Numbers from the 2009 U.S. budget

End homelessness in one year.
Number of homeless: Less than 900,000
HUD budget: $38.5 billion
Divide that by $400,000 and multiply the common legal limit of 10 people per household and there are 962,500 slots. If the average home bought was $300,000 it would be over 1.8 million slots. Over 100,000 foreclosed would be bought (using the later number) would be purchased. To relieve pressure, more houses would be bought. This should also help ease the housing crises.

Health insurance for all.
Obama said 47 million were uninsured. 10 million of those are illegal aliens. 17 million make $50,000 or more. $224 billion Medical and $70.4 billion from United States Department of Health and Human Services adds up to $294.4 billion. divide that by $5,000 and it can fund 58.88 million people. In 2002 there were 39.9 million people on this program. This would fund 18.98 million more. $5.25 billion to fund the rest could come from the $17 billion in farm subsidies that mostly go to rich farm companies.

Overcrowded prisons? A prison costs about $500 million to house 5,000 and this doesn’t include operating one. $20.3 billion goes to the United States Department of Justice. That could make 10 prisons a year to house 50,000 new prisoners. Much of the job could be picked up by homeland security and the states. Eventually there will be more beds than prisoners and the DOJ could be revived or the money could be used to pay for operating costs. Some of the prisons could be built on old army bases (federal land) to skirt zoning laws.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dang, Wordsmith!

When you said “partial list” I thought you were going to post a partial list! That’s the whole damn history of the Republican party. It’s ok, though. It bolsters the point I made over at your blog that it is altogether possible to create a new political party with a strong grass roots effort. That’s how the Republican party was created, and they didn’t even have the advantage of the internet!

All we need is a catalyst, and the election of Obama certainly seems to qualify as a catalyst. We need a Conservative party. One that espouses the values and convictions of the American Conservative. McCain, of course, would only be considered for membership if he can convince us he has changed his ideology. As will most of the other so-called Republican lawmakers in Washington.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@me.yahoo.com/a/tgqdcI0Oz: Thanks for sharing your story. It touches upon one of the other problems I see with affirmative action and reparations.

I do believe that Senator Obama’s ancestors on his mother’s side were slave owners. To my knowledge, and I could be wrong here, since his father immigrated from Kenya, unless he has a slave ancestor on his mother’s side as well, he wouldn’t/shouldn’t have any claims to reparation money (what if Obama has ancestors from Africa who captured and sold slaves?); but given his ancestry on his mother’s side, he should definitely be a contributor if one believes in the whole concept of reparations to descendants of slavery.

@Fit fit:

I know many black Democrats who are extremely racist. I speak only about what I have seen in my life.

When I was in high school living in Austin, Tx., I never had a problem at all with whites as far as racism went; but I got into fights with blacks, quite often, over racial slurs and attitudes coming from them. Back then, my young mind wondered “For a class of people who have been oppressed by racial stereotyping and slurs, you’d think they’d know firsthand the barbs of racist remarks and racial hatred.” Maybe sometimes, we inevitably become what we hate without the wherewithal and self-awareness to realize it.

In Keith Richburg’s Out of America, pg 15-16:

After the game, I decided to walk the short distance home. But as my classmates were coming out of the arena to board the bus back to Grosse Pointe, they crossed the path of a group of blacks. Kids from my neighborhood. One of the white girls saw one of the black girls with an Afro comb, a pick, stuck in the back of her hair, and made some ill-advised comment like, “Why do you have that comb in your hair?” Probably not hostile- I didn’t hear it. Maybe she was really just curious. But of course, all hell broke loose.

So now you’ve got a bunch of white kids, clambering onto their bus back to the suburbs, and a bunch of angry black kids hitting hitting at the windows with chains and bottles and anything else they can get their hands on. There were shouts and slurs flying in both directions. And there I was, on both sides, on neither side- not wanting to have to take sides. I got the hell out of there as fast as I could.

When I think back to that incident, I think about how I’ve often felt trapped between two worlds. I suppose I could say that it was always easier to walk away- to run, really- than to have to choose sides. But that would be only partially true. I’ll tell you what I was really thinking then: I was embarrassed. Humiliated. These were my friends and schoolmates- my white friends- who had come into my neighborhood, less than two blocks from the house where I had grown up, where I still lived. And here’s a bunch of black kids smashing the windows of their school bus. This is how black folks in the ghetto behave. This is how they would see me. I was so ashamed that I wanted to cry. Instead I just ran away.

Do we scapegoat racism and bad behavior on the part of blacks with a chip on their shoulder as “slavery caused it; oppression against blacks by “the system” excuses their lashing out with incivility? And when enough blacks continue to carry “chips on their shoulder”, doesn’t it feed into the negative stereotypes, reinforcing white (and non-white) racism/bigotry against blacks?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I just have to relate my own most significant confrontation with the Racism demon; your responses are solicited and very welcome:

On the outside, I am (obviously?) caucasion, and have always represented myself as such when filling out employment applications and other forms, and my family history had not led me to believe otherwise. My mother is half German and half Scandinavian (Norwegian and Swedish); my last name is believed to be of French origin, but otherwise my father is all Italian.

Or so we thought. Recently, one of my uncles reported that his study of our geneology revealed ancestors from the African country of Morocco. Once this information was confirmed, it became easier to see why my dark-skinned father and his siblings (especially his brothers) were “mistaken” as African-American (“Negro”, “Colored”, or “Black” in those days). It also helped to exain the difficulties my family experienced moving into the “white bread” far western Chicago suburbs.

Consequently, I was genuinely concerned that my application on file with my employer at the time, so I explained the situation (including my family’s discrimination experiences) to the woman in charge of Equal Employment Opportunity in personnel – a young, upwardly mobile African-American. Her response was simply “Don’t go there.” She walked away, and I stood stunned By yet another example of the one-way street called Discrimination in America. Apparently, you haven’t experienced discrimination unless your skin color is darker than some arbitrary “standard” (how’s that for an oxymoron?).

JV

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Gary Julian:

Bottom line. The GOP has no right to any Black voter. In Southern district after district Black Republican voters were being denied their right to send Black Republican Congressmen to Washington. . . . . and the GOP did NOTHING. The national Republican Party abandoned Black Republicans to lynchings and the KKK.

As for your charge suggesting that it’s the Republican Party that has a stronger history of racism against blacks, Reverend Wayne Perryman (check out his book, Unfounded Loyalty) knows that if there is any one single institution that should be sued for reparations- an acknowledged horrible, misguided idea, but if there’s ANY institution out there- then it should be the Democratic Party:

Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations

[ Seattle , January 3, 2005 ] On December 10th 2004 , inner-city minister, Rev Wayne Perryman, – filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations. ? Perryman said “he based his case on the research that he gathered during the past five years while writing the three editions of his latest book: (click here to view in pdf format)

Unfounded Loyalty

An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks & Democrats

In his 100-page brief, Perryman concludes that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against African Americans by the Democratic Party – were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews. In both situations millions of lives were destroyed (physically, mentally and economically).

In his brief, Perryman told the court:

*That in an effort to impede and or deny African Americans the same constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens, the Democratic Party established a pattern of practice by promoting, supporting, sponsoring and financing racially bias entertainment, education, legislation, litigations, and terrorist organizations from 1792 to 1962 and continued certain practices up to 2002.

*The Democrat’s 210 years of racist practices and cover ups not only negatively affected the entire Black Race; but these practices infected our entire nation with the most contagious and debilitating social disease known to mankind, racism. With landmark litigation, racist legislation and profane defamation, Democrats spent substantial amounts of money to produce racist campaign literature and to support racist entertainment (i.e. Jim Crow minstrel shows, stage plays “The Klansman, ? and movies, “The Birth of a Nation ?), all in an effort to prove to the world that African Americans were a racially inferior group that should be treated and classified as “property ? and not as “citizens ?.

*During the past 21 decades the Democrats successfully disguised and concealed their horrific acts against the African Americans by operating and committing these acts under the following aliases: “the Confederacy, ? “Jim Crow, ? “Black Codes, ? the “Dixiecrats ? and the “Ku Klux Klan. ? Congressional records, historical documents, and the letters and testimonies from several brave black citizens revealed that these groups weren’t separate independent organizations, but were actual auxiliaries, divisions and/or the legislative efforts of the Democratic Party. The debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 further revealed that these auxiliaries were committed to use every means possible to carry out the Democrat’s racist agenda of “White Supremacy, ? including: lynchings, murders, intimidation, mutilations, decapitations and racially bias legislation and adjudication.

.

Perryman said, “To conceal the truth of their racist past (and as part of their effort to deceive the public), the Democratic Party made a conscience decision not to mention or disclose their true and complete history. (See exhibit 1). On their official website they failed to disclose that as a Party:

· Democrats opposed the Abolitionist

· Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it

· Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854

· Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery

· Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery

· Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision

· Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws

· Democrats supported and passed Black Codes

· Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers

· Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867

· Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks

· Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation

· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote

· Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866

· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court

· Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts

· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts

· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts

· Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

· Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson

· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas .

· Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration

· Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans. ?

Congressional records reveal that there wouldn’t be a question of Reparations today had Democratic President Andrew Johnson signed Senate Bill 60 (in 1866) which would have given each African American family 40 acres and a mule. Instead, Johnson vetoed the Bill and continued to block other key pieces of legislation that were designed to bring about equality for African Americans.

Perryman further argues that:

During the past 200 years, our government operated under a two party system which directed, developed and determined the policies of our country. Whatever the government did or did not accomplish (particularly as it pertained to African Americans), was directly related to which political party was in power at the time.

On April 29, 1861 Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that: “Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South… [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man…. ?

Seven years later during the 1868 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party’s campaign poster read: “This is a White Man’s Country – Let the White Men Rule. ?

At the turn of the century (1913) Democratic Senator Ben Tillman said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and the only plank, namely, that this is a white man’s country, and white men must govern it. ? From 1792 to 2002 (a period of 210 years), the Democratic Party carried out their proud tradition of white man rule by never electing a black man to the United States Senate from their party.

From 1792 to 1962 the Democratic Party was more commonly referred to as the Party of White Supremacy. This was the period when most of the damage was done to African Americans (economically, physically, socially and mentally). It was during this period that the Democrats exhausted every effort to promote slavery, destroyed Reconstruction and introduced Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.

The chronicles of history reveals that the Institution of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws weren’t promoted, protected and preserved by prominent individuals or by the federal government. They were promoted, protected and preserved by one political party and that party was the Democratic Party. Without their powerful political support, the institution of slavery and segregation would have ended long before 1865 and 1965.

The big question they had during the era of slavery was, whether or not a law or a person’s actions violated the Constitution. The goal of the Democrats was to never allow the Constitution to be amended to include blacks as citizens. They wanted the freedom to treat African Americans as property (not as humans), without federal interference (this was their primary reason for fighting for their so-called States Rights). This was also the reason why Democrats were opposed to adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution and why they praised and supported the Dred Scott Decision. Republicans rushed to have these Amendments added to the Constitution while the states that were under Democrat control were still separated from the Union . Republicans knew they would have a difficult time getting these Amendments passed if the Democrats from the Southern States came back and joined their congressional (Democrat) counterparts in the North.

During era of slavery and Reconstruction the Democrats were primarily interested in what they could do to Blacks, not what they could do for Blacks. From 1792 to 1962 the Democrats as a party, did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality (in 170 years). With the exception of Truman’s efforts to integrate the military, every law that was introduced and passed by Democrats during this period was designed to hurt blacks, none were passed to help blacks. Perryman said, “Had the Democrats attempted to pass these same types of laws in 1864 that they claim credit for in 1964, the laws in 1964 would not have been necessary. Instead, in 1866 they passed Black Codes, in 1875 they passed Jim Crow Laws and in 1894 they passed the Repeal Act to repeal various pieces of previously passed Civil Rights legislation that were designed to give African Americans equality.

Perryman is quick to point out that the Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. However, like in the case of Michael Skakel (the Kennedy nephew who killed Martha Moxley), the Democrats like Michael Skakel must pay for their past actions. Perryman said, “The Skakels and the Moxleys were best friends and neighbors, but when the Moxleys learned that it was Skakel who murdered their daughter in 1975, they did not excuse his action because of the long term friendship. They made him pay, even though it was 25 years later. The same applies to the current relationship between the Blacks and Democrats. The Democrats should not expect Blacks to ignore the Democrat’s past racist practices, simply because of the current friendship. ?

Perryman’s research and 100-page brief include the works of our nation’s top history and law professors including African American Historian, Professor John Hope Franklin, Princeton’s History Professor James McPherson, Professor Hebert Donald of Harvard, Professor Allen Trelease of North Carolina, and Professor Bernard Schwartz of New York University’s School of Law, plus congressional records and documentaries from PBS and the History Channel.

Perryman said, “since our experiences are similar to those inflicted on the Jews by the Nazi Party and since Reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 affords Plaintiffs redress for past injuries; and amends for the wrong inflicted, ? he asked the court for the following:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on Plaintiff own behalf and on behalf of the Class, prays for judgment as follows:

1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. Awarding compensatory damages and rescission in favor of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class against the Defendant for the damages sustain as a result of wrongdoing of the defendants, together with interest thereon;

3. And as part of the compensatory damages the Plaintiffs recommends the following:

a. That an education fund be set up equivalent to the amount of $25,000 for every African American age 25 and younger that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit. The fund will be used solely for private school, college and trade tuitions and related educational costs.

b. That under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which authorizes a public education fund, to educate the public of the wrongs that took place, the Plaintiffs ask for funding to fund a major motion picture and film series depicting all of the events that were highlighted in this lawsuit (and others not mentioned) and that this film and major motion picture be distributed to every public and private school in America to be viewed by students as a regular part of their history curriculum for the next 50 years. We further ask that the Lead Plaintiff and the consultants of his choice be paid a consulting fee including traveling and related expenses to help produce the motion picture and the film series. The consulting fee will be the standard consulting fee for similar types of major motion picture projects.

c. We ask that the Defendant pay each African American citizen ages 26- 35 that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit, a total sum of $25,000 in reparations, each adult ages 36-45, $45,000 in reparations, each adult ages 46-55, $50,000 in reparations each and each citizen ages 56 and older $100,000 in reparations.

4. Awarding Plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys to administer the Class Action claim and appropriate consultant fees.

5. Granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and federal and state statutory provisions sued on hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Defendant’s investments, checking, savings or other assets so as to assure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy.

6. Ordering a formal apology to African Americans for the wrong that was committed during the duration of the Defendants’ tenure as an organization or political party.

7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Mike’s America:

Robert Byrd is the correct Senator.

The party to which he belongs is the Democrat Party.

Now, he was never Grand Wizard in West Virginia, but was elected Exalted Cyclops.

Wasn’t he also a recruiter for the KKK? Or is that what an “Exalted Cyclops” is? As opposed to an “Unexalted Cyclops”….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@AnnMonterey:

As for the Latin vote. Why do you think Hispanics didn’t go for McCain after his co-authoring the Immigration Reform Bill with Kennedy? I held that against him but hoped we’d be able to bring him into some sort of sanity about illegal immigration if he had been elected.

I’m sure Barack “McCain is running negative ads against me” Obama running this campaign ad to Spanish speakers didn’t help McCain’s chances:

Unfortunately, just like in the case with how the War on Terror gets translated as a war against Islam, the debate over illegal immigration gets to be framed by liberals as: “Republicans are against immigration” and “Republicans hate Mexicans”. Doesn’t matter how soft a stand McCain take on immigration reform is, if the GOP’s image is tarred and feathered like that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Gary Julian:

We cannot judget 19th Century morals???? Like MURDER! Lynchings.

I suspect “Thou shall not kill” goes back a ways.

Gary, you’re not thinking it through, but responding with emotionalism. Please try to reach deeper, and understand what is being said rather than seizing on one line to knee-jerk out a response.

Murder and lynchings were not institutions of accepted societal norms. Slavery, however, was an institution that was practiced all over the world for 2000 years. The remarkable story about the history of slavery, isn’t that it was practiced in America; but that within our short history, it was brought to an end.

Slavery was common to all civilizations. Put into a world where it was common practice and never questioned by any anti-slavery movement (until the 19th century, and only in the West), what makes you assume you, as a man living before, say, the 17th century, would have felt moral revulsion to the institution? You have the benefit of being raised in the world today, to apply today’s standards of beliefs to yestercentury’s citizens. Today, we recognize the following: That slavery is a profound evil. In the 1800′s, not everyone experienced our sense of moral revulsion. People like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and William Wilberforce went against the grain of established belief and acceptance of a 2000 year-old established institution. Yet they’re still criticized for moving too slow or not being pure enough in their rejection of slavery and what we might hold to be racist viewpoints, today.

It is arrogant of you to assume you’d fit squarely in their camp of “seeing the light”; and pompously wishful-thinking if you believe you would have led the charge, stronger than Wilberforce in rejecting slavery, and leading the movement to change the world and abolish slavery, and end the slave trade. Today, you have the advantages of 20/20 hindsight morality. Back then, you might have been blind to the suffering experienced by slaves.

There is no scholarly evidence to suggest that there were any anti-slavery movements anywhere in the world, until the 18th century, beginning in the West, from deeply religious Christian evangelicals.

Think about some of the other things we apply our standards to, when judging previous generations: Watch an old movie…..I believe in Casablanca, Sam is referred to as “boy” by Bergman’s character. Should we be offended? Only if we forget the contextual restraints of the time. Ever read an Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan novel? Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn? Should Mark Twain’s book be banned from being read in schools? I find it difficult to call ERB a “racist”; yet you can definitely find “racist”-held views/beliefs, or sentences that might come across as offensive today.

Hope that helps clarify the point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Fit fit –

You must not visit America’s deep south very often. White Southern Baptist men and women are the most racist individuals I have ever met. Many of these still hold a Civil War grudge, Reps and Dems alike, but the racist Dems outnumber racist Reps by about two to one. I lived in Dallas from 1975 to 1981, and still keep in touch with a few friends, and I can assure you that the white male racist Democrat is in no danger of extinction!

JV

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We cannot judget 19th Century morals???? Like MURDER! Lynchings.

I suspect “Thou shall not kill” goes back a ways.

Republican voters were being MURDERED for daring to vote. In violation of the Constitution they were prevented from voting for a Republican Congressman.

The GOP cut a deal with white Southern Democratic racists for “peace”. Selling out Black Americans for racists to murder.

No, we can’t judge actions like that. It would be wrong.

Like or Dislike: 0  0