Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

How much is a "Billion"?

0 helpful
48 replies

by tonythetiger 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

A Billion!!!!! Here's some thought provoking information

The next time you hear a politician use the word "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 of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.

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

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

Does the average taxpayer really understand what a billion is?

48 replies

by jdclyde

There are many politicians along the way that will need to tap into that money for "administrative" costs.

There is a sizable portion that will end up having to be redirected back at this senator from Louisiana.

The Mayor of New Orleans will have to refurnish his office and probably will need a new Escalade for him and another for his "people".

Really makes you wonder what comprehensive, detailed plan they will need to follow that will take this money. Do we hear ANY Democrats complaining about the money or worring about where it will come from? No, they will just want to have large stacks of cash to throw around the state so they can pretend they care about the poor poor that THEY had allowed to become so devistatingly poor under the decade after decade after decade of failed Democratic policies to "help the poor" in the war on poverty.

And of course each and everyone that says anything against this is a racist and hates the poor blacks? Just watch and see. Lots of race cards to be played very soon. so many in fact, you will think they stacked the deck! Maybe they are using wild cards?

I wonder how much of this will go to the poor poor that are suing Texas now for after a FULL YEAR, are cutting the gravy train and telling people that after a year it is time to get a job like the rest of us. They have a right to indefinate gravy train because they made a choice to live in a flood plain? Sorry, but it is time for the train to pull out of the station.

by Member 25348569

They chose to live [b]below sea level[/b]. I can see why the Dutch grudgingly live below sea level as their country was about the size of Connecticut before they dammed up some bits of the North Sea but your country is HUGE. Why would you want to rebuild something that's going to get flooded again and again?

With a lot less than 250 billion dollars to spend you can put the displaced citizens ANYWHERE.

Bugger! I'm agreeing with you about politics. Something must be wrong.

:D

by stress junkie

If the d^mned politicians had any brains they would prevent any residences below sea level. I don't mind if they rebuild the business district but all homes, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other long term residences should be on high ground so that if the levies break again people will not have their homes flooded. The area below sea level that had been residencial could be used for any number of things. Manufacturing, parks, whatever. Just not residences.

But our fearless leaders are too d^mned stupid to make a change like this. They will put it back just the way it was. Idiots.

by old guy

good page. Yeah, but who is REALLY going to get most of that money in New Orleans???

by absolutely

How long does it take the recipients of any FEMA handout to contribute, through their labor, the amount of human labor-time they leech from the system?

by jdclyde

the "recipients" have no intention of putting in any labor-time. They are waiting for "the government" to tell them that their NEW fully funished homes have been build, and hand the keys over to them.

Labor-time. Your funny.

by tonythetiger

in their lifetime anyway, but it would sure be encouraging to at least see them try. It wouldn't seem like leeching then.

by maxwell edison

Every year, 1600 billion dollars are taken from the people who earned them, and given to people who did not earn them, under the guise of government social programs.

by danlm

I have been on the receiving end of social programs.
1). When my mother had almhienzer(I know, I butchered that). Social programs helped my brother take care of my mother in her own home through visiting nurse's once a week. And other programs like that. She ended up in a home prior to her death, but she spent a good deal of time in her own house due to the assistance they received.
2). I was on welfare at one time. No job, no unemployment. Food stamps, the whole 9 yards. I needed it then, and I got off when I could. But, again. At that time, it kept me fed.

I hate dead beats, and people that make a living on social programs. Just saying, there are times.

Dan

by jdclyde

but provided things went as you described, helping someone through a tough time is completely different than supporting generation after generation.

Safety nets are meant to catch you when you fall, not carry you. You were not carried.

by old guy

are for. There are a lot of people who need the temporary help as you did. The main difference being that you wanted to get back on your own two feet and take care of yourself. There are waaaay too many people, as Max is talking about that just rape the system. Not people like you who turn things around.

by tonythetiger

paid in for their entire working life, so I can't see how a reasonable person could begrudge them, and since you are on your feet you are paying back so again, no problem.

I would even be OK with college, to those kids who show an aptitude, being a taxpayer borne expense (an investment, actually... Those who go to college will generally make more money, and therefore pay more taxes during their careers).

by tig2

One of these days you and I will have to talk about social programme reform- from the perspective of the recipient.

The programme, as I always understood it, was there to porvide a helping hand to those in a bit of bad luck. If you want to read the long version, you'll find it here: http://tinyurl.com/ppmjc. Not really worth the read in my opinion.

I will never see anything wrong with a person using the programmes in place as long as they are used in the manner intended. It sounds to me that you did exactly that- as necessary, while necessary. The porblems today are that the programme that once helped you is probably closed to you now. That is a shame especially in light of what we are seeing in Texas and in Louisiana.

I have no problem suporting a social programme to help someone like yourself- normally self sufficient and for a short chapter, in need. I can validate that. What gets me and people like me ticked are the folks that play the system like a violin and profit from it. That is flatly wrong and should be called so. Instead we continually restrict these programmes in ways that make it impossible for the truly needy to get the short term assistance they need.

I agree completely. There's times.

Peace brother- you're good here.

P.S. Getting home health assistance for your Mom while she was being cared for at home is one of the few social programmes we have that works right. I'm just glad it is still available. It enables caregivers to BE caregivers thus reducing the time a chronically ill person requires skilled nursing care in a facility.

by maxwell edison

Let me ask you a simple question. (And trust me, it's asked with the best of intentions.) When you had no job and were receiving government assistance, if you had not received that assistance, would you have withered and died, or would you have found an alternative way to get by? You must answer this question honestly.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb, here, and suggest that you would have gotten by. I'll go out on a longer limb, and suggest you would have gotten by even better and/or faster! (See note below.)

Coupled with the fact that before the government gives anything to anyone, it has to first take it from someone else. Not only does it make life more difficult for the person from whom it's being taken, but it's contrary to the intended purpose of the United States government. James Madison, himself, suggested that nowhere in the Constitution was the authority for the government to take money from one citizen for the sole purpose of giving it to another.

[i]"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."[/i] -- James Madison

Therefore, not only is it the wrong thing to do for the wrong reason, but it's really not helping anybody; in fact, it's actually hurting people.

I believe that I actually have more faith in people than many of them have in themselves. If necessity is the mother of invention, which it is, then success is the offspring of believing. I could never look a person in the eye and tell him that he's too stupid, too ignorant, too helpless, or too anything to not be able to find a way to at least care for himself and his family. And unfortunately, that's exactly what people who espouse such government programs are saying.

Note: I've been unemployed a number of times, but only one of those times (which was the last time) was I eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the government. Previous to that one time, without receiving a dime from the government, I always managed to find a way to get by. If I can do it, anybody can do it. There's ALWAYS a way. When I did get laid-off from a "real job", one which made me eligible to receive unemployment, I only participated for a couple of weeks. It didn't take long for me to walk away from those people (both the cry-in-your-beer people I had to associate with and the government people who insisted I play their games), even though I could have collected for some time. I literally told one of the counselors to take his pittance of a check and shove it. (Yes, I really did.) I was "unemployed" for another nine months before I found the job I currently have. During that nine months, I made almost $20,000 (about $100 a day) by forcing myself to find an alternative (in this case, several alternatives), compared to the $100 a week the unemployment would have paid me. (By the way, I had a stay-at-home-wife at the time with a six month old baby, and she continued to stay home with him.)

P.S. Here's a prediction: There will be people who will find a reason to disagree with me, and their outcome would always reflect their belief -- they will have proved themselves right. On the other hand, there will be people who will find a reason to agree with me, and their outcome would also always reflect their belief -- they, too, will have proved themselves right. The former are "I'll believe it when I see it" type people. The latter are "I'll see it when I believe it" type people. Which kind of person are you? Which kind of person do you want to be?

by maxwell edison

Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.

I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it -- Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason that Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.

Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam.

James Madison's vision was later expressed by Rep. William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?

-- Dr. Walter E. Williams, George Mason Univversity

by stress junkie

Social programs are good as long as people don't make a career of them. Everybody has a time when their situation get tough. It helps everybody if people get assistance to get back on their feet. And it's humane. That's entirely different from people who spend more time learning how to cheat the system than they spent learning algebra in high school.

by danlm

At the time, I was still living around family. So, yes. I would have survived. I wouldn't have been living in my own place, but I would have survived.

With regard to my mother's assistance. What ever the government had to offer that I couldn't provide. My brother and I used it to make the last years of her life as bearable as possible.

In the end, she went to a home where the government paid for it. But her house was forfeited go the government, which I agree with by the way.

Now Max, would I survive? I don't know. I'm willing to work any job, not an issue. Shoot, I sold children cd's at the mall last christmas when I was out of work. Actually, I liked it. Quite honestly I considered changing career's cause I liked it so much. But, it was not enough to live by. If I hadn't retired early from my last job, and moved here with a insured income of 1200 a month. No, I really don't think I would have survived. Car would have been taken, wouldn't have made enough to pay the rent and utilities(Internet don't count), and I definitely wouldn't have been eating on a regular basis.

Max, understand something. I worked in the state building, 2 floors above welfare. I know users when I see them. People come in, trashed/hung over, wearing better cloths then me. To get their check. Those are the abusers, they don't deserve the spit I would like to use on them. Then there are people, you can tell. On their lunch hour, wearing their work uniforms. Mechanics, waitress's, shoot the people that take care of the elderly in homes. These are not high paying jobs, and if they have a family. They are maybe putting enough food on the table while they worry that nobody gets sick. Those are the people that I will give out of my own pocket to. They are working, they are contributing, but they need help. They don't live in mansions, they don't drive new cars, they work for a living. Probably more hours then me. And still can't survive.

And I didn't take anything you said the wrong way.

Dan

by danlm

My brother used the blind association to get my mother involved in various activities that he couldn't do. Even though he tried. A social program.

Besides a home nurse, there was someone that came once a week/twice a week? Who helped bath and do other things with my mom. Another social program.

I know my brother used everything he could when it came to the care of my mom.

This is hard to explain, but the point was. If we could utilize a social service, we did. And I don't feel guilty in the least bit for it. I don't feel we abused the system either, not in the least bit.

We also had a close knit group of family and friends who also assisted us in the care of my mom. But, I will be honest Max. I don't think my mother would have lasted as long as she did. Or been taken care of as well as she was, if social services weren't there.

God, its been awhile since I thought about this.

Dan

by tig2

I appreciate Max's views but I appreciate your position as well.

I know you. You have paid back every dime and continue to.

I am sorry that you think that you should have kept your mouth shut. I know that Max's intention is to help you to understand that you could have flown regardless. And that you could have seen something new in yourself.

Before the 3 Day, I felt that I had taken a boatload from everyone else. I had a rare opportunity to see what I could do on my own and recognise that it was MINE. My effort, my success.

Do I share that? YOU BET. Without people here- together and individually- I wouldn't have had the fight. I did the heavy lifting- you all were right behind me.

My position 3 years ago sucked. I got through it. Your position sucked too. You got through it. I am glad to know that there is a person in the world who benefitted without hanging forever on the taxes I paid.

Max and I may disagree on some of the nuances but we agree on the same principle- you find the finest stuff in you when you can keep going when all the chips are down against you.

Of all the people in the world, you have a place where you could be a voiciferous cry for all the "down-trodden" in the world. Instead you are a voice for change, a voice for being more. You understand that staying there could not be a life choice. You were able to come forward and be what you are meant to be.

I understand Max's position. But I understand yours as well. After all, I was looking for help too. I got to see a part of life that I don't appreciate today. But I got to see a part that I DO appreciate.

If there wasn't medical help at that time of my life, I would be dead now, or dying without hope. I'm still here because those programmes exist. I made it because I COULD.

Edit- typo

by jdclyde

how low would things have gotten? The deeper the hole, the longer to climb back out?

I am against abuse of the systems. I am not against someone getting a helping hand to get through a short term problem.

Right now the job market is horrible in Michigan. We have the highest unemployement in the country and thanks to all the union people voting democrat-no-matter-what, we are continuing to get WOREST, not better.

The only time we had a drop in the unemployement rate recently was because we had a lot of our work force leave the state to try to find jobs. Technically the rate went down, but that is because there were just less unemployeed people living here.

I have no idea if the Katrina "victims" that are in Michigan are counted in these figures.

I see my EX staying sadly underemployed for a long time.

by tonythetiger

[i]it's actually hurting people.[/i]

...are the people the government is afraid of and seek to control!

by absolutely

I know this is likely to seem confrontational, but that is not my purpose. While you were receiving government assistance, did you also seek any private source of assistance outside your family & personal acquaintances? The reason I ask is not to be sarcastic, but because there was once a time that private charities actually made a difference in society, helping people experiencing temporary bad luck. I blame government itself (meaning all of society, not recipients of government assistance) for obscuring and overshadowing the existence of private sources of financial assistance. The Great Depression was a tragic aberration, not a valid excuse for universal collectivism.

by tonythetiger

[i]but because there was once a time that private charities actually made a difference in society, helping people experiencing temporary bad luck.[/i]

In fact, they used to be the primary funders of such help!

[i]I blame government itself (meaning all of society, not recipients of government assistance) for obscuring and overshadowing the existence of private sources of financial assistance.[/i]

I think there are several contributors to this:

1. Since the government started taking money from us to do this, the taxpayers cannot be as charitable as they might otherwise be.

2. It used to be that a needy person would ask for help from the local people. They knew the person, knew what the problem was, and knew what was needed to fix it. Sometimes that was money, but most often not (If he's hungry and thirsty give him food and water. If he's cold and tired give him a warm blanket and a place to rest his head). They also knew when the person was either faking all along or got 'too comfortable' and they would cut the person off. Today the decision is made by applying the answers to a few questions into a hard-coded policy interpreted by someone who has no idea who this person is or what his real problem is (those who would scam the system simply know all the 'right' answers). And the 'answer' is invariably money (which is probably not the best answer for several situations I can think of).

3. The above is compounded by a couple of factors: First is the inneffiency of the system. A significant portion of the tax is taken by paying the government employees who collect the taxes their wages, then more is taken by the government employees who pass out the benefits. The result is that it costs us more to have the government do it than to just do it ourselves.
Secondly, a 'not insignificant number' of government employees have figured out they can scam the system too. Outright fraud is relatively rare, thankfully, but they know good and well that the conditions that exist are the source of their bread and butter, and that if they manage to significantly relieve these conditions, they would be, in effect, working themselves out of a job! Trying to deal with this factor has ruined or burned out many employees who started out genuinely wanting to make a difference.

I think the answer is to move back toward the old ways. We can start by putting the money under the control of more local government, and replacing the 'career government employees' who currently make these determinations (of what kind and how much help is needed) with locally elected people (similar in structure, function, and authority to 'school boards').

by jdclyde

First of all, just like all other MAJOR issues, if you SOLVE the problem, then you lose a issue to rally people around.
Why do you think Social Security has never been modified?
Why do you think Global warming/cooling/shifts is still not seriously addressed?
Why do you think Jackson/Sharpton and many of the Democrats (political, not everyday people) do everything they can to make sure racism is alive and well?

They need a platform. They need a crisis.

The same is with the "War on Poverty" that has only increased the amount of people living in poverty. A more accurate name would be "War FOR Poverty". Keep the poor people poor so that you can come along and save the day with "government". Just enough to keep people going, but not EVER enough to let them flourish. And then make sure there are programs in place that penalize people on the system for TRYING to improve their situation! Yeah, that is a real cute one. X-(

by tonythetiger

There's been a recent rash of metal thefts around here (I mean, stealing rolls of wire, tearing the gutters and aluminum siding off of houses, etc.) for their scrap value, which has increased of late. It invariable happens in the latter half of the month, and during the day. That the perpetrators are able-bodied is pretty obvious, as is the fact that these perpetrators don't have day jobs. It's better than even odds that they don't have night jobs either, else they'd be sleeping during the day. The fact that the thefts occurred in the latter part of the month seems to indicate that they ran out of whatever money they had, and were stealing as a way to get more.

I'm just waiting for someone to recommend a tax increase, used to pay these people more at the first of the month, so they won't steal at the end. It won't have anything to do with benevolence. They'll call it a [b]crime prevention program![/b]

by kevg

Are you talking about the American version of a billion or the European version?
One says its a Million Million and the other says its Hundred Thousand Million (1/10th less).

by techexec2

In Tony's post, a billion is 1,000,000,000, one thousand million (by quick computation).

But, by your post, I just learned something today. According to the links below, there are in fact two definitions of what a "billion" means. Currently, in most English-speaking countries (including USA and UK), a billion is 1,000,000,000 (one thousand million). In most other countries outside of Asia, a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million, this is the "old English" definition).

So, THANKS A LOT, for screwing up my use of the word "billion"! :-)

Billion definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

What is a billion?
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk

American vs. European Billion
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52579.html

P.S. So, it's better to be a "billionaire" in Germany than in the U.S., even better due to the exchange rate of Euros and U.S. Dollars! :-)

edit: Added P.S. and clarifications

by kiltie

a billion is defined differently, here is the definition:

Quote:
How many is a billion?
If you are American, it is undoubtedly 1,000,000,000. This amount is known to traditionally minded British people as `a thousand million', and by some more adventurous ones as a 'milliard', though this word has not made as much headway in English as in some other European languages. A trillion is then 1,000,000,000,000, and so on.

If you are British, on the other hand, a billion may be 1,000,000,000,000 (a million million), following the older convention.

If you are neither British nor American, you can take your pick! (Both systems were invented by the French, but are called 'British' and 'American' for convenience.)

Once the business world and the financial press found themselves discussing `thousand millions' so much, the 'American' system simply became more convenient, despite a certain lack of logical tidiness. (A 'British' trillion is the third power of a million, while the 'American' one is the fourth power of a thousand, and the 'American' system continues out of sync with the arithmetic). It also makes the profits sound bigger! The 'American' system is now standard use in British government publications, and is becoming the norm in many other languages
/unquote

source:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk

*** grin ***

Just wait until I can get on an american thread, there will be no stopping me, I have many things to say about how the US dominates the 'Net, the main thrust being how they assume everyone else on the WWW are US citizens!!!

WORLD WIDE WEB everyone, for God's sake

I once met a guy online, who thought the "Web" was Virginia, he couldn't understand how I, from Scotland, had gotten onto the Internet.
Straight up!!! not kidding.
Is this an example of a "Red Neck"? (he asks with tongue firmly planted in cheek)

PS
Half my family are American, and my fiancee (partner for life) is American

..... I'd love to jump on my soapbox about this ;-)

oh....
PS2
The above quote references the French, I can have a go at them too, since my first wife was French

*** grin ***

EDIT: In then time it took me to type this, TechExec dived in, with some good links too, nice one mf
(mf=international shorthand for "my friend" and NOT what some Americans think!!!)

besides, no really good post is complete without an "Edit".... ask NB!
*** wink ***

by techexec2

Thanks, mf (international version).

Now, if we can only get you folks to use the "correct" version of "billion", we won't have any more problems! :-) :^0

by tonythetiger

the one I was referring to is one thousand million, or 10^9. The other one is equivalent to the American trillion, one million million, or 10^12.

by mjwx

In my reckoning it's crime. If these people all of a sudden found them selves without welfare what would they do? Those people who do not wish to find a job (the type we are debating and in Australia make up the smallest percentage on welfare) would take the next easiest alternative.

Incidents of thievery, extortion, drug dealing would increase in number and severity (due to increased competition). Now I spent my school years up north (north of western Australia) and I've seen the worst of those on the gravy train (see: the fringe dweller problem). I can tell you I would much rather have them in a stupor from booze or sniffing petrol (a common problem the fringe dwellers suffer from) than looking for a a means to get their next, well I suppose you can call it a hit.

As I said, these are a minority in the extreme, an absolute tiny proportion. 60% of people on welfare are there temporarily (between jobs), 35% are infirm, retiree's, students or otherwise legitimately unemployable (including refugees and non English speakers) and the remaining 5% are "other". Welfare in this country exists to help people into employment, the majority of people on welfare. In fact if you are on welfare you have to look for 4 to 10 jobs a fortnight to receive it (you'll get cut off if you don?t) unless your studying or otherwise unemployable (infirm, retired, non English speaker). That last point I don?t disagree with at all.

If US statistics are drastically different (the majority of welfare claimer?s are not actively looking for work) that says something about the work ethic, an attitude problem exists, not a problem with the program. Cure the disease not the symptom.

Where I spent my first 7 years of life you couldn?t own a television (the year is 1982-89) as it would get stolen as soon as you left the house (Suburb Elizabeth West, city of Adelaide). Max you have never had to live in a place like this and I would sincerely whish that you stop criticising people you don?t understand at all, not all of them are the evil money grubbing monsters you make them out to be, very few are. Not every one gets a good start in life, and not everyone stays there (in a good start or a bad one).

Places similar to where I grew up are very small, and the extreme level of crime tends to stay centralized but if there were no alternatives, that area would be forced to expand, there is only so much to steal from the lowest income bracket.

I believe it when I see it, in addition to what I have seen (some of which is summarised above) there is what I can see, I can see more problems without welfare than we have with welfare.

I understand that you have not seen a lot of what I have seen nor can you see the problems I can and I don?t hold it against you. You sound (to me) like you were born with a silver spoon, I don?t mean this as a criticism merely an observation but take it how you wish. You should see how difficult it is for people trying to get out of poverty for yourself, to get the second side to your story. If you've lived in poverty before you'd be whistling a different tune.

Believe it when you see it Max, go and see it first hand prove me wrong.

by maxwell edison

In fact, that's a no-brainer.

I can point to 1964 as the time when run-away social programs got their start with President Johnson's infamous War on Poverty programs. So we can use that year as the benchmark.

From 1900 to 1960, poverty in the United States had been on a decline, going down in numbers (both percentages and total) every decade. After this "War on Poverty", the trend started to reverse. My point being, that the War on Poverty caused more poverty, not less. It caused more dependence, not less.

But that's beside the point, isn't it? You mentioned crime rates, didn't you? And I challenged that, didn't I?

Let's look at the crime index for the Unites States:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

There are numerous charts available from a variety of sources, but they all show the same thing. If you don't like mine, find another one. They will all show that from the early 60s all the way to the 1990s, the crime rate in the USA increased both steadily and dramatically.

In 1960, 15 percent of our federal budget went to social programs, while 65 percent went to defense. Today, 65 percent goes to social programs, while only 15 percent goes to defense. (The defense spending comparison is just a side-note.) The point being, that during the years social spending increased significantly, so did the crime rate. All one has to do is look at the years when there was less spending on social programs to see that your assertion is grossly incorrect. Less spending on social programs does not mean crime will increase, and the numbers bear that out. In fact, it could be argued that the exact opposite is true.

Now tell me, did you form your conclusion from real statistics that you researched, or did you just pull them out of your ......? No need to answer, as we all know what it is.

There ya' go. I proved you wrong, and not with speculation, but with verifiable facts. But I'm sure you won't admit it.

By the way, as an Australian, why in the heck do you want to debate me on what kind of social programs we should have in the United States? I'm amazed at how many of you "foreigners" (foreign to me, at least) jump into the fray concerning America's domestic policies, but I can't recall a single time when an American suggested to a Brit, a Canadian, or an Australian what they should do in their country. American foreign policy is something that you might have a vested interest in commenting on, but domestic issues such as this don't affect you one iota. It's an interesting phenomenon.

P.S. I have an answer to my last question.

by mjwx

A major problem in my nation (Australia) and from what I can see, in the US as well is lack of community. No one knows each other as our lives slip into animosity from one another. How many people do we meet on the street each day? Damn few in my opinion. We need to start being sociable, stop being loners only concerned with ourselves (there are times for selfishness, like when negotiating for a pay rise or price of a car). This is not a "think of the children" kind of rant but a more "hi bob (bob lives down the street) how was your day" kind of rant, isn?t worth giving each other the time of day. Isolationism to me is not the answer.

There will always be those who disagree with me, whom wish to live in isolaiton and I say let them be separate on their own. This is a better defence against terrorism than surveillance, torture and detention. Why would the government need to watch us when we communicate with each other, when Stan notices that a house down the street is being burgled he should call the police but alas this is not the case, stan would rather not bother with the lives of others.

Current social trends (not bothering with the lives of others) make it very easy for a hateful person to hide. What if others were trying to interact with them, truly hateful people would be much easier to detect.

I think I should be having this conversation with one of my neighbours not people half way around the world (Albeit you are a great bunch of people).

by Member 25348569

the "War on Terror" fit the recipe for a meaningless but emotive issue like your other examples?

Sureley even cuter than the "War on Poverty". :D

I won't even suggest that a better name would be the "War FOR Terror".

Oh, I just did...

by dmambo

Especially when you consider that the sea will still be towering over the city.

I mean, that's almost half of what it's costing us to depose a dictator opposed to Al Queda!!!!!

by ishron

Having lived in that part of the world for a few years and visited that fair city.. I can tell you that the whole thing is lower than the Mississippi River that flows by it. You can stand (drink in hand) on the river levee and see that the water in the rivver is about 10 feet higher than the ground on the other side. This is at any given time 7x24 365.

When the city was annexed as part of the Louisiana Purchase, there was some U.S. Army Scout that was in New Orleans to assess the acqusition for then President Thomaas Jefferson and reported that the place should be abandoned because bodies that were buried just floated back to the surface. This is why they use above ground crypts to entomb past loved ones. Not that it is a really cool way to keep loved ones around. Swimming Pools in New Orleans have to be anchored to moorings to keep them in the ground.

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was created, one of their first assignments was to build a levee system in New Orleans to protect the citizens from floods that happened regularly due to storms. There had already been a couple of large storms that had all but destroyed the city. When the CoE presented the quote for the work to the pre-Civil War Congress, the decision was made that this was too much and a cheaper alternative was agreed to. Thus began the legacy of cheaper alternatives to building a levee system that would withstand a Cat-5 Hurricane. Though the years, city, state, and federal governments have missed the opportunity to correct this problem.

Someone earlier discussed the Dutch levee system which is both effective and expensive. I guess if the cost of replacing New Orleans was as great as building comparable levees in New Orleans, maybe the governments would act. This is just a guess, not being a politician but an engineer leaves me at a loss for not understanding the need to properly mitigate the risks rather than find some compromise. There were many opportunities to protect New Orleans but all were too expensive. Of course none of these price tags approached $250 Billion. So, now motivate by the guilt of not doing anything, the U.S. Government will pay some subset of this amount and still not fix the problem.

OK, so being an engineer, this is just totally unfathonable. The U.S. Government is going to pour money into this sucking sink hole without building the proper protective levees to prevent a reoccurance of this loss. This is like having a plan to retore data after you have been hacked, your financial data stolen, and your hard drives flattened without fortifying your perimeter or even the host. And then the politicians will call it "all good."

We are all going to be reconciling our taxes next April. When I sign over that check for what I owe, I will have that warm feeling that comes from knowing that my government is putting money into New Orleans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other sucking sink holes where there are no real plans to do something lasting. These are all political compromises where there is not enough commitment to do the right thing. BTW-doing the right thing does not take 3 or 4 multi-billion dollar studies by other politicians to help those in office be confident and happy about their poor judgement.

OK-OK this is just another tirade.. thanks for the opportunity to vent my spleen. Flambe-away!

HKLU/Current Config/FingersOnKeys/RamblingTirade/
SoapBox=OFF

by jamesrl

I've gone back and forth on this one. As a student taking out loans and getting grants, I wished there had been more grants. And I'm sure in 6 years when my kids are old enough, I will feel the same.

But when I look at it dispassionately, I think that there should be some level of fees or payback to discourage people who are not "serious". You value something more when you pay for it. I do agree with some subsidies because it helps business and the individual, and the increased income taxes generated offset the cost.

I know in Canada, the government funds all universities to the point where the students pay about a quarter of the real costs.(Foreign students pay whats perceived to be the real cost). This is higher than it used to be, and there are fewer grants and therefore more students are taking loans. I agree with low interest and long term student loans. But free is a mistake, IMHO.

Those in UK, where it was/is free - opinions?

James

by tonythetiger

I had also thought about the possibility of creating "Career Students". But I really don't think they will be a significant problem... because someone who it too lazy to get up and go to work is probably going to also be too lazy to get up and go to school.

by maxwell edison

I've often said that terrorism is a tactic, not an entity against whom war is waged. I've also often said that this is one of the president's mistakes in identifying exactly what it is we're trying to do. That's one reason why I've adopted the war on Islamo-Fascism as a more accurate alternative.

I've often wondered what might have happened if, immediately after 9-11, the president would have asked our Congress for a formal declaration of war against every nation (or some nations) whose citizens were involved in any and all terrorist acts perpetrated against the United States since, for example, the first WTC bombing in 1993 -- including Iraq for the attempted assisination of former President Bush, their connection to that first WTC bombing, their support of terrorism tactics by paying a reward to the famlies of terrorists, and so on. The big stumbling block, of course, would be the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in that group of nations, even though they've publicly denounced and don't publicly support Osama bin Laden and other terrorist groups or their actions.

It would be an interesting declaration of war, to say the least, inasmuch as it would not necessarily mean an immediate initiation of hostilities against a country like Saudi Arabia, but compel them to publicly agree to, and sign some sort of agreement supporting the efforts to fight the Islamo-Fascists. In the case of that one country, it could have been a war declared and ended in a very short time without a shot being fired or diplomatic channels closed. Has anything like that ever happened that you know of?

In the case of Iran, Syria, or Pakistan, the declaration of war could be on the record, so to speak, with no start of hostilities in immediate sight, but it would have set the stage for any number of possible "next steps".

I haven't given this possible scenario a lot of thought, and I'm sure the repercussions would be significant (but so are the repercussions of the alternative that we did choose!), and I'm not doing much more than thinking out-loud. It probably wouldn't take too much from you (or someone else) to counter this argument with something more reasoned, and I would concede that it's a stupid idea. But who knows? Maybe not.

by rocket ride

Actually, a billion seconda ago, it was 1975, not 1959. And Jesus had been dead for a while. . .

A day is 86,400 seconds (mean tropical day, not siderial day), and year is about 365.249 mean tropical days, a year is therefore about 31,557,500 seconds long. Dividing 1 billion (1e9) by this yields about 31.668 years ago. Which would have been late in January of 1975.

A billion minutes ago, it was 60 times that far back-- the year 104 or 105 AD. By then, Jesus had been dead for the better part of a century. (By this point, I've rounded things off enough to not be able to claim the needed degree of precision to nail it down to a single year. Back-of-the-envelope calculation, don't you know.)

About Mary Landrieu-- typical lefty who never held an honest job in her life and consequently has no idea where money comes from. But you can't blame a girl for trying. . .
-- Paul

by eddie n

...you at least acknowledge your mistake. Imagine if you had been shown to have made a blunder and yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. Worse, you then accuse anyone who is showing your blunder to the world of being "disloyal" or "unpatriotic", and...well, you know where I'm going with this :)

The man who has a problem and admits that he has a problem, is more than halfway to finding a solution for that problem. But the man who has a problem, and has not yet come to the realization that he has a problem, and in fact fights tooth and nail against anyone who suggests that he has a problem...now THAT's a man with a HUGE problem :)

by eddie n

This is the problem with people copying and pasting date-dependent statistics like this. They often forget to put a postscript saying "Originally published in the year..."

I remember when this "a billion seconds ago" release first came out (and indeed it was in 1990) but I cannot recall who first put it out, whether it was from one of those old Mobil ads or from IBM. In any case, well spotted, sir!

by jfowler

On where you live.
In America, a "Billion" is one thousand million, in Britain, on the other hand, a "Billion" is considerably more ;>)
I just love muddying the waters !

by cajeffo

How much is a "Billion"?
It's just the tip of the iceburg. I've done more hard core researching. Put on your seatbelts. And, copy this for your friends, family coworkers & your kids. We had better start apologizing to our future generations for they will pay for this mess.

According to a speech in 2007 by America's #1 Accountant our National Defecit was equal to 70,000 x "A Billion". And, this was propr to the bailouts and other damages we suffered between May/2007 and Jan/2009.

Listen closely as our #1 Top Ranked Accounting officer (the Comptroller General of the United States) for the USA had to say as of mid 2007.

Official educational video From Dave Walker.
America's Financial Future (Part 1) ONLINE VIDEO www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ

America's Financial Future (Part 2) ONLINE VIDEO www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0Py

Main points ? As of May 2007 our National Deficit was above $60 Trillion. An average household with 2 parents working couldn't afford their fair share of the National Deficit. It would be like making a mortgage payment on a $750,000.00 Mortgage (On top of what they already owe).
Dave Walker said [in May 2007]: we must change our path because by 2030 America won?t be able to make an interest payment on the national deficit. If this happens The USA is B.R. ... & ... We won?t have the right to stop other countries from collecting that debt.

REMEMBER * This was prior to the $14 Trillion Dollars of bail-outs in 2008. .... Now how soon will it be?

National Debt - It's an accounting trick - If you accounted for the Social Security surplus, Bill Clinton was still helping us get into more debt. Bill Clinton benefited immensely from the raising of payroll taxes by his predecessor. But that was supposed to be saved rather than spent by congress.
10-11 trillion is another accounting trick. Accounting for future unfunded liabilities, net worth of the government is negative 56 trillion.

ORIGINAL AUTHER "How much is a billion?" ~ Dave Walker: youtube.com/watch?v=um0guhNGPPM

More about Dave Walker: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
As of 2008 David currently speaking through this group www.pgpf.org

ALSO see this:
www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521&hl=en

This kind of debt can enslave our society.
This is astounding and infuriating. Why isn't this in the papers & on the news? Read on.

WHY ARE WE BANKRUPT? Check out these facts:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? It's chicken scratch compared to this.

We've all heard the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

The following 14 reasons are a "partial list" our government is hiding from the public. The URL's for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at:
tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. Verify at:
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at:
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! Verify at:
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. Verify at:
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC RI PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' Verify at:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin. Verify at:
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm >

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at: darksideofillegalimmigration.com

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!

Most of our government is treasouns but most American's haven't realized it.

Congress is aware of this video library of short educational videos:
MUST SEE: www.IllegalImmigrationCrisis.com

MORE RESEARCH FACTS COME FROM THESE SITES:
MUST SEE: www.NumbersUSA.com/index
MUST SEE: DarkSideOfIllegalImmigration.com
MUST SEE: www.PaperWeapons.net
MUST SEE: www.OperationBodyCount.com
MUST SEE: www.VOIAC.COM
MUST SEE: www.newnation.org/NNN-news-invasion.html

SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS IMMEDIATLY!!!!!
WE MUST make this the #1 item for our next election "if" we have a chance to vote Obama out of office.

GODSPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This discussion is closed to new replies.