How in the world can Newt Gingrich make a statement suggesting students receiving welfare should be given infrastructure/maintenance (janitorial) jobs after school? Juan Williams, journalist and debate moderator, wanted to know if Newt was unable to see how this might be offensive to "blacks" (P.C. People of color)
Here is some data: While it is true that the actual number of whites on welfare exceeds blacks, roughly 38% whites to 37% blacks (that data is based on a total population of 308 million), it is also apparently true that among welfare recipients the actual number of blacks far exceeds that of whites .....(this data is based on a welfare population of about 15% of total or about 46 million).
So, I guess it just depends on how you want to use numbers (raw number of something "n") or percentage or do you just want to go back and forth from one to the other depending on your agenda? Outside of well researched and peer reviewed academic work, i.e. in politics and media I would say the answer is to just mix them up based on the point that is trying to be made. Right?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Getting the Facts Straight
Here's the Data on Welfare Recipients:
Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.
Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.
Summary
According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.
Argument
Here are the statistics on welfare recipients:
Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.
Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.
Summary
According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.
Argument
Here are the statistics on welfare recipients:
Traits of families on AFDC (1) Race -------------- White 38.8% Black 37.2 Hispanic 17.8 Asian 2.8 Other 3.4 Time on AFDC --------------------------- Less than 7 months 19.0% 7 to 12 months 15.2 One to two years 19.3 Two to five years 26.9 Over five years 19.6 Number of children ------------------- One 43.2% Two 30.7 Three 15.8 Four or more 10.3 Age of Mother ------------------ Teenager 7.6% 20 - 29 47.9 30 - 39 32.7 40 or older 11.8 Status of Father 1973 1992 ------------------------------------- Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6 Deceased 5.0 1.6 Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0 Not married to mother 31.5 55.3 Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5
Notes on teenagers
As the statistics show, teenage mothers comprise a very small part of the welfare population.
And contrary to popular belief, teenage pregnancy has declined in the last several decades. Many are surprised to learn that the height of teenage pregnancy in the U.S. actually occurred in the 1950s - a decade known for its supposed conservative social values. Between 1960 and 1992, the number of births per 1,000 teenagers (aged 15-19) declined from 89 to 61. (2)
However, this was also an era when individual welfare benefits declined. Between 1970 and 1991, the purchasing power of benefits for the typical AFDC family fell 42 percent, primarily as a result of state and federal cuts. (3) Ironically, many conservatives will be surprised to learn that their correlation still stands, even if they thought it was in the other direction.
However, the period from 1946 to 1963 is known as the "Baby Boom," because all childbearing age groups - not just teenagers - were having children at unusually high rates. The teenage birth rate is not the only one that has declined in the decades since.
Furthermore, the socially conservative 50s featured much less sex education, and many sexually active teenagers were ignorant of birth control. The falling teenage birthrates in the last several decades could as well be correlated with better sex education as falling individual welfare payments.
And on that score, we should compare the U.S to Europe, which not only promotes early sex education to a far greater degree, but also has far greater welfare benefits for mothers with dependent children. And the success or failure of these two very different policies can be seen in the following statistics:
As the statistics show, teenage mothers comprise a very small part of the welfare population.
And contrary to popular belief, teenage pregnancy has declined in the last several decades. Many are surprised to learn that the height of teenage pregnancy in the U.S. actually occurred in the 1950s - a decade known for its supposed conservative social values. Between 1960 and 1992, the number of births per 1,000 teenagers (aged 15-19) declined from 89 to 61. (2)
However, this was also an era when individual welfare benefits declined. Between 1970 and 1991, the purchasing power of benefits for the typical AFDC family fell 42 percent, primarily as a result of state and federal cuts. (3) Ironically, many conservatives will be surprised to learn that their correlation still stands, even if they thought it was in the other direction.
However, the period from 1946 to 1963 is known as the "Baby Boom," because all childbearing age groups - not just teenagers - were having children at unusually high rates. The teenage birth rate is not the only one that has declined in the decades since.
Furthermore, the socially conservative 50s featured much less sex education, and many sexually active teenagers were ignorant of birth control. The falling teenage birthrates in the last several decades could as well be correlated with better sex education as falling individual welfare payments.
And on that score, we should compare the U.S to Europe, which not only promotes early sex education to a far greater degree, but also has far greater welfare benefits for mothers with dependent children. And the success or failure of these two very different policies can be seen in the following statistics:
Monday, January 16, 2012
A Look Into the Future
Here is a quote from a spokesperson for SpaceX the private company who is launching a private mission to the Intl. Space Station:
""In preparation for the upcoming launch, SpaceX continues to conduct extensive testing and analysis," SpaceX spokesperson Kirstin Grantham said in an email statement. "We believe that there are a few areas that will benefit from additional work and will optimize the safety and success of this mission."
""In preparation for the upcoming launch, SpaceX continues to conduct extensive testing and analysis," SpaceX spokesperson Kirstin Grantham said in an email statement. "We believe that there are a few areas that will benefit from additional work and will optimize the safety and success of this mission."
A new launch date for the mission has not yet been announced, but SpaceX officials said the company is working with NASA to determine the best time for the test flight."
Get used to corporate "Spin" regarding our space program as the private sector takes on a larger role. My gosh I'm cynical.
Link to the whole "blurb" : 1st Private Rocket Launch to Space Station Delayed www.space.com
Sunday, January 15, 2012
What Is Quantitative Easing?
My answer: Federal Reserve (United States Central Bank) Prints more money.
(See my earlier posts about the federal reserve, what it is and how it works)
More complicated answer:
A quick refresher from Wikipedia, in case you're not quite sure but don't want to sound dumb by asking...
Quantitative Easing
The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.
A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]
Just bear in mind that whenever this occurs the value of the currency is diluted, devalued, made to be worth less than it was, is not able to buy the same amount for the same price as before.
That's called INFLATION! So, is quantitative easing good? And if so for whom? YOU TELL ME!
NOTE: All of the currency in circulation in the country is called
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-09/news/30063162_1_central-bank-money-supply-financial-institutions#ixzz1jYKjjjo0
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Question
If any of the current Republican candidates were elected president or Democrat, and eliminated the federal jobs they say they would, how will the workforce absorb them? Where would they go? What would be our continuing financial burden to them?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
A Nation of Generous Citizens
I would say we are a nation of generous individuals by any account, and we have all seen a read much information attesting to our generosity.
It is only natural, then, it seems to me, that when we see or hear of a need we want to help. I don't want homeless people to starve or freeze to death, do you? Nor do I want innocent children to suffer from illness that can be easily prevented with proper care and attention. And would anybody seriously suggest that institutionalizing our mentally disabled like criminal inmates, or worse yet euthanize them is a good idea? NO, I don't think so, do you, really?
We don't do any of those horrible things for the most part in our country.
We have decided, collectively, that this is NOT how we want our country to be. Good for us. We have elected public officials who have made law and policy to support our common majority point of view. And these folks have dutifully followed our wishes.
To be fair, there is another position. A position that opposes what would seem a majority of us wish. And these other folks have also elected representatives to champion their point of view.
Now, here comes the rub ............. wait for it .................. wait .............. wait ............... how are we gonna pay for the mandates from BOTH SIDES????
Isn't this where all of the arguments eventually end up? Whose gonna pay, and how?
Look, I'll take the responsibility for the mess we're in today, me and my generation (the "baby boomers"). We were the "flower power" generation etc. and we're the ones who wanted and voted in the legislators who created the "Great Society" and so forth. And it's true, it's a terrible, horrible, and very expensive knot we've created and now have to try and untie. And like eating an elephant, it has to be done one bite at a time. That's how we created the thing in the first place.
We just have to be careful going forward that we think through the issues we're passionate about and insure that we have the money to pay for them, that's all. And we can't rely on promises to make cuts elsewhere to pay for them we have to insist on the money up front.
Look, take social security as an example. It's not broke because we didn't pay into it. Hell, we've been paying social security tax for decades. It's gonna be broke because we loaned the money out to our government, ourselves. OK, that's an over simplification, I know, but you get the idea.
So, just be aware, as we go through this election cycle that anybody who suggests some sweeping change, like being able to eat the elephant in one bite, is just full of elephant dung.
We have to pay for our generosity at some point.
It is only natural, then, it seems to me, that when we see or hear of a need we want to help. I don't want homeless people to starve or freeze to death, do you? Nor do I want innocent children to suffer from illness that can be easily prevented with proper care and attention. And would anybody seriously suggest that institutionalizing our mentally disabled like criminal inmates, or worse yet euthanize them is a good idea? NO, I don't think so, do you, really?
We don't do any of those horrible things for the most part in our country.
We have decided, collectively, that this is NOT how we want our country to be. Good for us. We have elected public officials who have made law and policy to support our common majority point of view. And these folks have dutifully followed our wishes.
To be fair, there is another position. A position that opposes what would seem a majority of us wish. And these other folks have also elected representatives to champion their point of view.
Now, here comes the rub ............. wait for it .................. wait .............. wait ............... how are we gonna pay for the mandates from BOTH SIDES????
Isn't this where all of the arguments eventually end up? Whose gonna pay, and how?
Look, I'll take the responsibility for the mess we're in today, me and my generation (the "baby boomers"). We were the "flower power" generation etc. and we're the ones who wanted and voted in the legislators who created the "Great Society" and so forth. And it's true, it's a terrible, horrible, and very expensive knot we've created and now have to try and untie. And like eating an elephant, it has to be done one bite at a time. That's how we created the thing in the first place.
We just have to be careful going forward that we think through the issues we're passionate about and insure that we have the money to pay for them, that's all. And we can't rely on promises to make cuts elsewhere to pay for them we have to insist on the money up front.
Look, take social security as an example. It's not broke because we didn't pay into it. Hell, we've been paying social security tax for decades. It's gonna be broke because we loaned the money out to our government, ourselves. OK, that's an over simplification, I know, but you get the idea.
So, just be aware, as we go through this election cycle that anybody who suggests some sweeping change, like being able to eat the elephant in one bite, is just full of elephant dung.
We have to pay for our generosity at some point.
Friday, January 6, 2012
How Big is Your World?
Is your world your city?, county?, state? the United States? or the planet? How big is your world? Or do you have many worlds that interest you and comprise your world?
My conjecture is that your world is made up of many smaller worlds. Which of your worlds influences you the most, most of the time?
Perhaps the answer to these fundamental questions will help bring the answer to the forgoing questions into focus.
My conjecture is that your world is made up of many smaller worlds. Which of your worlds influences you the most, most of the time?
Perhaps the answer to these fundamental questions will help bring the answer to the forgoing questions into focus.
- Who am I ?
- Where am I going ?
- Why ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)