a New Poverty Research." Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 2, pp. 253-268.

 

Oh for Christ's sake. Get off your butt and do your own work. Go to that little blank spot at the top of the screen and type in welfare. Then do the work of culling out all the propaganda and finding a few facts, or as close as you come to a fact.
After reading HM's last post I spent a few minutes on line and discovered:

The Federal welfare program is Temporary Assistance For Need Families (TANF) which replaced the old programs in the welfare reworking of 1996. This is only available to low income families with children or pregnant women. For an adult to get assistance they must show that they are working or studying to improve their employability. There are no free rides for adults in this country. This is all temporary. People receive aid for short periods. There is no lifetime milk line.

The number of Americans on TANF in 2011 were 4,463,752.

This wasn't the result of a search, but only a quick peek. That's all I'm giving you. Do your own damned work.

 

Nice sentiment. No, really, let's make two sets of rules here: one set of rules will require the conservative population to do their own research when the liberals make a claim and the other set of rules will require the conservatives to back up their claims before the liberals will accept them. That's fair, right?

An argument made without support is a baseless claim made from personal bias. I don't care which side you're on.

 

Why are conservatives so lazy and whiny. I don't believe conservative cites as they are usually from one right wing organ or another. You shouldn't believe mine either. I say again, if you want to make intelligent arguments do the work yourself and quit quoting Rush or Bill. Geez. Is it any wonder people consider conservatives stupid.

 

Here are some statistics I found from the USDA website giving information on SNAP (Food Stamps) benefits from 2004. That's the most recent data I could find on SNAP. Oh, and K Dawson, "welfare" encompasses more than just TANF. Your research is appreciated, but it's incomplete. Keep researching, please:

View attachment 370

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/DynamicsMid2000.pdf

 

Point to one occasion upon which I have quoted Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or any other "right wing organ" or pundit. (Personal attacks are a sign of a weak argument.)

 

Why are liberals so lazy and whiny. I don't believe liberal cites as they are usually from one left wing organ or another. You shouldn't believe mine either. I say again, if you want to make intelligent arguments support your statements and quit quoting Soros or Brian. Geez. Is it any wonder people consider liberals stupid.

 

This depends on your definition of welfare. For example, I don't consider social security or veterans' benefits welfare. These are both earned, but the conservatives lump it all together in their rants. The major public assistance expense is healthcare...Medicare and Medicaid. You can thank the Health Industry Cartel for that one. Of course the conservatives would punish the poor for getting sick. I talked about TANF because this, in my opinion, is what the conservatives mean when they wheel out their welfare myths. I doubt they have any understanding of the varied public assistance programs or the will to seek it out. They just grab onto old rumors and fly them into fantasy. No one should trust my research or conclusions at face value. Check it out for yourself and make up your own mind. I'm working quick and dirty here and don't consider my results final. I'm not trying to fuss here, but just point out that no one should rely on anyone else's work.

 

I don't know who Soros or that other guy is. I don't depend on dogmatic sources from either side. I know you probably won't understand that. I usually call myself a liberal simply because most of my opinions on the world seem to fall on that side. I don't join any party or dogma or religion or philosophy. These are all things people should figure out for themselves. I don't lean on others for my opinions. To be honest though, I usually call myself a liberal because I like the way it makes conservatives puff up and turn red.
I also notice you couldn't even come up with your own response, but had to try to throw my own words back at me. You guys can't even insult people without help.

 

TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is intended for mothers with little children. This does not include the much larger "welfare system" which encompasses housing assistance, medical assistance, reproductive care, SNAP, etc.

 

I never said it was the only thing. The average tax price per citizen per for all assistance is a little over $500. Look it up.

 

This from a woman who charged me with being afraid to try anything and having a miserable life? I answered your charges but didn't start whining about 'personal attacks.'

 

And haven't changed my mind yet. In any case--not whining, just stating facts. You have a weak and unsupported argument. Deal with it.

 

Yeah, I know. Talk about unfair taxation and an oppressed minority. I dispute the charge about smokers costing so much in health care. We die early and are a bargain. It's the tofu eaters who will linger on for decades in nursing homes needing constant, expensive care. Personally, I've gone to a pipe and smoke Price Albert. Not cheap but reasonable.

 

Well, in all fairness, it was the ONLY welfare program you referenced...

 

The leftists among us make a habit of claiming our opinions are shaped by FOX (when you disagree with their ideology) yet when you challenge them to back it up, they can't.