I need a liberal or dem's take on this

[ReelinRod]

Rudy just stated a wonderful analogy (paraphrased). . .

Your employer who currently pays you $100,000 a year comes to you and says that next year your salary will be $110,000.

He comes back to you before the raise goes into effect and tells you that your new salary will be $107,000 . . .

So now you have to take your kids out of school, sell your car, cut your cell phone and cable TV, tell your daughter she can't go to the prom, etc, etc, etc . . .


Ogloomer's demagoguery is absolutely disgusting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Ogloomer's demagoguery is absolutely disgusting.

Now I may not be that good at math, but since when does 2.7/3.8=40% ???

And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Now I may not be that good at math, but since when does 2.7/3.8=40% ???

And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies.

-spence

But.. 3.8T is 140% of 2.7... not entirely misleading on that..

what is misleading is that out of the budget, the cuts are not coming from the 80% of the budget that is defense, entitlments etc.. which makes it a joke from both sides...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Now I may not be that good at math, but since when does 2.7/3.8=40% ???

And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies.

-spence

It doesn't. However, the correct math for calculating the increase is 1.1M (the increase) / 2.7M (the previous budget) = 40%

When the Dow goes from 13,900 to 14,000, the increase isn't calculated as 13,900/14,000 which would equal a 99% increase for the day.

Considering you adhere to the Obama method of calculating numbers, I can understand your confusion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Now I may not be that good at math, but since when does 2.7/3.8=40% ???

And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies.

-spence

You work in finance? Seriously?

Spence, if you want to know the increase between a and b, the formula is

(b / a) -1.

In this case, 3.8 / 2.7 - 1 = 41%. So no, you are apparently not that good at math, at least when the math makes your hero look like an incompetent idiot.

"And that's just a prerequisite to the numerous other misleading elements of your pies."

Your 'prerequisite' is demonstrably, irrefutably, mathematically false. So given that your prerequisite was 100% wrong, it stands to reason that any other "misleading elements" you discovered, which are based on that prerequisite, would also be wrong.

Spence, do you concede that 3.8 is indeed 40% more than 2.7? That's fact, that's not some myth invented by #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney or the Koch Brothers or Glenn Beck or some other conservative boogeyman invented by your side, in the attempt to distract people from things like simple arithmetic.