Big Numbers
-
i think "dubya-" sounds better.
-
After Yotta[^] I would like to suggest the "Harpa", "Chica" and "Groucha"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
FTA: "Hella is North Californian slang for "very" or "a lot of". Mr Sendek and his supporters argue that its adoption would be a fitting honour for the state's impressive record of scientific research. " I think it is also fitting, given CA's impressive record of spending.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
none with a catchy name like "dubya" ! and dubya leads all recent Dems, and even defict-balooner Reagan, by a long shot. http://www.bushlastdayparty.com/img/chart-usDeficit.gif[^]
-
none with a catchy name like "dubya" ! and dubya leads all recent Dems, and even defict-balooner Reagan, by a long shot. http://www.bushlastdayparty.com/img/chart-usDeficit.gif[^]
-
since Obama has only been in office for a single budget year, i couldn't find any charts with his numbers.
-
After Yotta[^] I would like to suggest the "Harpa", "Chica" and "Groucha"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
How about "Buncha"? That is after all, a big buncha zeroes.
-
since Obama has only been in office for a single budget year, i couldn't find any charts with his numbers.
-
"Bugga"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
"Wanka"
-
After Yotta[^] I would like to suggest the "Harpa", "Chica" and "Groucha"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
How About Slovenia ? :laugh:
-
After Yotta[^] I would like to suggest the "Harpa", "Chica" and "Groucha"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL! I like how it ends pre-Obama.
... and we don't even have to add the "a" to the end: obamabytes works without "change" ;P .
-
since Obama has only been in office for a single budget year, i couldn't find any charts with his numbers.
-
How about just stopping at yotta and extend by using existing designations for numbers of zeros, e.g. kiloyotta KY) is 27 zeros, MY is 30 zeros, and 72 zeros is yotta yotta yotta ...
-
Holy crap, Batman![^] It looks like,just last year, Obama beat Bush's full 8 year deficit. :wtf: At this point in Bush's presidency, dems said none of Bush's problems were Clinton's fault.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
1. a projection != reality. any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS. 2. as i'm sure you're well aware, a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending, as Bush did. more importantly, the idea that Republicanism has anything to do with fiscal responsibility is truly laughable. there hasn't been a fically-responsible Republican in the White House in 50 years. not a single Republican President in modern times has done a single thing to lower the deficit.
-
After Yotta[^] I would like to suggest the "Harpa", "Chica" and "Groucha"
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Did anyone else notice the "full" list (see below) of SI prefixes is only about half full? FULL LIST OF SI PREFIXES 10 = deca 100 = hecto 1,000 = kilo 1,000,000 = mega 1,000,000,000 = giga 1,000,000,000,000 = tera 1,000,000,000,000,000 = peta 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = exa 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = zetta 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = yotta
-
1. a projection != reality. any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS. 2. as i'm sure you're well aware, a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending, as Bush did. more importantly, the idea that Republicanism has anything to do with fiscal responsibility is truly laughable. there hasn't been a fically-responsible Republican in the White House in 50 years. not a single Republican President in modern times has done a single thing to lower the deficit.
Chris Losinger wrote:
a projection != reality.
LOL! The chart you used (which seems to be from 2009.01) spoke to Bush's 2008 deficit. In 2010.02, I only spoke to Obama's 2009 huge deficit. Apples to apples.
Chris Losinger wrote:
any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS
Freaking A! I think you should tell those totally hosed, deluded stupids in the Obama administration and the dem controlled CBO to stop lying to the US people by underestimating!:mad:
Chris Losinger wrote:
a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending
While Bush's 'Budgets' did not include the war costs, the deficits in the chart shown do include the war costs. :) Again, Obama (who really has come to 'own' the Afghan war, don't you think?), in his first year has almost out-deficited Bush's eight years. :wtf: According to these obviously pro-war folks, Iraq is about 710 giga bucks, Afghani about 260 giga bucks.[^] So ALL of Bush's hidden war funding, PLUS the open Obama funding is less than 1000 giga bucks. The DoD is asking for less than 200 giga bucks for 2011. You don't think Obama would let them lie about the cost,do you? So the entire cost of both wars is a little more than half of Obama's first deficit. In other words, that lie does not float, less than 20% of the deficit is war costs.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the idea that Republicanism has anything to do with fiscal responsibility is truly laughable
Where exactly did you see me say anything positive about reps? :confused: This is one of the many reasons I am not a rep! Another is so I can remind upstanding finger pointers like you that you don't have to be a rep to know the dems are truly screwed up. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
a projection != reality.
LOL! The chart you used (which seems to be from 2009.01) spoke to Bush's 2008 deficit. In 2010.02, I only spoke to Obama's 2009 huge deficit. Apples to apples.
Chris Losinger wrote:
any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS
Freaking A! I think you should tell those totally hosed, deluded stupids in the Obama administration and the dem controlled CBO to stop lying to the US people by underestimating!:mad:
Chris Losinger wrote:
a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending
While Bush's 'Budgets' did not include the war costs, the deficits in the chart shown do include the war costs. :) Again, Obama (who really has come to 'own' the Afghan war, don't you think?), in his first year has almost out-deficited Bush's eight years. :wtf: According to these obviously pro-war folks, Iraq is about 710 giga bucks, Afghani about 260 giga bucks.[^] So ALL of Bush's hidden war funding, PLUS the open Obama funding is less than 1000 giga bucks. The DoD is asking for less than 200 giga bucks for 2011. You don't think Obama would let them lie about the cost,do you? So the entire cost of both wars is a little more than half of Obama's first deficit. In other words, that lie does not float, less than 20% of the deficit is war costs.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the idea that Republicanism has anything to do with fiscal responsibility is truly laughable
Where exactly did you see me say anything positive about reps? :confused: This is one of the many reasons I am not a rep! Another is so I can remind upstanding finger pointers like you that you don't have to be a rep to know the dems are truly screwed up. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The chart you used (which seems to be from 2009.01) spoke to Bush's 2008 deficit.
go ahead, look up the real numbers. i'll wait.
RichardM1 wrote:
So the entire cost of both wars is a little more than half of Obama's first deficit.
i like the implication that a new president starts with a clean slate, a completely balanced budget, and nothing the previous administration did has any effect on anything. it's as if the recession started on inauguration day, as if the structural elements of the budget magically came into being 1/09. it's awesome! best of all, your precious republicans remain blameless - it' all Obama's fault! yay for W !
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you should tell those totally hosed, deluded stupids in the Obama administration and the dem controlled CBO to stop lying to the US people by underestimating!
right right. it's a big conspiracy. and it's all the Dem's fault. typical Republican idiocy.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where exactly did you see me say anything positive about reps? Confused This is one of the many reasons I am not a rep!
for someone who's "not a rep", you sure do spend a lot of effort defending them. in fact, it's about all you've done here. therefore, i call BS.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing
modified on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:02 PM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The chart you used (which seems to be from 2009.01) spoke to Bush's 2008 deficit.
go ahead, look up the real numbers. i'll wait.
RichardM1 wrote:
So the entire cost of both wars is a little more than half of Obama's first deficit.
i like the implication that a new president starts with a clean slate, a completely balanced budget, and nothing the previous administration did has any effect on anything. it's as if the recession started on inauguration day, as if the structural elements of the budget magically came into being 1/09. it's awesome! best of all, your precious republicans remain blameless - it' all Obama's fault! yay for W !
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you should tell those totally hosed, deluded stupids in the Obama administration and the dem controlled CBO to stop lying to the US people by underestimating!
right right. it's a big conspiracy. and it's all the Dem's fault. typical Republican idiocy.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where exactly did you see me say anything positive about reps? Confused This is one of the many reasons I am not a rep!
for someone who's "not a rep", you sure do spend a lot of effort defending them. in fact, it's about all you've done here. therefore, i call BS.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing
modified on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:02 PM
Chris Losinger wrote:
go ahead, look up the real numbers. i'll wait.
I never questioned your numbers, just your representation.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i like the implication that a new president starts with a clean slate, a completely balanced budget, and nothing the previous administration did has any effect on anything.
I did not imply that, you inferred it. I said your statement blaming the size of Obama's deficit on the Iraq and Afghan wars is a flat lie (or willful ignorance, I will give you that). It is less than 20% of the deficit.
Chris Losinger wrote:
right right. it's a big conspiracy. and it's all the Dem's fault. typical Republican idiocy.
:confused: But YOU said "any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS." I was just agreeing with you. The chart you called BS on had White House and CBO numbers. I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled.
Chris Losinger wrote:
for someone who's "not a rep", you sure do spend a lot of effort defending them. in fact, it's about all you've done here. therefore, i call BS.
No, I have not defended any reps in this thread. What I did was: 1) Say Obama has out-deficited Bush 2) Pointed out flaws in your reasoning and facts Just because I believe Obama (and your unquestioning support of him in this thread) is f'd up, does not mean that I support f'd up reps. Let me put it a different way.
You have two enemies.
They are enemies of each other.
Neither is your friend.You might support one, when the other is too powerful, but don't think they're your friend. Or you end up X|
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
go ahead, look up the real numbers. i'll wait.
I never questioned your numbers, just your representation.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i like the implication that a new president starts with a clean slate, a completely balanced budget, and nothing the previous administration did has any effect on anything.
I did not imply that, you inferred it. I said your statement blaming the size of Obama's deficit on the Iraq and Afghan wars is a flat lie (or willful ignorance, I will give you that). It is less than 20% of the deficit.
Chris Losinger wrote:
right right. it's a big conspiracy. and it's all the Dem's fault. typical Republican idiocy.
:confused: But YOU said "any chart which makes any specific claims about the budget in 2012 is BS." I was just agreeing with you. The chart you called BS on had White House and CBO numbers. I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled.
Chris Losinger wrote:
for someone who's "not a rep", you sure do spend a lot of effort defending them. in fact, it's about all you've done here. therefore, i call BS.
No, I have not defended any reps in this thread. What I did was: 1) Say Obama has out-deficited Bush 2) Pointed out flaws in your reasoning and facts Just because I believe Obama (and your unquestioning support of him in this thread) is f'd up, does not mean that I support f'd up reps. Let me put it a different way.
You have two enemies.
They are enemies of each other.
Neither is your friend.You might support one, when the other is too powerful, but don't think they're your friend. Or you end up X|
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled.
right, it's a big conspiracy. CBO helicopters aren't black though, they're a deep gray.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said your statement blaming the size of Obama's deficit on the Iraq and Afghan wars is a flat lie
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, I have not defended any reps in this thread.
OMFG :laugh: when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled.
right, it's a big conspiracy. CBO helicopters aren't black though, they're a deep gray.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said your statement blaming the size of Obama's deficit on the Iraq and Afghan wars is a flat lie
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, I have not defended any reps in this thread.
OMFG :laugh: when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled. right, it's a big conspiracy.
No, neither side is good enough to run a big conspiracy. But I guess you are right. Last year proved that the dems, even with the presidency, a super majority in the senate and majority in the house, can't control much of anything. The reps didn't get anything productive done when they had full control, either, so don't feel too bad.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
No, you did not say the whole increase, you said:
Chris Losinger wrote:
a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending
'A lot' is an adverb meaning a good deal, a great deal, much, very much[^] That translates to 'Wah! Wah!, It's Bush's fault'. So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said. Make your party be responsible for their own decisions! What am I saying? This is politics, it's always the other guys fault.
Chris Losinger wrote:
when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
I'm not standing in the goal, blocking shots. I'm standing in front of you, kicking groin shots. :wtf: When I see misrepresented facts, I call it, either side. Even if I was standing in your goal, do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block? It would have been easier for me to block rep shoots if I was standing in their goal. Self-GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!! If I said I thought Bush had spent like a drunken sailor and kicked the crap out of the bill of rights (which I do), do you think this would have been interesting at all? Shoot, you probably would not even have commented.:cool:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
