> which by your argument would be racist.

You seem to have misunderstood my argument; maybe I wasn’t really clear in that part. I think a policy that helps lots of poor black people, some poor white people, and doesn’t help Obama’s daughters (because they don’t need help), is a good, fair, and most importantly effective policy. A policy that doesn’t help poor white people is racist. A policy that helps Obama’s daughters is ineffective (and I don’t want my tax money to go to that cause).

A policy that affects one group of people more than others by racial lines sounds like a racist policy, don't you think? Which was my entire point. You're in effect, arguing for a policy that is racist by your own prior argument.

We have affirmative action policies and the like because we admit that some groups of people are disadvantaged due to a multitude of circumstances and we attempt to do things in such a way as to ensure that they can mitigate those circumstances.

I think you're conflating the two different definitions of racism here. In one, something is racist if it has different impacts on people of different races - not due to their race, but due to some correlated variable. In another definition of racism, something is racist if it uses race as a determining factor in behavior or treatment.

Providing aid to low-income families is racist by the first definition, but not by the second. But (damn near) everything is racist by the first definition.

Why on Earth supporting poor people regardless of their race would be racist by anyone's criteria?

It would seem you are the racist here thinking a person needs support because he is black, not because he is poor.

Think of it like this. If you wanted to support all individual poor people in America equally, you'll end up helping a disproportionate number of black people, because black people are disproportionately poor. So it's actually reasonable to say "black people need a disproportionate amount of help" if you're trying to help poverty in an unbiased way.

That is imprecise to the point of being unreasonable.

In your example help isn't given to all black people, only to the poor ones.

If you consider help given to poor black people vs. help given to poor white people, it becomes proportional.

You need to reread my argument if that's what you came out of it with.

It's clear you're not here to actually argue in good faith, which is a shame.

It's clear you're not here to actually argue in good faith, which is a shame.