That's clever, but it's silly to dispute that the Right in the USA has relied on racism as a tool of political power for, well, decades. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. all relied on heavily on racist tropes (see the wiki entry on the Southern Strategy for a basic introduction to this, which has been admitted by the principals of the time), and you can see very distinct racial patterns and reflections of Confederate heritage in voting records (that is, Obama underperformed Kerry in white demographics, despite doing better overall, and doing even worse among whites in onetime Confederate states).

None of this is to say that welfare dependency isn't an issue, or things like affirmative action aren't harmful to minorities (in fact, Nixon majorly expanded affirmative action programs in order to tame and integrate blacks into subservience to a racist society).

>>> that is, Obama underperformed Kerry in white demographics, despite doing better overall

Or, in another words, Obama outperformed Kerry in non-white demographics. Statistics is a wonderfully spinnable, isn't it?

So the argument is that by creating (e.g.) a fixed-income, everyone that makes use of it will by definition become hopelessly dependent on it?

I think that the parent post was arguing that cutting social programs disproportionately affects African-Americans.

I see it this way. Taking away assistance that people are currently relying on is guaranteed to hurt them. Giving someone assistance with the goal of keeping them dependent on it forever seems less likely to have the intended affect. How do you guarantee that people don't use the assistance to better themselves? If the goal is to keep a group of people down, as a whole, this doesn't seem like a very effective strategy.

This is what I mean - your baseline assumption here is that African Americans as a whole are dependent on government help and expanding social safety net is about keeping African Americans dependent on government help. This exact attitude you have - association of black with dependence on government help - is what has been used in American politics to mobilize those who benefit from government programs to vote for politicians who oppose those programs. They feel that they are not "freeloaders" or relying on government help because they don't fit the stereotype. This is one answer to GP's question as to how freeloaders and government workers can spew such vehement rhetoric against freeloaders and government workers.

And this isn't some theoretical thing - this has been a conscious strategy

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Add this to the fact that we have a black president named Barrack Hussein Obama, you can see why and how the very people who had no problem with their own government jobs and Bush's profligate spending are suddenly upset with freeloaders and government spending problems.

Excellent deflection from the person's point. In a way, you didn't just deflect it but reflected it back onto the person who made the statement.

You make an accusation, person reverses accusation to see if it still holds true, you double down on accusation while ignoring the point of the reversal.