• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Study: white Americans support welfare, but only for themselves

If the US was a white ethnostate would there be universal healthcare? Were whites told, "you wanna pay the healthcare of those lazy, dumb people?"
 
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Lyndon Johnson's insight has been proven true over and over: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
 
Some actual research: Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? | Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
Abstract:
European countries are much more generous to the poor relative to the US level of generosity. Economic models suggest that redistribution is a function of the variance and skewness of the pre–tax income distribution, the volatility of income (perhaps because of trade shocks), the social costs of taxation and the expected income mobility of the median voter. None of these factors appear to explain the differences between the US and Europe. Instead, the differences appear to be the result of racial heterogeneity in the US and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor.
Nations: Social Spending (% GDP) vs. Racial Fractionalization
US States: Welfare Benefits vs. Black Proportion

So the more generous US states tend to have smaller fractions o black people in them.
 
Some actual research: Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State? | Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
Abstract:
European countries are much more generous to the poor relative to the US level of generosity. Economic models suggest that redistribution is a function of the variance and skewness of the pre–tax income distribution, the volatility of income (perhaps because of trade shocks), the social costs of taxation and the expected income mobility of the median voter. None of these factors appear to explain the differences between the US and Europe. Instead, the differences appear to be the result of racial heterogeneity in the US and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor.
Nations: Social Spending (% GDP) vs. Racial Fractionalization
US States: Welfare Benefits vs. Black Proportion

So the more generous US states tend to have smaller fractions o black people in them.
I don't know if that is the proper interpretation of the state chart. In general, the poor states are on the bottom, the wealthier states (*cough* Blue states) are up higher.
 

I seem to be missing something--where are they saying this?

That article is talking about people falling behind resenting welfare programs, not about supporting programs that benefit whites.

From the linked article
In our final study, we found that information threatening the white economic advantage resulted in increased opposition to welfare programs when whites perceived those programs to primarily benefit minorities, but did not affect support for programs portrayed as benefiting whites.
 
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Lyndon Johnson's insight has been proven true over and over: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Truer words have never been spoken. This is how people get to vote against their own self interests.
 
I don't know if that is the proper interpretation of the state chart. In general, the poor states are on the bottom, the wealthier states (*cough* Blue states) are up higher.
I corrected for that effect by dividing the welfare-payment numbers by the states' GDP values per capita, and I found the same correlation there also.
 
If the US was a white ethnostate would there be universal healthcare? Were whites told, "you wanna pay the healthcare of those lazy, dumb people?"

I doubt it. Genocide and exclusionism are expensive, and the lack of a suffienctly-sized freely expoitable underclass would limit tax revenue as well. Who would pay for all the welfare? One of the justifications given to Congress for the tribal welfare granted to the victims of the reservation system was that it was far cheaper to send meager rations and a few doctors to the Dakotas than a fully equipped military.
 
If the US was a white ethnostate would there be universal healthcare?
It is very likely, because its citizens would consider their fellow citizens very deserving.
Were whites told, "you wanna pay the healthcare of those lazy, dumb people?"
That's what many white people tell themselves about such people. "Why should we do anything for those lazy bums?"
 
Back
Top Bottom