If there are 48 million on welfare and there are 38.8% of the entire white (non-hispanic) population on welfare, then the numbers don’t work...
If 38.8% of the entire non-hispanic white population were on welfare, the roles would be much larger than 48M to cover that since 0.388*196,817,552 = 76,365,210 based on 2010 numbers.
When looking at the numbers the way I suggest (48M welfare recipients divvied up in percentages per capita), then the numbers work.
Blacks would be: 19,104,000 (39.8% of 48M)
Whites would be: 18,624,000 (38.8% of 48M)
Hispanics would be: 7,536,000 (15.7% of 48M)
For a total of 45,264,000, which is roughly 95% of 48M (just shy of 95% actually).
I wanted to be proven wrong for two reasons.
1) because I didn’t want to believe that it was as bad as I assumed (blacks in both raw numbers and percentage-wise are heavily over-represented in the welfare roles). IOW, they are way too dependent on the taxpayer/government.
2) I didn’t want to come across as a jerk by calling you out on this mid-thread.
Are you using food stamps as part of welfare?
Your numbers only work if you use the percentages per 46 mil on welfare/foods stamps. I have no idea on how they are actually using the figures.
If you use it per population percentages then whites would have higher numbers.
Whereas caucasians are audited, reaudited and made to jump through several flaming hoops to prove eligibility. All things being equal (which they are not) two households with exactly the same financial circumstances will not have an equal outcome. To avoid trouble from "anti-racist" groups and community organizers, caseworkers will look the other way with documentation and eligibility requirements when it comes to minority applicants. Ask me how I know this! (I used to work for subsidized housing as a clerk and have seen things that would make your hair stand on end)