In a sidebar to the fuss about what Rick Santorum did or did not say about black people who are welfare-dependent, I just looked up the TANF tables to see what Iowa usage looks like. The prompt here was some talking head on Fox News the other night — I forget which one — saying that 90 percent of Iowans on welfare are white.
TANF — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — is the main federal welfare program, successor to AFDC. The latest table I can find with a race/ethnicity breakdown is for 2007–2008. It shows “percentage distribution of TANF families” in Iowa as Hispanic 6.7 percent, White 58.6 percent, Black 15.9 percent, Unknown 15.6.
The 2010 census shows Iowa’s demographics as Hispanic 5.0 percent, non-Hispanic White 88.7 percent, black 2.9 percent.
So, in 2007-2008, a certain percentage of Iowa welfare recipients disappeared?
How can the total not add up to 100%?
No wonder Ron Paul is more popular in Iowa than anywhere else. Their welfare rolls can be used as proof of alien abductions.
3.2% of Iowa welfare recipients went missing.
Or, maybe they merely disapproved publicly of ethanol subsidies, and were disposed of.
I forget: Did "Children of the Corn" take place in Iowa? Maybe someone should locate Isaac and Malochai, and ask some questions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps they include American Indians and Asian-Pacific groups?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, just so's you might be able to sleep tonite, there were four other categories with negligible percentages that, when included, added up to 99.9%. Hope that helps, fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho wrote this? And what's your point?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "Editors."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Derbyshire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse+1
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, just grasping at straws, maybe his "point" is that it's not such an outrageous "stereotype" after all to assume far higher likelihood of black welfare dependency than white, despite the bloodcurdling cries of protest about it.
Just a crazy, shoot-from-the-hip interpretation of it, you know?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI doubt you can help the dude.
I mean, his first question can be answered by him, um, looking that the page he's reading or at the URL to which his browser is pointed, but that, apparently, kicked his butt.
Sometimes you just gotta cut your losses.
(Maybe he was doing an Admiral-Stockdale-at-the-VP-debate impression?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh boy, now the defense has gone from he-didn't-say-it to he-said-it-and-it's-true. I figured John Derbyshire would take that next step, and he didn't disappoint.
This is just swell. We're going to beat Obama on welfare-recipient rates by race. Yeah, sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Oh boy, now the defense has gone from he-didn't-say-it to he-said-it-and-it's-true."
You going to stick with that or would you prefer to just cop to the intellectual dishonesty, instead?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere's the intellectual dishonesty? Derbyshire has moved the defense from he-didn't-say-it to he-said-it-and-it's-true. I'm just stating a fact. It's the whole point of Derbyshire's post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere did Derb defend Santorum based upon the notion that he didn't say the bl word? Others have, but I doubt Derb did. Doesn't sound like his line of patter at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never said Derbyshire bought the he-didn't-say-it defense, which always struck me as absurd, anyway. I did say that Derbyshire moved the defense to he-said-it-and-it's-true.
Which is exactly what Derbyshire did...and it's exactly what I expected Derbyshire to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDerb "moved the defense" did he? All by himself? I can only hope he uses his awesome powers for the good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm going to dig deep and refer you to the first portion of the first sentence of Derb's posting:
" In a sidebar to the fuss about what Rick Santorum did or did not say about black people who are welfare-dependent..."
Now compare that to what you posted and play "Find the Strawman". Scrach-n-sniff and you will find some of that "intellectual dishonesty" to which I referred.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat offering by Rick occurred on the Sunday before the Caucus vote on Tuesday. It was pointed on the NRO. It was ignored. Fox obviously never bothered to mention the controversy. There is no surprise the story was basically censored by some - which only lowers credibility further.
Having watched the video back then, I thought Rick did say what CBS claims, but then again, perhaps I am mistaken. Either way, it just reveals a very poor Candidate. Rick has a tendency to poorly articulate issues and provide a very unattractive offering.
We have known Mr. Santorum for 17 years in Washington, and he is not a truly stellar politician. The desperate romanticizing is way overboard yet again. There are so many reasons why Rick lost dramatically in PA in a recent election, and much of it had to do with the Candidate as well as the environment.
* Here, Rick makes a mess of trying to distinguish between Conservative and Libertarian convictions. Santorum says, “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."
External Link
Rick's inability is apparent. He botches the entire Conservative case. And Americans understandably will absolutely grow wary of any Washington Politician trying to claim they have influence over their "bedroom".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Fan, do you realize you call everything an "offering?" What is the deal with that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I demand he offer us an explanation on this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNotwithstanding the previous comments by Mr. Madisonian (who is NOT) and Mr. Abell (no comment), I'd like to thank the author of this post (there's no by-line). I often do similar research, and I invariably find similar results.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Black people make up 2.9% of the Iowa population, but 15.9% of the members of Needy Families*, that SHOULD cause Obama to lose the election. His 95% Majority of the Black vote, at least in Iowa, should immediately drop to 5%.
Sadly, that's not the case. Despite the continuing harm done by the "Federal" government to the Black family, the victims only want more.
Nationally, the 12.6% of the population who are Black make up 34.2% of the members of Needy Families*.
*Those receiving TANF, anyway. The gummint sow has lots of different teats.