 |
| The Democrat goal for all Americans. |
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in
America.
ABBOTT: Good
Subject. Terrible times. It's 7.8%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No,
that's 14.7%.
COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right. 7.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 7.8%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can't count the "Out of
Work" as the unemployed, it makes President Obama's employment numbers
look bad! You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss the point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted
with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer
in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment rolls that would
count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't
look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely, it goes down. That's how they get it to
7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. President Obama doesn't want you to read about
14.7% unemployment. It makes him look bad, incompetent, and makes him look like
he doesn't have a clue what he is doing as President.
COSTELLO: That would be tough on the Democrats running for
re-election.
ABBOTT: Absolutely!
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there
are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop
looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So
there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to
have people stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Democratic Economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Congressman.
But Don’t Worry…..You Have Protection
Mike Williamson observes that the collateral damage produced
by the sharpshooters in the NYPD make Graven
Tower look downright solicitous by
comparison:
As long as you ignore the fact that the shooting victims
were innocent bystanders;
Hitting two people with three shots represents unusual
excellence in marksmanship for the NYPD.
This is matching another recent incident in which skilled
NYPD officers were able to hit their target and nine bystanders with only 16
bullets.
Overall the NYPD usually requires about 331 rounds to hit 54
targets, of which 14 will be innocent bystanders, 24 will be dogs, and 16 will
be people the NYPD was actually aiming at.
Statistically, if you aren't a dog, it is slightly more
dangerous to be the person the NYPD was shooting at than a bystander (16 people
out of 331 shots for intended targets for a 4.8% hit rate vs. 14 people out of
331 shots for bystanders, a 4.2% hit rate).
NYPD has a better success rate for other weapons, and
certain factors, like shooting unarmed people in the back, tend to increase hit
rates.
When NYPD officers fire 331 shots, and hit 16 targeted people, 24 dogs, but
also 14 bystanders, there is a problem.
If the gun control advocates were truly serious about
wanting to reduce the amount of unnecessary harm caused by firearms, they'd be
campaigning to disarm the police, not the American people.
I suppose we can be grateful that the NYPD doesn't have rocket-armed bazookas
or missile-armed drones at their disposal........uh, oh….wait a minute……they do.
