Advantage minority

I was listening to a talking head yesterday decrying the problem that there are over 2 million African Americans unemployed.

That sounded bad.

Then I got to thinking about it, and wondered why they were referring to unemployment numbers in raw numbers. They are usually referred to in percentages.

So I did some checking.

The current average unemployment rate on a national level is 6.1%.

If the 2 million number is correct, then the unemployment rate among African Americans is 5.8%, according to the population stats from US Census.

Hmmm... that doesn't sound so bad. Apparently the unemployment rate for African Americans is better than the national average.

Perhaps that reporting was a little biased.

Hillbillys don't leave the woods when they are out of work.

SVreX wrote: Perhaps that reporting was a little biased.

Bite your tongue. Only FOX is biased.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: Perhaps that reporting was a little biased.

Bite your tongue. Only FOX is biased.

That's right. You are biased ONLY if you voice support for a more conservative agenda. Otherwise, you are a Progressive. Sounds so much nicer, doesn't it?

incorrect on all accounts..

Only Bias-Ply's are really bias'd

But it seems like most people are members of a radial political party...

I heard an interesting report on NPR this morning, that Illegal Immigrants are actually a really good group to give home loans to.

Apparently there is some tax number that otherwise undocumented immigrants are given so that their incomes can be taxed. They are able to use this, in lieu of a SS number to apply for loans. They are using these loans to buy houses.

The delinquency rate on people with these loans is 0.5%. As opposed to the national delinquency rate on standard home loans, which is 6.4%.

So lending firms like giving loans to these immigrants, because they are such a dependable and safe investment.

Datsun1500 wrote: You tend to pay your loans when there is a chance of being thrown in jail. They do not want anyone to pay attention to them.

But the odd thing is, these loans are being given to people using a Tax ID number that is only given to undocumented immigrants (which is more odd since, if they have a tax ID, I'd call that documentation). So anyone applying for one of these loans is obviously an illegal immigrant. So they're not exactly flying under the radar.

You are missing a big part of the illegal ID # thing.

This number is used for ID for taxable situations. This includes income tax, major purchases, etc. TAXES ARE WITHHELD. That's right, illegals pay taxes.

Problem is, they never receive benefits. So, it's a freebie to legislators. Taxes can be collected, payouts unnecessary.

Therefore, lawmakers actually WANT illegals.

It was on NPR, so SURELY it was unbiased.

SVreX wrote: It was on NPR, so SURELY it was unbiased.

Huh? What does this have to do with bias or anything of that nature?

Skipping the whole biased/balanced media argument, I certainly trust NPR not to fabricate the facts of their stories. Whatever else you think about them, they do uphold certain common standards of journalism. I find they actually cite their sources more than most news outlets.

So, the facts are: illegals are in this country. They are paying taxes. They use the ID# from their taxes to get home loans. They are delinquent at a lower rate than other Americans.

I didn't hear figures on foreclosures, but I shut down the car before the story was finished. I feel safe in assuming that if they are delinquent at a lower rate, they foreclose at a lower rate too.

I'm going to avoid the argument of what to do about immigrants. I just find it ironic how good a job they're doing at pursuing the American dream.

The discussion of economic situations of minorities just made me think of it.

Salanis wrote: I just find it ironic how good a job they're doing at pursuing the American dream.

Give them a generation or two and maybe they will come around to our way of thinking and be content to let the government take care of them.

TJ wrote: Give them a generation or two and maybe they will come around to our way of thinking and be content to let the government take care of them.

Only if we legalize them. Until we do that, they'll remain fine upstanding citizens.

ignorant wrote: incorrect on all accounts.. Only Bias-Ply's are really bias'd

^A Fox Tire.

Salanis wrote:

SVreX wrote: It was on NPR, so SURELY it was unbiased.

Huh? What does this have to do with bias or anything of that nature? Skipping the whole biased/balanced media argument, I certainly trust NPR not to fabricate the facts of their stories. Whatever else you think about them, they do uphold certain common standards of journalism. I find they actually cite their sources more than most news outlets.

You're confused because you are connecting my NPR comment with the illegal immigrant rabbit you were chasing (which I followed you on).

My NPR comment referenced the topic of this thread. It is where I heard the original story.

I listen to NPR daily, and I would partly agree with you- I certainly trust NPR not to fabricate the facts of their stories.

However, it is a REALLY big stretch to suggest that they are not biased. While they may not fabricate the facts, they certainly spin them.

Just listen any day to Farai Chideya's program "News and Notes" (airs daily here). It's as one sided as it gets. They even advertise it stating it "explores fascinating issues and people from an African American perspective". I'm not sure what is so "national" about the "African American perspective" that earns it a full hour daily on "National Public Radio" (tax exempt non-profit -19% of income from tax dollars). It would be pretty offensive if you substituted the word "White" for every time they say "African American".

I noted similar bias in the Presidential coverage, educational coverage, and many other subjects.

I think NPR has a pool of programs the local affiliate can pull from. Plus most affiliates seem to pull from the PRI pool, too.

Some of the more popular programs, like All things considered or Garrison snooze-fest Keillor seem to end up on all the stations, but there's still quite a bit of room for customization. Here in KC, I don't think they air "news and notes", but we do have some of our own equally questionable "perspectives" programs, as well as some sort of Kansas City talk show program that could kill the dead. Just a miserable waste of the airwaves.

On the other hand, one of our local public stations plays three hours of rockabilly every Friday, so they're allright by me.

SVreX wrote: You're confused because you are connecting my NPR comment with the illegal immigrant rabbit you were chasing (which I followed you on). My NPR comment referenced the topic of this thread. It is where I heard the original story. I listen to NPR daily, and I would partly agree with you- I certainly trust NPR not to fabricate the facts of their stories. However, it is a REALLY big stretch to suggest that they are not biased. While they may not fabricate the facts, they certainly spin them. Just listen any day to Farai Chideya's program "News and Notes" (airs daily here). It's as one sided as it gets. I noted similar bias in the Presidential coverage, educational coverage, and many other subjects.

Aha. Yes, I was confused because I referenced NPR, and you didn't. You only said it was a "talking head".

Yes, there are very biased programs on NPR. I don't listen to News and Notes. I pretty much don't listen to the Latino program either. I usually just listen to morning edition and other news programs, that I think do a very good job. I'd say that any news program that is essentially all editorial is going to fall to the bias of the pundit.

I would also point out that most funding from NPR comes from listeners. NPR tracks which shows those listeners identify as valuable to them, when they donate. And the stations make many of their decisions of what to carry based on that information. I like the fact that NPR is more beholden to listen than to commercial advertisers.

Close.

The largest single source of funds for NPR is listener supported. 34%

That's not the same as most of the funding coming from listeners. That would be 51%

6% is direct Federal supported, and 13% is indirect Federal funded through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (a non-profit strarted by the Federal government for the purpose of managing federal funds for public broadcasting).

If a church received 19% of it's funding from the Federal government, either directly or indirectly, all Heck would break loose if they chose to pick sides in an election. They'd loose their non-profit staus.

I just think tax dollars shouldn't be used for racially biased aganda promoting.