The Real Reason The American Dream In Unraveling

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

Marketwatch posted an article this week titled Why the American Dream is Unraveling, in 4 charts. As usual, the MSM journalist and the liberal Harvard academic can create charts that reveal a huge problem, but they completely misdiagnose the causes and offer the typical wrong solution of taking more money from producers and handing it to the poor, with no strings attached. This has been the standard operating procedure since LBJ began his War on Poverty 50 years ago. Do these control freaks ever step back and assess how that war is going?

The poverty rate had plunged from 34% in 1950 to below 20% before LBJ ever declared war. It continued down to 15% just as the welfare programs began to be implemented. The percentage of people living in poverty hasn’t budged from the 15% range since the war began. This war has been just as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Any time a politician declares war on something, expect a huge price tag and more of the “problem” they are declaring war upon.

The Federal government runs over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Over 100 million Americans received benefits from at least one of these programs. Federal and state governments spent $943 billion in 2013 on these programs at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient (not including Social Security & Medicare). That is 27% of the total Federal budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the Federal budget was less than 2% prior to the launch of the War on Poverty.

In the 50 years since this war started, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. In terms of LBJ’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has utterly failed. In fact, a large proportion of the population is now completely dependent upon government handouts, incapable of self-sufficiency, and enslaved in a welfare mentality that has destroyed their communities.

The primary cause of their poverty and dependency on government are the policies implemented by liberal politicians which have destroyed the family unit, promoted deviant behavior, encouraged the production of bastard children, eliminated the need for personal responsibility, provided no consequences for bad life choices, and bankrupted the nation. The rise of the welfare state has coincided with the decline of the American state. The proliferation of welfare programs has broken down the behaviors, social norms and cultural standards that lead to self-reliance, generating a pattern of growing inter-generational reliance upon government handouts. By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater succor in the future.

So let’s get to the four charts that supposedly reveal why the American dream is unraveling. The Marketwatch article makes the following claim:

The upper-middle-class families Putnam profiles separate themselves into affluent suburbs, with separate public schools and social spheres from those of their poorer counterparts. As a result, the poorer children not only face greater hardships, but they also lack good models of what is possible. They are effectively cut off from opportunity.

The faux journalist makes the laughable argument the reason poor children don’t succeed in life is because people who have studied hard, graduated college, succeeded in life, and moved out of poor neighborhoods have left the poor children to face hardship and lack of opportunity. This is a classic liberal storyline. Blame those who have succeeded through their own blood, sweat and tears for the failure of those who languish in poverty due to their own life choices, lack of respect for education, and lack of work ethic. Chart number one reveals one thing to the Harvard academic Robert Putnam and another to me. He believes kids of people who have a college education have some sort of unfair advantage over kids of lesser educated parents:

“The most important thing about the experience of being young and poor in America is that these kids are really isolated, and really don’t have close ties with anybody. They are completely clueless about the kinds of skills and savvy and connections needed to get ahead.”

Why are poor kids isolated, with no ties with anybody? Isolated from whom? They don’t have ties to their family? That is a ludicrous contention, supported with no facts. All kids are completely clueless. You don’t get ahead in life through savvy and connections. You have the best chance to get ahead in life through opening a book, studying hard, and getting good grades, all with the support of concerned involved parents. There are no guarantees in life, but education, involved parents, and working hard dramatically increase your odds of success. It’s not a secret formula. Putnam believes the chart below reveals that kids in households with college educated parents have an unfair advantage over kids in households without college educated parents. To me it reveals the complete and utter failure of LBJ’s Great Society programs and the feminist mantra that men aren’t necessary to raise children.

The percentage of children living in single parent households with a college educated parent is virtually the same today as it was in the early 1960’s, just under 10%. The percentage of children living in single parent households with a high school educated parent in the early 1960’s was 20%. Today that number has risen to 65%. Liberals purposely misdiagnose the problem because admitting the true cause of this disastrous trend would destroy their credibility and reveal the failure of their beloved welfare programs. The key point is that prior to LBJ’s War on Poverty less than 10% of ALL children grew up in a single parent households. Today, that number is 33%. The lesson is you get more of what you encourage and incentivize. The liberal academic solution is for college educated households to give more of their money to the high school or less educated households. Academics with an agenda never ask why their solutions haven’t worked in 50 years.

The number of households in the U.S. in 1960 totaled 53 million and there were 24 million traditional married couple with children households, or 45%. There were 3 million single parent households with children, or 6%. Today the total number of households in the U.S. is approximately 122 million and there are only 25 million with traditional married couple with children households, or 20%. Meanwhile single parent families with children households have skyrocketed to 13 million, or 11%. The war on traditional two parent families by the government, liberal mainstream media, Hollywood, feminists, and academics has been far more successful than the War on Poverty.

The drastic increase in households with fatherless children, especially in the black community, is the primary reason the poverty rate hasn’t dropped over the last 50 years. It is the primary reason poor children remain poor. It is the primary reason why every urban enclave in America continues to degenerate into dangerous, filthy, lawless ghettos.  The statistics tell the story of decline, depravity, failure, and an endless loop of poverty.

  • An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
  • Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39% (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers.
  • 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
  • Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family.

Annual divorce rates are only marginally higher today than they were in the early 1960’s. So that does not account for the drastic increase in fatherless households. But, the differences among races is dramatic. Blacks divorce at a rate twice as high as whites and three times as high as Asians.

Marriage rates of Asians are almost three times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Marriage rates of whites are two times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Is it really surprising that Asian children score the highest on all educational achievement tests?

The facts prove that people (no matter what race) who marry and stay married offer their children a tremendously better opportunity to succeed academically, thereby giving them a much higher chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. This doesn’t mean that children from a single parent household can’t succeed. It just means they have a better chance with two parents. It’s just simple math. Two adults working together can provide higher income, more help with school work, and offer a more stable environment for the child. The liberal media and those with a social agenda scorn the traditional family as if it precludes people from living however they choose. The results of the war on families can be seen in the chart below.

The unwed birth rate stayed below 5% from 1945 through the early 1960’s. As soon as the government began incentivizing people to not get married and to have children out of wedlock, the rates skyrocketed. Today, four out of ten children are born out of wedlock. Seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock. Only two out of ten black children were born out of wedlock in 1964. These births out of wedlock are not the result of dumb teenagers making a mistake. Almost 80% of these births are to mothers over the age of 20, with 40% of the births to mothers over the age of 25. And these horrific results are after the 55 million abortions since 1973. This didn’t happen because of women’s rights or women feeling empowered to raise children on their own. Knowledge about and access to contraceptives is not a reason for unwed pregnancies. Poor women and the men who impregnate them receive more welfare benefits by remaining unmarried and receive additional benefits by having more children out of wedlock.

Children Living with Mother Only-bwh graph

So all of the data confirms the fact children who grow up in two parent households do better in school, are far less likely to be enslaved in poverty, and have a chance to succeed in life, not matter what the educational level of their parents. In the early 1960s there were very few households with college educated parents. My Dad was a truck driver and my mother was a stay at home mom until we were in high school. We were lower middle class, but all three of their children attained college degrees by studying hard, working part-time jobs to help pay for their education, and having the support of concerned parents. Could we have gotten college degrees if we had been raised by only my mother? I doubt it.

Harvard Professor Putnam prefers to ignore the politically incorrect fact that a return to traditional families would begin to reverse the 50 years of damage caused by the War on Poverty. He believes it is in the moral interest of wealthier families to help improve the economic prospects of poorer children. Liberals also don’t think the $13,000 spent per student per year is enough to educate them properly. He actually believes taking more money from producers and handing it to non-producers will boost the U.S. economy.

“The U.S. economy would get a major boost if the opportunity gap were closed. We cannot continue to live in our own bubbles, or compartments on a plate, without consequences. What I hope people take away is that helping poor kids, giving them more skills and more support would economically benefit their kids.”

The country has spent $22 trillion on the war on poverty and spends approximately $1 trillion per year, but liberal academics think if we just spend more, the complete and utter failure of their solutions will be reversed. They ignore the fact a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress instituted welfare reform in 1996 that temporarily stopped the increase in spending, halted the rise in unwed births, and put poor people back to work. Today only one welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), effectively promotes self-reliance. Reforms that created TANF in 1996 moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs. Those gains were reversed as the Obama administration and congressional leadership undid the employment and training requirements enacted 14 years ago. Liberals think it is cruel and inhumane to make poor people work.

Putnam’s final three charts just reinforce the fact traditional families, involved parents, and higher education lead to higher incomes and upward mobility for children in these settings. The reason children in households with college educated parents get more daily attention is because those households are far more likely to have two parents. The time was equal in the early 1970s when two parent families were more prevalent. Having strangers raise kids in government subsidized daycare centers as a substitute for fathers hasn’t worked out so well.

In another shocker, poor children, who are predominantly from single parent households, without a role model to replace their missing fathers, score far worse in tests that predict success in college. The key attribute to educational success is not the educational level of the parents, it’s the need for poor, middle class or wealthy households to have two parents invested in the future of their children.

Attributing obesity rates of children from non-college educated households to the parents’ eduction is quite a reach. In the early 1970’s the obesity rates were very close between high school educated households and college educated households. So why has it surged? The liberals claim the poor go hungry and don’t have enough food. Shouldn’t that lead to higher malnutrition rates and not higher obesity rates? Maybe the surging obesity rates are due to the government lunch programs, the fast food culture in urban ghettos, no fathers around to encourage outside activities, and using food stamps to buy junk food rather than healthier foods. Bad choices generally lead to bad outcomes. Obesity is a choice. Of course liberals now classify it as a disability which needs to be subsidized by the government.

The American dream has unraveled for many reasons. Not spending enough on welfare programs is not one of the reasons. The welfare/warfare state is bankrupt. We spend $1 trillion on welfare programs, $1.4 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and over $1 trillion on the military/surveillance apparatus. It’s a bipartisan bankruptcy, as Republicans agree to increase the welfare state as long as the Democrats agree to increase the warfare state. The only thing sustaining this debt based house of cards is a Federal Reserve which provides zero interest financing and a never ending willingness to debase our currency to keep the status quo in power. The current rate of spending on the welfare/warfare state is unsustainable. We could voluntarily reduce the spending before the financial collapse or the spending will stop abruptly when our country undergoes a catastrophic financial implosion that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Voluntarily putting the country back on a path of self reliance could be done if there was a will to do so. Reversing the culture of dependency would require a major dose of tough love that would upend the entire ideology of liberalism. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs would be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving food stamps or housing assistance. This would promote personal responsibility and provide the recipients with some self respect.  Obama is a big proponent of national service, why not national service for recipients of welfare?

Anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The welfare system needs to be revamped to reduce these counterproductive incentives. The appeal of welfare programs as an alternative to work and marriage could be reduced by requiring able-bodied parents to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Today government advertises in an effort to get more people to sign up for food stamps and dozens of other welfare programs. Government should be promulgating the facts on how marriage prevents social ills – poverty, poor education, juvenile crime – associated with children born to unmarried women.

Lastly, we need to cutoff the illegal influx of low-skill immigrants from the South, whose children will receive far more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes, if they pay any taxes. The country must reject blanket amnesty or “earned citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants who then could access the welfare system. The welfare system is already unsustainable and adding millions of illegals into the system would be the tipping point.

Lyndon B. Johnson’ s goal was not to create an ever increasing welfare state, but to give the poor a helping hand towards self-sufficiency. His idealistic aim was to cure and prevent poverty. But, once a program is put into the hands of politicians looking to get re-elected every two years, the unintended negative consequences expand exponentially. $22 trillion later the American Dream is virtually non-existent for the 47 million Americans languishing in poverty and the once prosperous middle class who have seen their real wages stagnate due to Federal Reserve created inflation and taxes increase to pay for the ever expanding welfare/warfare state. One chart provides a major explanation of why the American Dream has unraveled, but you won’t see Obama, liberals or the mainstream media talking about it. Traditional married, two parent families are the antidote to poverty, not government welfare programs.

The debate on how to help the poor has raged for centuries. A wise Founding Father told us how the war on poverty would unfold.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Benjamin Franklin

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Oldwood's picture

But without the poor, what power would government have? Poverty is an absolute necessity for growth in government.

nuubee's picture

...which is why the fantasy of the "super" single mother who raises good children will never be challenged by cold hard facts in a public forum. Women are lied to by TPTB, *AND* they're given financial incentives to blow up their marriages.


It's actually hard to not think conspiratorially and consider most of this a deliberate act of civilization-destruction.

markmotive's picture

The American Dream is dead because the GOVERNMENT is the real 1%

Martin Armstrong:

NoDebt's picture

Side story, only because the author used the "B" world (bastard)...

I am a bastard.  Shocker, right?  Least surprising thing ever, some would say, given my behavior.

But no, seriously, I am LITERALLY a bastard.  But how I became a bastard happened long after I was born...  

Eh?  How the fuck does that happen?  How does one become a bastard AFTER they are born in wedlock?  Good question.  Read on.

When my parents got divorced after 13 years and 3 children to show for it, my mother petitioned the Caholic Church to have the marriage annulled.  After much hand-wringing and scraping and groveling to the powers that be at the Church (and probably money, though she would never give me a straight anwer on that subject), it was granted.  My parents' 13 year long marriange was annulled according to the Catholic Church.

At this point I feel the need to tell you that I am not kidding you.  I'm not making this up.  I am not exaggerating.  In fact, I have official paperwork from the Arch Dicocese of Wlimington, DE to prove all of it.

Ahem.... moving on.  So, since my parents marriage was annulled, meaning it "never happened" according to Catholic Church, all children that flowed from that union were officially (and retroactively) considered to be born out of wedlock.  Me, my brother and my sister.  All of us became, officially, bastards from that day forward.

If you think I come by my distrust of any "official" institution by chance or accident, please understand that I do not.  Your ass can be erased off the roles with the stroke of a pen.  I hold no malice towards the Cathoic Church over this, but I'm not dropping any money in their collection plate, either.

Charming Anarchist's picture

Get over it.  The same can be said about myself, my siblings and my own kids. 

I want my ass to be erased with the stroke of a pen by the Catholic Church.  I wish the state was easier and cheaper. 


My marriage is null and my kids are bastards too.  Big deal. Personally, I see it as a blessing.  All I can tell you is that you should respect your mother's choice.  There is no battle of the sexes here.  I know LOTS of good reasons why men and women, like myself and perhaps your mother, should hold their heads up high in seeking annullment. 


I do hold malice towards the Catholic Church for a handful of reasons but I still go to church with my kids. I teach them the distinction between the basic tenets of faith and all of the arbitrary traditions that were made up by man.  My hope is to see the Vatican hierarchy crumble and for Catholicism to disintegrate into a free-for-all of independent churchs.  Until then, church is still a good place to meet chicks.

Joe Sichs Pach's picture

Methinks your malice is showing through just a wee bit here with your misinterpretation of No Debt's post. Get over it

juangrande's picture

Exactly! They have to keep the rabble placated ( on the country's borrowed nickel), while shipping away any semblance of a decent job over seas, so's they have  more money and can afford to give their great grand nephew a billion when they die. Meanwhile, they've succeeded in making enough desperate middle class rubes believe that it's the niggers and spics fault. SHIT, THE PRESIDENT'S A MUSLIM AND A NIGGER!!!!! FROM KENYA!!!! OH THE HORROR!!! AND THE FAGGOTS!!! FAGGOT DOCTORS GIVING ABORTIONS ON THEIR WAY TO GETTING MARRIED!! WAIT I'VE GOT NO TIME FOR CRITICAL THINKING. I NEED TO KNOW WHO THE COWBOYS ARE GOING TO DRAFT!!!!


As a country, we own this idiocy and will have to pay.


Edit: I'm sorry. I may have gone too far. In homage to the book from which this blog borrowed its theme.... I am juangrande's wine soaked and angy liver on a rant.

patriotpayload's picture

American dream is alive more than ever, it is exported through out the globe. Sadly only  lazy americans themselves  and lazy greeks are failling on it.

usednabused's picture

Have to love that spoor about kids getting ahead by reading books and studying hard. LMFAO. So tell me, how did GBush crawl to the top of the dung heap? Sheer fucking brains, right? LMAO Anyone can see its the filthier tricks you can do unto others that get you ahead in this country....

Majestic12's picture

"how did GBush crawl to the top of the dung heap?"


And worse yet, the justiying quote is from "Benjamin Franklin"???

The Illuminati, Masonic master himself!

Fuckin' 1% apologists.  Guillotines are on the way.
Jonesy's picture

Illuminati? Pretty catchy name, wonder who came up with it. I doubt it was the guys in the club or goyim wouldn't be dropping it left and right.

Brokenarrow's picture

Iy comes from Europe during the period of the knights of templar, moron

ebworthen's picture

It makes them run to lawyers and government, a perfect double whammy for TPTB.

It also makes the Father/Husband a "deadbeat Dad" and lets the system milk him.

Then...they can program the youngsters to be dependent upon .gov, fast food, EBT, and the system.  Then the Mom's can sleep around playing the "victim" fiddle.

one_hundred's picture
one_hundred (not verified) Oldwood Mar 23, 2015 10:53 PM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

83_vf_1100_c's picture

  At a very high estimate of $50 you make off blowing one guy that works out to 140 bjs a month. Figure an hour to make each one happen, meet, talk about it, do the deed, return to the leather bar and start again, it's not quite a part time job now is it? You really can't trust anyone these days. Might just as well use your retiremnt funds to crowdfund an oil well in the Bakken. /s the whole thing

Hayabusa's picture

My kids were raised 1/2 their lives (on avg) by 2 parents, then 1 later (after the divorce).  Aside from being thrust into single parent homes as a result of the divorce my son (with me) and my daughter (with her mom) were bankrupted by the family law system and most of what I worked for all my life went to pay court costs, attorney fees, etc.  Then each of us had to work more to pay for daycare, etc., to pay the bills.  The family law system is a parasitic entitity which adds pain to misery... $300hr for their services?  I'm highly trained/educated and I don't make that kind of money.  Do I think it would have been better to remain married for my kids' sake?  Nope, she was hopelessly addicted to drugs and alcohol.  There's a LOT of reasons single parent homes are poor... and prior to my divorce the house was about paid for and we were doing well... afterward I was flat broke and essentially started over - my story is ubiquitious.

snodgrass's picture

The welfare system was partially about changing American norms to become more dysfunctional so the population could more easily be manipulated. But it also generated lots and lots of interest payments for the bankers. Always remember to follow the money.

insanelysane's picture

And it made it easier for the politicians to allow manufacturers to move everything offshore.

11b40's picture

You win the cigar!
The answer to the problem of single parent families, and much of the other ailments we suffer, lies in this question- what happened to all the jobs?

And guess what! We ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait until all the nice shiny robots headed our way arrive.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Robots are being held up as the panacea today. Let me tell you, having to try and fix one the last couple of days has become a fucking nightmare. Manual methods done by a person and reagents may be labor intensive but far cheaper in the long run. The only claim to fame I can see is more throughput. However, because they breakdown all the time, you need more than one robot to get the work out.

They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, require lots of maintenance, must have service constantly when they fail which must be done by specially trained people and are rarely user friendly. But the cool factor is there so that must make it ok.


zhandax's picture

Our maintenance guys were pulling down over 100K a year with overtime when we had the robots.

Big Brother's picture

I don't know which robots you speak of, but the Fanucs we use are literally 10 times cheaper to maintain than hiring an equivalent employee to complete the same task.

The robots work 23 hours per day, seven days a week, with minimum maintenance, mostly in the dark.  They require no bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, workman's comp, vacations; and they do the same task reliably and repeatedly.

I realize you're in a different industry, but give it time.  The Japanese and Germans are working hard to develop proficient robots to replace their declining workforce.  I visited the Fanuc and ABB exhibits and the last IMTS show, and spoke with their sales engineers regarding future applications.

StupidEarthlings's picture

agreed Big brother.


We have 14 fanucs, working daily. In aircraft engine field. (the operators are button pushers 'PHD'- 'Push Here Dummy) 


They rarely 'break down'- maybe a whacky fault here n there.  I spend most of my time (that im on the floor) just programming, not Fixing.. and even the 'floor work' is only about 25% of my weekly duties.

I love robots, they were fun and exciting to me, which was how I stayed interested, and got to where I am today.


That said, robots may 'steal' jobs, BUT theyre always gonna need someone to program/fix/maintain the bots.

booboo's picture

Bankers own the welfare system, they just hire the government to facilitate the day to day operations.

mkkby's picture

Of course, but I've learned to love the welfare system.  Without it, what would 40 million inner city semi-retarded people be doing?  That's right -- attacking the rest of us.

Welfare is the gov paying the dregs of society a meager living to leave the rest of us alone.  It is worth the investment.  Side effects are one political party gets most of their votes, and the banksters get more profit, but it's still worth it.

billwilson's picture

You have to love the "Christian approach". I can just see Jesus means testing folks before performing miracles.

booboo's picture

um.... he did means test them, they had to believe before receiving anything.

billwilson's picture

WalMart would never have gotten this profitable or this big without the war on poverty. Big business loves all wars.

silverer's picture

In the 1950's, the unemployment rate among blacks in the US was virtually zero.  All they needed to "catch up" was a better education to earn more money, giving them the opportunity to be intellectual and class equals.  Along come the Democrats and the "Great Society", and they ended up with neither.

Bobbyrib's picture

Rewrite that history.


The Civil Rights movement was completely unnecessary.

Oldwood's picture

What does civil rights have to do with The Great Society and all the other progressive social policies that created and captured blacks in poverty for generations? Aid for Dependent Children is NOT a civil right anymore than state mandated healthcare.

California Nightmares's picture

When the blacks rioted in the sixties, whites panicked and threw money at the problem. 

They should have "thrown" lead.

Now we have a huge FSA, And one with attitude.


mkkby's picture

I think you've got it right.  Welfare is payment to leave the rest of us alone. 

Now we have 40 million incorrigables.  They are utterly useless, and there are no jobs even if they had some skills.  So what to do with them?  Build more jails or let civil war break loose.

I'm not waiting for the answer.  Soon moving to a non diverse small town.

Bobbyrib's picture

silverer was acting like the "blacks" were fine in the 1950's until the Great Society ruined everything. He was forgetting the fact that half the country did not believe in rights for "blacks." What were the Jim Crow laws? If the black man just kept his head down and worked, he would not be as downtrodden as he is today. What a bunch of bullshit. Thanks for the downvotes.

Bumbu Sauce's picture

Hey Pruitt_Igoe and Caprini Green were pretty awesome experiments!

snodgrass's picture

Blacks only have an IQ of 85 so they will never be "equal" to whites. But they would have been better off than anybody in Africa. Note that the comparison is always with Whites even though Asians and Jews make more money than Whites. By the way, Jews are not white. They are Asian.

juangrande's picture

85 is about twice your IQ. Oh, to save you hours of deliberation using fingers and toes, that equals 42.5.

California Nightmares's picture

We now have a subclass of blacks who are very, very fucked up. 

No doubt they skew test results.  They're not even testable, I reckon.

What to do with those blacks? 

Refuse-Resist's picture

Because facts are racist and because hurling insults invalidates facts.


Spoken by a true SJW.


I suppose that all the testing showing this to be true is racist as well?  Do you know any teachers?  Have you ever had occasion to ask them about their black students and how they act in class?


Or perhaps a La Raza member who screams BROWN POWER and RECONQUISTA?


Facts aren't racist. 


Fact: I downvoted your insult hurling ad hominem attacking ass.


Bring it, don't sing it.

juangrande's picture

OK. here are my facts. Fundamentalists ( of any sect) have an IQ of 85. And, being from the deep south, white crackers have an IQ of 85. There are some in the mountain west and Appalachians as well. Oh and don't forget the most marginalized people of all. The first ones shuttled off to a ghetto; Native American.  Calling his statement a "fact" is just narrow and ignorant. Now, even tho the IQ test is not a real measure of intelligence, maybe a more accurate grouping would be the poor have an IQ of 85. Maybe socio-economics is the huge elephant in the room and not skin color. 

snodgrass's picture

Blacks have been given opportunities denied to white men including preferential admission to college, preferential employment, preferential contracting, preferential treatment under the legal system and they are still at the bottom. You can't make people smarter by giving them money. Look at Africa. Resource rich but stupid to the max which is why it is still a fourth world continent. No infrastructure that wasn't built by the west, no legitimate governments, incapable of feeding themselves. They have no space program, no hubble telescope, no education system beyond what the west brought them. The same is true of most hispanic countries. They are what they are because they have borrowed from white western countries. Whies create civilizations - blacks and hispanics borrow from them. Asians create hives. Jews create prisons.

Hell you don't even have to go to countries to see what happens when minorities take over. Look at Detroit. Look at any city where blacks are the majority. They turn it into a ghetto. Same with hispanics. They turn cities into barrios of corruption and gang warfare.

Don't like what I say. KMA.

mkkby's picture

Yep.  I challenge people to name one city, or even neighborhood, that is mostly black or hispanic and not riddled with violence and decay.  If you think this is racist, then prove it is not true with examples.

I also challenge people to name significant inventions or scientific discoveries that came from black or hispanic people.  Few can name any.

Callz d Ballz's picture

Refreshing as hell to see those who break the paradigm and rise up against this true enslavement.  The formula isn't that hard to follow, it just takes will.   

q99x2's picture

Thou shalt not drive the hog out of hog heaven.

petkovplamen's picture

yet another total Libertarian total BS article that blames US problems on welfare but NEVER mentions corporate welfare or the trillions spent on fictitious "war on terror". What a total BS.

Bumbu Sauce's picture

End the motherfucking handouts and free shit, then the people become self-reliant and start caring about how their tax money is wasted on stupid shit then they get involved and demand that government is more accountable.

Chuck Knoblauch's picture

The FR shareholders will just suck up the excess moron.

Chuck Knoblauch's picture

They are clueless as to who is stealing their money.

Brain dead monkeys.