What's in a Billion?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:34 pm

Got this in an email:

The next time you hear a politician use theword 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division . .

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents ofNew Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes inNew Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C .. HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken??

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:53 pm

serious question ,is an american billion the same as in the uk?ie ours is 1000,000,000,or is yours 100,000,000

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:22 pm

Good luck abolishing politicians, Accountable.

Whoever you vote for, or vote against, or even if you don't bother to vote at all - a politician still gets in.

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:26 pm

thanks rjwould for the clarification.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:04 pm

AussiePam;757293 wrote: Good luck abolishing politicians, Accountable.

Whoever you vote for, or vote against, or even if you don't bother to vote at all - a politician still gets in.

And a billion of 'em waiting to take that one's place.

moonpie · Post by **moonpie** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:50 pm

Politics are nothing but a crap shoot and a huge kettle of lies. Sorry if I sound so negative, but who is really ever happy?

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:12 am

I knew a Brazilion girl once, but only once, I swear by my tatoo.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:20 am

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can

Did anyone else get a huge eye opener from that? I did!! :-2

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:54 am

A billion = way too much.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:32 pm

RJ, it amazes me that you still see a difference between the Republicrats and Demicans.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:19 pm

Jester;757370 wrote: I don't need to re-read the thread. I realize who's statement it was, if Spot had said it I'd have made the correction as well. You blamed the republicans and President Bush, and the democrat controlled congress is in on it too. I'm sayiing both are at blame if you want to level blame.

My point is, President Bush is not alone in the fact that the war is still going on and Congress does have the power to stop it. And to stop the 1.9 billion a week that is being spent. The fact that Congress has not stopped it says either they agree with it or they care more about their personal career's more.

We already know how Bush feels about it, and we know he's not going to stop it.

To be fair though, when the war was approved, republicans controlled both house and senate. Now, democrats have a razor thin majority, and every time they've tried to put limits on funding, Bush has vetoed it. It's not like democrats haven't tried to put the brakes on the war spending ...

Also, some people have been opposed to the war from the start, but feel a moral obligation to fund the troops now that they are in harms way (like Obama).

What I don't get is how one party can spend 1.6 trillion on a shaky foreign investment, and call the other party fiscally irresponsible for supporting an U.S. investment with equal, if not less, shakiness.

At least an investment in New Orleans would be putting money back in the U.S. economy ... it's a major tourist attraction.

But that said, 250 billion does seem high ... some of that is probably going the local businesses.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:14 am

Jester;757699 wrote: If it costs us everything we have to make us safe and to keep up the fight, Im willing to do that.
No you're not. If it costs us everything then there's nothing left to keep safe. There's a line somewhere, otherwise you've lost sight of what's important. Unless, of course, the most important thing is total annihalation of, well, them (however you define them).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:55 am

rjwould;757921 wrote: Perhaps we should learn how to have dialogue then...

About the deficit and how it is being handled...I don't think you realize the extent of the problem...It is our #1 threat and problem....It's only a matter of time before others no longer want to extend us credit and also call in the loan..
And then what? On a personal level it would mean getting something repossessed. What do you think "no longer want to extend us credit and also call in the loan" would mean?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:13 am

rjwould;757964 wrote: I don't know and I don't want to find out..
Then how can you say it's worse than what radical Islam has for us?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Jester on this one, but your #1 threat just doesn't seem all that threatening to me. Help me out here.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:22 am

Accountable;757967 wrote: Then how can you say it's worse than what radical Islam has for us?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Jester on this one, but your #1 threat just doesn't seem all that threatening to me. Help me out here.

At the rate we are going, I'm afraid we're headed for a complete economic collapse. Which means we won't look a whole lot different than Iraq does now.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:28 pm

Jester;757792 wrote: Absolutely there is a line there somewhere. The most important thing is to keep us relatively safe. At some point after that line, and we've given all but to sustain us bodily, but they are still a threat, we still have to decide wether to give up and live under Islam or fight to the death.

The Romans for the most part allowed some religious freedom to the countries they conquered, Radical Islam does not allow religious freedom and will not give it to us.

If Rj is right and we just print more money then really this war isnt costing us anything except human life and paper and ink.

I think that basic economics says otherwise.

A country cannot just print more money and not pay the consequences - plenty have tried and either walked into rampant inflation (Germany between the wars being a perfect example) or, if they back the printing of money with the sale of assets as the US are currently doing, end up being owned and working for foreigners.

The Greenback used to be the world's reserve currency but there are so many dollars sloshing about in other countries exchequers that they're either trying to offload them (pushing down the value of the dollar, now at an all time or a multi-year low against a raft of currencies), buying US assets to get bricks and mortar in place of bits of paper or shifting their payment currency to Euros / Sterling / anything else they can use.

So, sadly, the cost is far more than paper and ink. Even an economy like that of the US cannot sustain a deficit of the size it's been running for the past ?ten? years.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:18 pm

Jester;758081 wrote: I realize its not readily available, but if you ask me if 2 billion per week is worth our security then I say yes, no contest.

Unfortunatly thats what its gonna cost us to continue the fight against radical Islam. The battle for Iraq is now and has been all along a strategic point in the fight of this very old enemy and very necessary.

So until we figure out a way to kill them all, or kill enough of them we break their will, we will have to pay for the fight. What choice do we have? Dialague you suggest? With who exactly? They dont exactly have a leadership that is willing to come forth and be recognized in negotiations. Even if they did how do we trust them, they arent a country that we can make a treaty with? Iran isn't going to admit to controlling them, niether is Saudi Arabia.

I think we need to tighten the budget domestically until we can spend our money at home again. That means cutting government spending in every country its not absolutely needed and redirecting those funds to domestic use and then cutting domestic funds to only what is absolutely necessary and stop borrowing and pay back what we owe.

The problem is I dont hear any politician talking about that except Ron Paul, and he wants to cut war fudnign as well, and I just cant see that as securing us.

Its a loop, and who's gonna break us out of the loop?

And I dont get how ignoring healthcare causes all this? Can you connect that a bit better?

And you wonder why so many Muslims now want to kill Americans? With attitudes like that facing them what choice do they have?

Given that they are not a country that you can negotiate with, how the hell were they two countries that you could invade?

By their actions, the American Government have made the problem a hundred time worse than it was and are directly responsible for the

situation today.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:19 pm

Jester;758135 wrote: Bryn, I dont give a rats a** what they think anymore. We're too far past it to matter. I don't want to negotiate and I woudlnt even if they begged until I was sure they couldn't make war in any way, shape or form. Then, and only then they can surrender unconditionally and we can really get to work rebuilding and helping them.

What choice do they have? They can stand down or be killed, it is still they're choice. And its going to get far worse before it gets better. I'm sick of apologizing and I wont do it anymore. I'm sick of saying I'm sorry for being American and protecting my people and my way of life.

Tough crud bud.

Or they can drag this world into years of chaos and anarchy and maybe cause some real damage in the process.

The US thought it could waltz through Vietnam, the Russians and the British (several times) thought they could waltz through Afghanistan - what makes you think they have to stand down or be killed this time?

America is *not* protecting its people - America is the aggressor. The invasion of Iraq was nothing other than a criminal land grab aimed at controlling a resource rich region. The "Insurgency" is defending the state against a foreign invader and I don't give a rat's arse what sort of spin you want to put on it, that invasion was illegal, immoral and unjustifiable.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:45 pm

Jester;758152 wrote: Bryn I respect you very much, I think your a good man and I listen to what you write here in fg regularly and I always consider what you say.

But in this case your flat wrong. Lets check back with each other in 50 years and see eh? When its relatively stable it will be handed back to them. We will remain as long as they want us after that.

The insurgency is waning and it will continue to wane, not because they were defending against 'foreign invadors', but because the large majority wern't from Iraq to begin with.

And we are defending the US by killing anyone that picks up a weapon against us wherever we find them. If you want to call that immoral or illegal then have at it. But I maintain it was absolutely justifiable.

Equally, you are totally wrong in your approach to this - kill all the bastards and no negotiation until unconditional surrender is the route to genocide - not peace.

Justify Iraq! Who in Iraq was holding a weapon against the US? What connection did Iraq have with Al-Qaeda? Why did the invasion happen?

Might I remind you that the International Brigades were not from Spain but they were hailed as heroes for defending it against the Fascists.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:37 pm

Jester;758165 wrote: I see no other option, tell me who we negotiate with? Are they offering us any negotiation? At some point we need to see this threat for what it is, total annhilation is the only valid option until they present themselves with a group to negotiate with that is a valid authority that can be trusted enough to negotiate with then the only thing Im asking for is surrender. If this is Jihad and it is a religious entity then it will come down to a single man that still believes he'd rather fight than submit. Is there another option against facism? peace will come when there is none left to fight, or the rest that did want to fight loose the will to fight.

Whilst they have people declaring "kill them all" they will not appear en-mass - would you? It is Jihad - by the west, as declared by GWB. For as long as you, and people like you, take the attitude outlined above, there can be no peace because you'll allow no peace.

Jester;758165 wrote: Al Qaeda operated in Iraq with impunity before the invasion, they trained in several locations, and saddam had no control over many portions of his own country. There were scores of terror orgs living and training in Iraq that could have been a threat to the US in light if Iranian funding. I'm sure you want evidence eh? Try the fact that 75% of the initial captives in Iraq were infact foreigners.

Can you provide evidence for this - 'cos several US government investigations failed to. To claim is easy - prove it!

Jester;758165 wrote: Primary reason for the liberation was to detain Saddam for trial and locate and/or account for WMD. Both were achieved.

It was obvious very early on that there were no WMD and that there was no "real and present danger". Even if stockpiles did exist (and all of the evidence suggested that they did not) there were no possible delivery mechanisms that could threaten the UK or the US.

On what grounds had the US any rights to invade Iraq to detain Saddam?

Jester;758165 wrote: Now we are working to stabilize and secure the new government and kill remaining terror units that still filter into the country or lay dormant in wait and to maintain a force able to withstand infiltration by Iran should it choose to do so. On a secondary level we are tracking the terror orgs that moved thru Iraq and sent resources to Iraq from other countires and orginization to locate, closewith and destroy the rest of them. Its a formidible task, but the US military is up to it provided we maintain the stomach for it politically. it wont stop in Iraq or Afghanistan, hoepfully we will continue the hunt in every country we need to, to finish them off.

The extent of the terror orgs is not just alqeada, there are hundreds of heads that we are after, many of them filtered through Iraq to train their people in actual combat.

Calling them terror units does not make them evil - they are defending the state against foreign invaders who have no right to be there. The US has no right to invade any other country to "continue the hunt" and should be treated as pariah if it does.

Jester;758165 wrote: Reminders never hurt.

Fundamantally I am a soldier, I assess threat and plan to destroy it and destroy it. If you can negotiate so I dont have to destroy then fine I'll trust sparingly, upon verification I'll trust more, until then I'm advocating destruction so I can secure my way of life.

Reminders never hurt - especially if you ignore them.

What is being done is evil. It is a cynical abuse of power with a complete disregard of everything but the political interest of the strong.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:11 pm

Bryn Mawr;758176 wrote: [...]

Can you provide evidence for this - 'cos several US government investigations failed to. To claim is easy - prove it!

[...]
I posted this way back in 'o5. I think it's valid to this part of the conversation.

Accountable;73254 wrote: Koan, you must be a speed reader or something, but it is far too much for me to digest on one weekend (especially since I'm taking my darling out on her birthday :yh_party ), but here is my take.

I served my beloved US Air Force 21 years. On 9/11/01 I was still in uniform. I was at the dentist office waiting for my annual torture, watching CNN on the tube. A terrible accident had just happened in the twin towers and I was trying to catch up. Suddenly, I watched live as the second jet hit. I knew it was war.

Long story short, I was fully supportive, even thankful, when we decided to go after Bin Laudin in Afghanistan. But when the President said we should go for Iran rather than Syria (where they thought BL had gone) I was confused. He had been going on about how weak and useless the UN was, yet here he was saying he wanted to enforce the issues the UN itself was reluctant to enforce. It was similar to a town cop chasing down someone breaking state law while the state cops had better things to do. I just didn't understand the argument.

I am ambivalent and have many questions unanswered. Why not Syria? why not frame an argument against Iran only of evidence related to terrorism? Why not Syria? WHY NOT SYRIA?

I love my country. I love my Air Force. It is my family and I will always support it even when it is run by knuckleheads just as we all love our eccentric uncle with the gold lame' boxers( :rolleyes: but that's a different story altogether).

I would love some honest answers, no matter how distateful.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:48 pm

Jester;758200 wrote: Removing Saddam was the first step in fighting all fronts on the horizon of terror. It allowed us to go after real persons in the system of terror networks that eminated from Iraq. As well it set us up to confront Iran.

I consider the action in Iraq and the action in Afghanistan seperate battlefronts in the same war.
But that wasn't the reason given to us way back then. It's only what it has become - arguably.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:47 am

Jester;758198 wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm

...Estimates of the number of insurgents are impossible to confirm.

By 2006, US military estimates ranged from 8,000 to 20,000, although Iraqi intelligence officials have issued figures as high as 40,000 fighters plus another 160,000 supporters.

Fighters have been found among the insurgents from countries including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan.

Foreign nationals are widely considered to account for less than 10% of the insurgency, but their role is high profile....

This is a general statement concerning what is currently there, and I generally accept this estimate.

Major newspapers have listed it as high as 45% at its height, I'll accept that number as well. But I cannot prove my 75% number, I was refering to a specific report that I cannot find now. I know there was an LA times article that stole its data from a report I read that was declassified but has since not been available.

We were talking about the condition when the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded - not what happened afterwards. What you are posting here only goes to show the mess that the US has made of the situation.

There was, and still is, no evidence of WMD. There was no possible method by which Iraq could attack the US nor evidence of their intent to do so.

There was, and still is, no evidence of links to the terrorist groups who carried out the Twin Towers attack - or any other active terrorist groups

Again I ask you, justify the invasion.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:57 am

[quote=Jester;758182]

We have a right to protect ourselves at any point or place we choose. Does it reek of a strong bully? it sure does. Is it really? No, not in the least, since we are there for a specific reason such as destroying an enemy that, that country may choose not to recognize as our enemy. We will leave as soon as we are done. You can help us or hinder us, please dont hinder us.

The US has NO SUCH RIGHT and the rest of the world should rise up and stop any nation who claims and attempts to exercise any such policy.

Hinder you - hell, I'd fight you to stop you if it lay within my power because it is totally wrong.

[quote=Jester;758182]

Its a fight for survival against an extreme ideology that can sweep the world, extreme measures need to be taken with wisdom and a recognition that a return of normal law will be done when the threat is ended. Its a temporary measure to quell a huge problem. Its justifiable due to the level of threat that exists.

You are the one showing extreme ideology.

You cannot set aside the law as convenient and then return to normal law when you are done. For law to be meaningful it has to apply to everyone at all times.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:18 am

Jester;758206 wrote: There were a bunch of reasons for going in initially, chief of which was that we just did not know for certain if Saddam had WMD's and if he did they needed to be accounted for and controlled. Thats the main reason we went in.

Was that not reason enough?No. I am not justified breaking into my neighbor's house just because I did not know for certain if he had illegal firearms. We have to live by those principles we espouse or we lose our credibility.

Jester wrote: I believe we knew the level of terror connections in Iraq and we wanted to stop those orgs from obtaining the materials, if the materials were there. That is my personal opinion and one that I wont attempt to prove even if I could. Then that's the justification that should have been used, not some BS about "the UN won't do their job so we'll do it for them."

Jester wrote: [...]all we can do now is move forward and finish and turn it over to Iraq to govern themselves and make darn sure we are clear next time.I'm not as sure as I was that it's possible to build the gov't Bush apparently wants. I think we stepped in it deep here because the culture is too foreign to us.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:29 pm

Jester;758486 wrote: There were at the time many unanswered questions regarding WMD's and Saddams ability to deploy, or that terror orgs could use what was unaccounted for.

Like I said before, I'd have handled it differently but the result would have been the same, we'd be there like we are now.

My justification is that we sought to destroy multiple terror orgs that were and are a threat to our security.

Alqeada is just one of the many.

And I repeat, there was no proven link between Saddam and any terrorist organisation.

Nothing that you have said adds up to anywhere near a justification or a legal mandate for invasion of another country.

No matter how you cut it, it was wrong in every possible way.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:38 pm

Jester;758488 wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr;758228][quote=Jester;758182]

The US has NO SUCH RIGHT and the rest of the world should rise up and stop any nation who claims and attempts to exercise any such policy.

Hinder you - hell, I'd fight you to stop you if it lay within my power because it is totally wrong.

Fine then I'll wear that badge. The rigtheosness in it is that when we are done the world will be safer.

The action was NOT righteous - it was a war crime that should be punished in the strongest possible terms.

Let me ask you a question or two :-

If Russia were to declare, without credible evidence, that they were threatened by Mexico. If they then, after several months of threats and impossible demands, invaded and garrisoned the country, how would America react?

If the leader of China, fifty years down the line, started making anti-Christian comments and then invaded two Christian countries whilst threatening several other Christian countries with more of the same, would you criticize Christians from other countries who went to the defence of those countries already invaded?