How many zeros in a billion?

[geetrue]

This is one of those pass it on emails ... it was full of interesting facts.

So I edited the names out and passed it on:

How many zeros in a billion?

This is too true to be funny.

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 it's 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 askingCongressfor

250 BILLION DOLLARS

to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number...

what does it mean?
A.

Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and 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.Washington, D.C


Hello! Are all your calculators broken??


Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)!
Li quor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage ChargeTax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Don't even get me started on government. It's all I can do right now to refrain from posting a 2000 word rant in all caps.

But I'm okay.

[Platapus]

Government in America is like the weather

Everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Government in America is like the weather

Everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it.


Then Libertarians are the weather control machine in development.

Check us out at http://www.lp.org/ or look up the address for your state's Libertarian Party website.:up:

[Platapus]

Government in America is like the weather

Everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it.

But unlike the weather, one could do something about it :)


My point exactly :up:

[mrbeast]

Hmmm......I wonder how many zeros are in a trillion?:hmm:

....or maybe several?

The Iraq war has proved far more costly than the US government thought when it went to war five years ago.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the direct costs of the war on terror, which include operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have so far have reached $752bn, if the current year's appropriation of $188bn is included.

A study by the Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Linda Bilmes, a budget expert from Harvard, concludes the cost could be at least $3 trillion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm

who knows, there might be a bit of change left over for New Orleans. :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

But unlike the weather, one could do something about it :)
Well this day in age we could do something about the weather too. An example is farmers seeding clouds. Only problem with this is, you tick off the farmers further inland. Again no one is happy unless what you are controlling is out of control.

-S

[geetrue]

It was reported that 9/11 cost this nation over one trillion dollars ...

How much did the USA save taking the battle where it belongs?

Seven years next week and no more attacks on US soil proves something.

[Chad]

In my opinion no amount of money is enough to protect our lives.

[mrbeast]

It was reported that 9/11 cost this nation over one trillion dollars ...

How much did the USA save taking the battle where it belongs?

So why attack Iraq then? It had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed little enough threat to its neighbours nevermind the US. I'd say the US (and the UK too) has squandered more money than you could literally count on a war which has acheived precious little.

Seven years next week and no more attacks on US soil proves something.

Proves about as much as me saying the 'my laptop keeps burglars away. I've had it 3 years and not one burglar in all that time!'

[Digital_Trucker]

Proves about as much as me saying the 'my laptop keeps burglars away. I've had it 3 years and not one burglar in all that time!'
That's got to be undoubtedly the weakest analogy I've seen in my life. Laptops and burglary have absolutely nothing to do with each other (unless a laptop is stolen in a burglary). Think of a better one, Beasty:D

Edit : Perhaps when someone plows an airliner into the Queen's Palace, you'll understand the sentiment.

Edit 2 : It's real easy to sit back years afterward and find fault in someone else's actions. I'm sure that everyone who thinks that attacking Sadaam (it was, after all Sadaam that we attacked, not the people of Iraq) was the wrong thing to do felt the same way then that they do now http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b173/digital_trucker/Smilies/sarcasm.gif

[Digital_Trucker]

Proves about as much as me saying the 'my laptop keeps burglars away. I've had it 3 years and not one burglar in all that time!'
...Laptops and burglary have absolutely nothing to do with each other...
That's precisely why the analogy is relevant here, re-read it :up:

I read it the first time, sir:up: The two analogies, IMHO, are not the same, but that's just my opinion.

[Digital_Trucker]

OK, so attacking Sadaam has absolutely no effect whatsoever on terrorism, correct?

[Digital_Trucker]

... correct?
I'm affraid not :-?

and?:hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

So, on the one hand, you are saying that the attack on Sadaam had an effect on terrorism, yet it didn't effect terrorism in the US? It only affected terrorism in Iraq?

[Digital_Trucker]

Why would attacking Iraq have any effect on terrorism in the US ? For one to effect the other they would need to be linked in first place.
So the only terrorists in Iraq are the ones that were there to begin with? You believe that no money and effort have been diverted to activities in Iraq from outside sources that might otherwise have been used against the US or other parts of the world if we had left Sadaam and his baby-raping sons and his (believed to be have existed) WMDs (which we know NOW to be false) alone?

Edit : I can agree that the "effect" wasn't exactly what any one of us would have wished for in any of these situations.

[Platapus]

...everyone can agree that terrorists are better off killing Iraqis than US or European citizens.


Well everyone but the Iraqis that is. I think they might have a different view point.

[Digital_Trucker]

The statement was made that there is no correlation between the lack of terrorist activity in the US and the attack on Sadaam. I tried to show that there was a correlation, albeit not a good one and one that wasn't present at the time of the attack.

Now you've taken this beyond anything I said and tried to say that I think this is a good thing. I don't think the results of the attack have been a good thing (other than ridding the world of a scumbag or two, i.e. Sodom and his bouncing baby boys). It's not all black and white. Once again, the point I was debating was only the inaccuracy of the statement that the two are not related at this juncture in time. If you want to debate any other point, you'll have to debate it with yourselves.

[geetrue]

When we read the transcripts of what nation told Bin Laden to cool it, after 911, then we can figure out if Bush was right in sending so many troops to Iraq.

Besides this thread is about taxes and the large numbers they represent.

Fair enough :know:

[Digital_Trucker]

The sarcasm was a bit harsh but your post was kinda badly worded.
Regardless, I still fail to see how Iraq is/was related to terrorism on US soil. The invasion of Iraq has awaken inter confessional terrorism, the people being killed over there are largely Iraqi civilians. Why would terrorism aimed at the US be diverted in killing Iraqi people ?
As for getting rid of a scumbag, sure thing, but quite ironic to refer to it to justify the Iraq mess when you consider that the best Arab ally of the US is the magic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Your opinion, you're entitled to it. You will never see the point I was trying to make because everything is set in stone. I never said terrorism aimed at the US was diverted to killing Iraqi people, I said it is POSSIBLE that assets of terrorism that might otherwise have been aimed at US citizens in the US are now aimed at locations other than the US. I never tried to justify the Iraq mess, refer to previous sentences as to my point. I never mentioned the magic kindgdom nor did I try to justify anything. I tried to debate one point, I thought I was pretty specific in my last post what that point was and I'm damn sure I'm being as specific as possible in this one. That's as simple as I can make it for you.

[Digital_Trucker]

Allright, I'm a dumbf-uck. So, it's possible that assets of terrorism that may have been aimed at the US could be instead used in Iraq. Is that all ? :D
Yep, that was it in a nutshell :yep:Except the dumbf-uck part:D, I'd never want to be quoted as saying anyone was that for having a point of view, no matter how outrageous it is/isn't. Might debate the point 'till hell freezes over, but that's a different matter.

[Digital_Trucker]

I've had it 3 years and not one burglar in all that time!"
'til hell freezes over you said ? :rotfl::D
Yep, and it's starting to snow:rotfl:There is absolutely no possible correlation between having a laptop and no burglaries (opening this up for debate:D), there is a possible correlation between the amount of terrorism in the US and the results of the attack in Iraq, so his analogy is still weak. In mathematical terms, if there is a 0% chance of one hypothesis being true and a 3% chance of another hypothesis being true, considering the two hypotheses to be identical is an obvious error. Zero simply is not equal to three. If he had said "that's almost kinda like..........." then this entire debate wouldn't have occurred. But he wouldn't have said that because it wouldn't "prove" his point. OK, hell just froze over, so I'm done:|\\

[Digital_Trucker]

So what percentage would you set it at, Mikhayl? You said there was a possibility, right? Name a percentage that indicates a possibility and also equals zero.;)

[UnderseaLcpl]

That's right :D So, this mail is rubbish, especially the lines "each home gets xxxxxxx$$". Ain't there any roads, bridges, power lines, phone lines, well any sort of infrastructure that don't belong to one particular individual in New Orleans ? 250 billions sure seems too much, but if the only argument against it is a string of poor lies then what else is there to say ? ;)

Back on track :know:

This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. I hope you're joking. Even if you are I'll write this anyway, in the hopes that some liberals might read it, rather than just skipping past it because they know everything.

Let's start with the idea that this money all goes to infrastructure. Some of that is necessary. But the social welfare programs, foreign aid, block grants military expenditures and so on that are quite uneccesary are legion. Social security alone accounts for around 10% of all federal tax revenue expenditure, and for what? A pathetic excuse for a retirement system that provides only a meagre allowance to beneficiaries. Since virtually all social security dependents never collect all the money they "invested" before they die, one must wonder how it can become such a crushing strain on the budget.
If you believe tax money in the U.S. (and France) is well-spent, you are sadly mistaken.


Of course, one needs a government to collect taxes and build infrastructure (to some degree) so one cannot do away with the economic burden of a government entirely. But, it is wise to limit governments power in a realms as much as possible, particularly in the realm of economics.

Time and time again, command economies, even limited command economies, fail.
Consider India, one of the most populous nations on earth, with a generous supply of natural resources, and yet the general living standard remains poor.
Why? Becuase their economic freedom is limited and their governments spends heavily. It is not profitable to run a business in India. And before anyone says anything like "why do American companies outsource there?" it is because the country is so poor and the currency so worthless and the labor so cheap, that it cheaper for wealthy nations to outsource some labor there.

Compare India to Hong Kong, one of the most prosperous places in the world. Hong Kong has a higher population density and no resources to speak of. It is a wealthy, modern financial center. This is because of the economic freedom in Hong Kong.

Low taxes are a part of economic freedom. By increasing the rate of return an entrepeneur or investor recieves on a business through lower overhead costs, trade and investment are encouraged. Trade and investment make wealth. Period.
Yes, it is that simple.

On to other matters,the parallels between the decline of the British Empire and the state of the U.S. over the past half-century are disturbing.
Uneccesary wars, exorbitant government spending, maintaing a worldwide military presence. All these things contributed to the collapse of the British Empire via astronomical government debts.
In attempting to seek a military solution to the problem of increasing German economic power (Cold War? China?) the British government bankrupted itself, and Empires cost money.

Of course the examples go much farther than that.

Top ten PPP GNP per capita countries in world$

Luxembourg ... $61,610
United States ... $39,820
Norway ... $38,680
Switzerland ... $35,660
Ireland ... $32,930
Iceland ... $32,370
Austria ... $31,800
Denmark ... $31,770
Hong Kong ... $31,560
Belgium ... $31,530Yes, Norway has a significant government presence in the private sector. But in Norway, the nationalized petroleum industry accounts for nearly half the country's exports. It's easy to be prosperous when you have that kind of natural wealth, and it detracts significantly from the tax burden the country would otherwise have. Also of particular note is that while Statoil owns the petroleum industry, private firms have been awarded drilling and production rights.

Denmark is another notable exception to the rule that economic freedom produces prosperity. With one of the world's highest tax rates, at around 50%, it still faces a debt of over 440 billion dollars. Although it exports petroleum, most of its' economy is service-based.
Remarkeable how well the country has done when one does not consider how large its' public debt is compared to its' GDP of around 215 billion. Look for a fiscal conservative takeover in the next decade or so, or economic collapse. Belgium went the same way in many respects before right-wing economic reforms were introduced.

I'm not going to the list the top ten poorest countries because they have other problems that could be said to cause their hopeless financial situations and poor citizenry, but they are all command economies.


Time and again I hear the same argument from leftists who say that if we just had the "right plan" or "the right people", government would work.
And I say to them "Where are you going to find these people? How are you going to ensure that only the right people remain in power? How do you ensure they do not become corrupt?"

History is full of political ideologies that, no matter how well-intended, eventually destroyed their nations.

The only solution to the shortcomings of government is to have as little of it as possible.
Why trade a wealthy elite for a wealthy political elite?
Why trade a market in which consumers have the power for what is basically a fiat-system in which only a few have the power?
And most of all, why do leftists think they know what's best for everybody and we're going to do it whether we like it or not?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm not sure you're answering my post, even though your reply is interesting :D I didn't adress any of your points, just highlighted that saying "each resident of New Orleans gets XX.XXX dollars" is a shameful lie. It would be healthier to criticise the spending the way you do it for example than by serving some stupid lies that eventually defeat the point when they're debunked, even though the point in itself is valid.

As far as tax money, government size and so on, there's also some sort of cultural aspect to it.
In France most big improvements in the people life were made by the left or the communist party, from the revolution (liberty, equality, fraternity), to the great strikes that eventually led to more "human" working conditions, to the mostly leftist resistance during WWII that created the mostly free healthcare system, there's plenty to think about. Now, would I be leftist if I were born American ? Probably not, if I were a US citizen now I would most likely be libertarian.
But I'm a foreigner and all I care about regarding US government is the foreign policy, I wouldn't dare say the dems or the repubs' domestic policy is good or not for you guys and I don't care that much, it's your business not mine :D


Well, we can certainly agree on U.S. Foreign policy. I would very much like us to leave everyone else alone. :up:

We could probably compromise on the concept of leftist. It means different things in different places, depending upon the current state of the local political spectrum, as I'm sure you are aware. Also it depends upon one is talking specifically about moral, social, or economic values. Saying that you value a "mostly free" healthcare system would be an economic leftist comment in the U.S.
It isn't free, or even mostly free or halfway free or even 10% free. It is all payed for by someone. French someones.
Could people not purchase superior healthcare if their money did not have to be funneled through several beauracracies before it was returned to them in the form of healthcare?

Dirigisme, had some major effects on France, yes? And ultimately it was abandoned. Why subscribe to that school of thought to any major degree?

I can't speak with any experience on France's specific economic structure, even though it adheres to some universal traits. Despite having one of the largest economies in the world, France is not on the above list.
Translation: Franch people do not benefit from French prosperity as much as they could.

Since we are talking about two different countries, I will not continue to impose my perspective upon you.
I think France would be better off with a more free economy, but it's your country, not mine.

I think we can generally agree here, no?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I was writing a boring piece of junk-text, but in short I'm not against a free market, if it's really free, but I would still like services like health care and retirement provided by the government, with freedom for everyone to get his own private complementary fund.

Very well, but please take heed of the deplorable job the U.S. government has done at providing such things, despite the ridiculous costs of these ventures. An example of how not to do it, if you must do it at all.


France's economy IMO is a mess not because of socialism nor capitalism, it's a mess because of gross ties between our industrials and politics. Our so called "right" is creating more taxes than any previous government, favouring their friends and so forth. That French right is actually scared sh!tless of a free market.


That doesn't sound much different from the Republican party here, IMO. Business seeks political advantage as well as market advantage through them. The only solution I see is to make government so impotent and transparent that it cannot do anything to much to aid them. Competition, in as pure a form as we can manage, should be the goal in the U.S. Choice is power. Direct as it can be. Even with our current conundrum with the Federal government, there remains a great deal of freedom in choosing what (U.S.) state one moves to and the policies of all states differ. Hence, conservative states have prospered, while liberal states have suffered. The most marked example is California, bankrupted and disgraced, and those citizens who can afford to move but cannot afford not to move have flocked to other states for years.

I don't remember who said "with socialism you have nationalized profit and nationalized loss, with capitalism you get private profit and nationalized loss".

That's only true if a government-industrial complex manifests itself. Since one cannot regulate private industry, being so integral to the economic health of the nation, one must regulate government, so that it cannot aid, abet, or harm business without direct public consent.


Well of course there's much more to it than that, but that's better talked about around a table with some beers :D


Shame that an ocean seperates us, it would be a good discussion:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm sure it would, with the beer helping we may even not end throwing shoes at each other :rotfl: Maybe one day at another subsim meet, if ever I can afford it :lol:

If you lived in America you could afford it:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Shame on me for making a joke at the expense of France:oops: