Be warned there is some math below.
I got thinking about the stimulus program and the unemployment numbers. Here is what I thought about....
*Note: for simplicity sake I'm keeping the numbers round.*
The average life expectancy in the USA is about 85 years old.
The approximate population of the USA is about 300 million.
Lets say that age group of the typical full time employee falls between 18 to 65.
So we can formulate that the approximate number of Americans that falls inside that full time employment group is roughly half the population. So approximately 150 million people.
Now the unemployment number (when you include those that are no longer looking for work, with those that lost full time employment and are working part time, with those that are collecting unemployment) is about 15%.
So the number of unemployed Americans is about 22.5 million.
Now the Obama/Democrat stimulus program (mind you not counting the second program and Bush's program) is somewhere around 1 trillion US$.
This stimulus program was specifically created to "save or create" jobs.
If one divides the 1 trillion US$ by the number of unemployed Americans of 22.5 million a shocking number appears.
That number is 44,444.44 US$. That's a typical middle income family in America right now. If it so happens that the home has 2 unemployed Americans the number of course doubles to 88,888.00 US$. While the first number is a moderate middle income lifestyle (maybe only 1 new car and 1 old car in the driveway instead of 2) the $88k is a pretty comfortable income for a typical family of 4 or 5.
So that said...I'm having a REALLY tough time understanding what happened to all the money. How is it we are still "officially" sitting at nearly 10% unemployment? This is a year and a half since Obama signed it into law. He could have taken that 1 trillion US$ and paid every single unemployed America a living wage and given the entire economy breathing room and a chance to recover. No loans or mortgages would have slipped into default causing the FDIC insured banks to choke on their debts forcing them to be stingy with business loans or in some cases failing. The economy would've rebounded because Americans would still be spending money. Sure some economic restriction would have still occurred but right now I'd bet we'd be looking at MUCH lower unemployment. Plus the government would REALLY be handing out $44k. You forget that they'd take in about 25% in taxes and about 7.5% in FICA. So here's another MATH equation to look at.
If out of the 1 trillion US$ that the government handed out in my hypothetical as salaries for the unemployed they took back 32.5% in taxes and FICA. Then they'd get back about 325 billion US$. WOW! Imaging that. In effect we could have shave a third of the stimulus program right at the beginning.
Anyways those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The NAACP denounces racism in the Tea Party?
The NAACP is stating that there are racists in the Tea Party....OK...I'm sure there are but that isn't the point of the Tea Party. Does the NAACP think there aren't racist in their ranks? Oh wait ACTUALLY they know there are because back in 2000 Mr. Mfume suspended the Dallas branch President Lee Alcorn for his anti-semetic remarks. In fact it's a statical probability that any large collection of people is going to have some racists in it. This doesn't make the group racists though. We need to base the group by it's desired goals and actions as a group not by individuals. Take for example the Catholic Church, or any church, do you really think that there isn't at least one racist sitting in the pews during Sunday service? Yet I don't think anyone would say the Catholic Church is racist or has racist goals.
This declaration by the NAACP is frivolous and is a distraction from the real issues being raised by honest people. Especially when one considers the make up of the Tea Party. In general the Tea Party is made of non-affiliated independent voters that were not activists. Yes most of the party is white but the % of black Americans is close to 10% to 12%. So by porportion we'd expect the Tea Party to be less than 10% black as we know that it's unlikely that ALL black would be of the mind set of the Tea Party goals. In addition, it's highly likely that a large percentage of Tea Party members actually voted for Obama since Obama got a large percentage of the "Independent" vote.
Just for a kicker, lets not forget that I never remember hearing a peep out of the NAACP last August regarding the beating of a black man by SEIU members in front of a St. Louis town hall meeting. Why did Kenneth Gladney get beaten? Because he was a black man handing out Don't Tread On Me flags out infront of the town hall meeting. It was my understanding that the NAACP was suppose to be for equality of all people. If that's so then why not Kenneth's equality to believe in what he believes and protest what he chooses to protest without being molested? Where was the declaration against SEIU? Oh wait, I forgot, Zaki Baruti, President of the Universal African Peoples, at a ralley organized by the NAACP IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT BEAT Kenneth Gladney stated "That we call him (Kenneth Gladney) a Negro in the fact that he works not for our people but against our people. In the old days we call him Uncle Tom. I just got to say that.". Sooooo, wait, huh? What? Really? Direct off the home page of the NAACP "Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization." Sooo ummm freedom of speech isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To freely organize to protest in a civil manner isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To go one step further this Mr. Baruti made a false statement during an interview on the O'Reilly Factor. He said "in the buttons he was selling they had pictures of President Obama in white face with blood coming out of his eyes and his mouth which is a character that reflects back to the Jim Crowe era." Either Mr. Baruti is completely disconnected from reality or he knows he's lying because the characture of Obama that he describes is not white face but it's Obama made up like the Joker in the last Batman movie. In addition, I'm not claiming to be all knowing in things that are racist, have you ever heard of white face? I've heard of black face. I've never heard of white face. I even googled white face to see what it offered...nothing on the subject of racism. Sooooo ummmm huh? Clearly, Mr. Baruti is cluless and it's a shame that the NAACP saw fit to have this man speak for them and support people that denied Mr. Gladney's civil rights.
Oh yes and one last point to make, before ANYONE at the NAACP or afflialated with the NAACP goes around calling someone an Uncle Tom they'd better think about their own history. Consider that the slave owning south was controlled by the Democratic Party, consider that the Civil War was about Democrats wanting to keep the southern states slave states, consider that the Democrat Party worked with the KKK and Red Shirts to keep blacks and Republicans from voting in southern states (in some cases it actually involved open combat with armed militias), consider that the Jim Crow Laws were brought about by the Democrat Party during the Redeemer Era, consider that the Democrat Party actively fought against the de-segregation of the south, consider that the Democrat Party filibustered against the Civil Rights legislation. Now consider that the NAACP is VERY cozy with the Democrat Party. Tell me again who's the Uncle Tom?
As Jesus said...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Somehow I'm thinking that the evidence shows the NAACP is not without sin when it comes to racism.
This declaration by the NAACP is frivolous and is a distraction from the real issues being raised by honest people. Especially when one considers the make up of the Tea Party. In general the Tea Party is made of non-affiliated independent voters that were not activists. Yes most of the party is white but the % of black Americans is close to 10% to 12%. So by porportion we'd expect the Tea Party to be less than 10% black as we know that it's unlikely that ALL black would be of the mind set of the Tea Party goals. In addition, it's highly likely that a large percentage of Tea Party members actually voted for Obama since Obama got a large percentage of the "Independent" vote.
Just for a kicker, lets not forget that I never remember hearing a peep out of the NAACP last August regarding the beating of a black man by SEIU members in front of a St. Louis town hall meeting. Why did Kenneth Gladney get beaten? Because he was a black man handing out Don't Tread On Me flags out infront of the town hall meeting. It was my understanding that the NAACP was suppose to be for equality of all people. If that's so then why not Kenneth's equality to believe in what he believes and protest what he chooses to protest without being molested? Where was the declaration against SEIU? Oh wait, I forgot, Zaki Baruti, President of the Universal African Peoples, at a ralley organized by the NAACP IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE THAT BEAT Kenneth Gladney stated "That we call him (Kenneth Gladney) a Negro in the fact that he works not for our people but against our people. In the old days we call him Uncle Tom. I just got to say that.". Sooooo, wait, huh? What? Really? Direct off the home page of the NAACP "Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization." Sooo ummm freedom of speech isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To freely organize to protest in a civil manner isn't a CIVIL RIGHT? To go one step further this Mr. Baruti made a false statement during an interview on the O'Reilly Factor. He said "in the buttons he was selling they had pictures of President Obama in white face with blood coming out of his eyes and his mouth which is a character that reflects back to the Jim Crowe era." Either Mr. Baruti is completely disconnected from reality or he knows he's lying because the characture of Obama that he describes is not white face but it's Obama made up like the Joker in the last Batman movie. In addition, I'm not claiming to be all knowing in things that are racist, have you ever heard of white face? I've heard of black face. I've never heard of white face. I even googled white face to see what it offered...nothing on the subject of racism. Sooooo ummmm huh? Clearly, Mr. Baruti is cluless and it's a shame that the NAACP saw fit to have this man speak for them and support people that denied Mr. Gladney's civil rights.
Oh yes and one last point to make, before ANYONE at the NAACP or afflialated with the NAACP goes around calling someone an Uncle Tom they'd better think about their own history. Consider that the slave owning south was controlled by the Democratic Party, consider that the Civil War was about Democrats wanting to keep the southern states slave states, consider that the Democrat Party worked with the KKK and Red Shirts to keep blacks and Republicans from voting in southern states (in some cases it actually involved open combat with armed militias), consider that the Jim Crow Laws were brought about by the Democrat Party during the Redeemer Era, consider that the Democrat Party actively fought against the de-segregation of the south, consider that the Democrat Party filibustered against the Civil Rights legislation. Now consider that the NAACP is VERY cozy with the Democrat Party. Tell me again who's the Uncle Tom?
As Jesus said...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Somehow I'm thinking that the evidence shows the NAACP is not without sin when it comes to racism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)