Need ATS Numbers Crunchers to ponder...

Im not sure where to put this, but I guess this would be political in its own way...

I would like the people around here that are good with numbers to ponder something.

Obviously the people are mad and want to do something, but always seem to find themselves at a loss of just what to do. I have always favored the cliche' "When in Doubt, Do Nothing at all."

So, with that in mind, what kind of damage in number would we cause if we the people decided to stay home one day? How would it hurt the government? Would it hurt it at all? What kind of revenue would it lose? Would it make any kind of impact? Would they even care? Would a threat like that make any kind of difference? I'm guessing it might take a couple days to make a true impact, but I'm really curious about the numbers.

I mean they obviously don't care about us as long as we keep being their little drones and producing. How much do you think they would have to lose, before they realized we were serious about making some damn changes???

Looking forward to seeing the numbers. I'll let you take the numbers from any direction you care to!

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


I would suggest around 300 staying home would help dramatically....

As long as they were all the pollies at the WH....

Once home we should lock them all in and blockade their path...

I'm no cruncher.

The GDP/GNP divided by 365 days a year.

A round number say 3 trillion. I ain't up to date on GDP/GNP...


I would guess in the neighborhood 0f $8,219,178,082.19 !!

ETA dang dollar symbol

[edit on (6/26/1010 by loveguy]

How big of a population are you thinking of?

reply to post by virgom129


lol I have to admit that was kind of funny

reply to post by yigsstarhouse




are you asking those employed, & the 5 million unemployed to sit-at-home and hurt the gov't by not having the weekly payroll deduction show up on the positive side of the Gov't balance sheet?


or are you wondering just what number of the 12 million government service employees would need to say home, so the governmant operations would grind-to-a-halt ??


from your post--- the only persons getting hurt would be those refusing to work, for whatever length of time.


?are you suggesting taking all your accrued sick-days in one week... multipled by a million government workers?


kindly clarify your OP
as it stands ...its nonsensical (at least to me)


~~~~~~~to virgom129

are pollies = politicians, as in legislators or what?

300?? is that a reference to the Club-of-300?
which is supposed to be TPTB, aka: illuminati elites?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by St Udio]

reply to post by Phlynx


hmmm, let's try a possible realistic number like the third of our population. The working population that is. We all have homeless and out of work folks, so Im sure they account for some percentage, not to mention those that would never have a clue it was being done... So let's try a third, unless you have a better idea. I am open for anything here.

reply to post by yigsstarhouse
Friend, if you really wanted to get the PTB's attention and make them have undue concerns, organize a 100% total shutdown of all the freightlines and independent truckers in America for one week; that will have just about every Wal-mart and every other grocery store with bare shelves after the first three days, the filling stations will be out of fuel, and pandamonium will reign;

although I do suggest that having at least a 2 week supply of food on hand plus fuel, meds, etc., would be prudent before starting the shutdown.

Just my tuppence.

seeker

[edit on 6/26/2010 by the seeker_713g]

reply to post by St Udio


Im sorry I guess I was a bit vague. I was thinking along the lines of, if everyone stayed home, what would they lose in say tax revenue, or noone is buying gas or taking the train or shopping, etc.

I wasn't even thinking of the government workers. I can imagine that would make a huge impact itself. The little people of it anyway.Nice thought there. Just kick it around from all kinds of angles really

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


passive resistance... done by MLK & others in the 60's-70's
has proved a miserable failure... thats why all the protest actions eventually got violent


eventually the passivity which was encouraged by the Ghandi movemrnt, fell into the throes of extreme action... to wit: Buddhist Monks dousing themselves with petrol & becoming human bonfires.

reply to post by yigsstarhouse


Really, you'd only wind up hurting the little guys. The little mom & pop establishments. These little guys can't really cope with such a blow like that, though the bigger corporations sure could. So, I would think this to be a bad idea. We don't want to hurt "Joe Citizen" who is just trying to feed his family.

--airspoon

[edit on 26-6-2010 by airspoon]

Annual Tax Revenue would drop by approximately .0027%, if their daily tax revenue dropped to zero on any given day.

People need to work to make money to eat and pay bills, so having a general "strike" kind of defeats the purpose. If you want to really nail these wankers to a wall, DON'T PAY TAXES, EVER! Not income tax, not property tax, not retail tax, not excise tax, not any kind of tax!

If at least 60% of all people refused to pay taxes, including stores and gas stations charging the tax, you'd see this monster come to a screeching halt in just under a month, maybe sooner.

But then come the new problems, that power void needs to be filled by something or someone that can't be "turned." Where you going to get those people, those honorable leaders, after all the past politicians have been removed, tried for treason and used as lamppost shades? This is of course assuming the angry mob were actually honorable themselves and provided trials rather than saving the money and going straight to enactment of judgment phase. Angry mobs can be, well, kinda angry.

Cheers - Dave