Quizz
By glazou on Wednesday 8 September 2004, 09:15 - Bushisms - Permalink
| deficit | US death toll | |
|---|---|---|
| after 18 months | $422 billion | 1000 |
| after 25 years | ? | ? |
Next events
- 9-11 may-2012, CSS WG meeting, Hamburg, Germany
- 29 oct-2 nov 2012, W3C Technical Plenary Meeting, Lyon, France
Comments
Another quizz:
this years loss: 422,000,000,000 USD
estimated 10 years loss : 2.300.000.000.000 USD. I event don't know the word of that thing. What are 1000 trillions???
[Note de Daniel] yeah, I was about to edit my post to include that figure [/Note de Daniel]
Actually 2,300,000,000,000 is 2,300 billions, which is 2.3 trillions.
The Wikipedia has interesting details in its "Billion" and "Trillion" articles, but you'll find a compendium of great information on their "List of Numbers" article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis... (in "English names for powers of 10").
BTW, in modern English usage, 1,000 trillions is a quadrillion.
The American National Debt is available "live" here :
www.brillig.com/debt_cloc...
The same, updated daily :
www.publicdebt.treas.gov/...
(Well, it's a governement website, so...)
After 18 months of running temporary, but entirely manageable deficits the economy is heading up, revenues are increasing, and every indication (except that spending continues to increase) is that the deficits will be licked fairly easily. And for real, this time, instead of the shaky projected surpluses of the Clinton years.
As for the death toll, make sure you subtract the number of Americans who would have been killed had the US not done the Right Thing (no, you can't really get such a number, but without applying it your number is fairly meaningless).
Chris Carlin: well, the whole world outside the US and an increasing number of US citizens - even republicans - strongly object it was the Right Thing... And not every indicator is green: 36% americans live in poverty and that's increasing, and employment rate is so-so to say the least...
to daniel: 36% live in poverty? you are saying 1 out of 3 americans live in poverty. You need to check that.
As far as the employment rate. It is not bad at 5.4%, certainly much lower than in France (almost double at 9.6% in 2003). A lot of grumbling that you are hear about the "unemployment rate", certainly in my circles, is the inability to change jobs at will, like we did in the .com time frame.
Also, what is your obsession with US politics? It's like someone in Oregon obsessing about Roland Dumas and his adventures.
Chris Carlin wrote:
"every indication (except that spending continues to increase) is that the deficits will be licked fairly easily."
Uh-huh. A report released *by the Bush Administration* said we could have the largest economic expansion in American history (are you really so gullible as to believe we could beat the Industrial Revolution on that score?) and it would still take decades to pay off the debt we've already incurred. What do you know that they don't?
"And for real, this time, instead of the shaky projected surpluses of the Clinton years."
Gee, and it was only a few short years ago that Republicans were bending over backwards to take credit for that. I wonder what happened?
"As for the death toll, make sure you subtract the number of Americans who would have been killed had the US not done the Right Thing (no, you can't really get such a number, but without applying it your number is fairly meaningless)."
No, making a statement that contains within it an admission that it is completely ungrounded in fact is meaningless.
rizzo wrote:
"36% live in poverty? you are saying 1 out of 3 americans live in poverty. You need to check that."
Daniel mixed his numbers up. It's 36 million, or about 12%.
"As far as the employment rate. It is not bad at 5.4%"
You should take a good look at how that number is calculated these days before you get too warm and fuzzy about it.
Perhaps it would be better to consider the fact that Bush will be the first President since the Great Depression to finish his first term in office with a net loss of jobs.
This is hilarious stuff Daniel! But since you closed the "Kofi" thread I'll post a response here.
Harken back Daniel to those days of the Rumsfeld/Saddam photo. Who was the great threat at the time? *All* the countries in the middle east supported Saddam against Iran.
Daniel writes -> "I am really fed up with narrow-minded comments presenting America with a big A like the savior of the whole universe being the sole repository for True Democracy on this planet on one hand, and the other countries who warned about a war in Iraq as traitors."
The French are so consumed with anti-American hatred that they are willing to take the anti-US side on *any* issue - if France happens to come down on the side that supports keeping a madman like Saddam around then so be it. Being against the US apparently trumps all in Paris these days.
Daniel writes -> "I remind you that the US armed Saddam so much it's Rumsfelds's own signature on the military anthrax deliveries..."
There you go again.
BTW, wasn't it Chirac who *personally* drove the sale of nuclear plants and technology in the 70's. hmmm?
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl... details both points nicely.
Daniel writes -> "For the moment, and since WW2 I see almost only chaos where the Pentagone - or the CIA - have decided to "help". And helping "oppressed" Iraqi people is such a pretext for putting hands on the oil fields it's pathetic. Furthermore, your country is not young in terms of international diplomacy, it's a newborn."
Yes, I guess America is still too young to have developed the nuance needed to rationalize taking Saddam blood money whilst still claiming the moral highground and still be able to sleep at night. At every level France is wrong side on the Iraq issue.
Daniel -> "What happened in Iraq is not the seed for a peaceful middle-east, as the Bush administration tells it; it's the seed for a century or two of antagonism between the co-called Western world and the Muslim world."
Yes, keeping a genocidal madman in power is the best long term way to maintain peace in the world. Kindly tell the Iraqi and Afghan people that they were better off under Saddam and the Taliban.
Daniel writes -> "Of course, Bush does not care, only oil matters..."
Please substitute [UN and France] above for Bush
Have a nice day.
Pete
Pete, you are pathetic, and you're not welcome any longer in this blog's comments. I won't repeat it.