billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
- 140
- Thread starter
- #581
HE'S JUST TRYING TO DAZZLE YOU WITH NUMBERS THAT HASN'T ANY BASES TO THE DEBT HERESo you feel that 300% and 188% are 'exactly the same'?
ROFLMNAO!
Go figure...
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Oh my God.
Look, if you have $100, and you increase that by 50%...
I don't think we're going to take a math lesson from someone who 'feels' that 188% and 300% are "exactly the same".
And FTR: There will also be no lessons of any kind, tolerated from relativists who can't get their "feelings' around 'cause and effect'.
This is not "feelings." This is real math. How can you be so opinionated on the debt and the deficit and not know how percentages work? Look:
An increase of 100% in a quantity means that the final amount is 200%of the initial amount (100% of initial + 100% of increase = 200% of initial); in other words, the quantity has doubled. An increase of 800%means the final amount is 9 times the original (100% + 800% = 900% = 9 times as large).
This is from the percentage page on Wikipedia.
Find the percent of increase from 5 to 10.
Amount of increase is 10 − 5 = 5
Original amount is 5
5 / 5 = 1
multiply 1 by one hundred to get the answer as a percent
1 × 100 = 100, so the answer is 100%.
This is from Percent of increase. If you increase something by 200%, it is now 300% of what it was. The original value is not represented in the first percentage, but it is in the second. Do you see?
ROFLMNAO! Good Lord...
Class, no matter how one adds it, 188% is NOT 'Exactly the same' as 300%.
You can do your own math or accept my assurance. But no matter which way ya go, it is never going to add up to obama being PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for spending more money in deficit in 6 years than every president in the HISTORY of the Unites States spent. Not for the Cult. They're wholly detached from any sense of reality.
obama spent more in deficit in six YEARS than the US spent fighting every war we've fought from WW1 to THE PRESENT! And that is in 2011 dollars.
You're wrong.
If something was 100 and now is 200... then one can say it is now 100% bigger or you can say it was 50% smaller. If it took 10 years for that thing to go from 100 to 200 and it went by even increments of 10... then one can say the percent of increase reduced each year... or you could say the amount of increase was constant... If it took 1 year for that thing to go from 100 to 200 then was flat you could say ignore that fact and take credit for the increase 9 years in a row. If the thing went to 400 then back down to 200 you could still say it's 100% bigger than it was by ignoring the fact that's it's 50% lower than it's high, or you could say it got to 400% higher under the first guy then only 200% higher under the second guy thus you lost 200%.. but that would be funny math.