A reader sent me this gem earlier today:
Bob is apparently a mathemagician, because he certainly works wonders with decimal points. The amount in question is .58% there, slugger, not .0058%. When you slap that percentage sign on the end, you have to move the decimal place two to the right. File that one away for future reference.
It's a good thing that Bob is the GOP's 1st District Vice-Chair and not its treasurer or they could have some real problems.
But the best part is how Bob completely undermines his own argument. In this case, .58% is nearly $350 million. But Bob speaks about that $350 million as though it's $3.50. If his attitude is "hell, why should anyone change their vote over $350 million in savings?" then perhaps we should assume he'd be just as cavalier if the GOP decided to spend $350 million more.
After all, it's just ".0058%" right?
From: robert geason [SMTP:BOB46JACKIE40@XXXXXXXXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:45:57 AM
To: Rep.Ott; Rep.Kramer; Rep.Davis; Rep.Owens; Rep.Meyer; Rep.LeMahieu; Rep.Kaufert; Rep.Pridemore; Rep.Friske; Rep.Hahn; Rep.Lasee; Rep.Bies; Rep.Tauchen; Rep.Hines; Rep.Stone; Rep.Fitzgerald; Rep.Mursau; Rep.Wood; Rep.Petrowski; Rep.OttJ; Rep.Ballweg; Rep.Kleefisch; Rep.Townsend; Rep.Murtha; Rep.Nygren; Rep.Van Roy; Rep.Petersen; Rep.Rhoades; Rep.Vukmir; Rep.Nerison; Rep.Gundrum; Rep.Gottlieb; Rep.Honadel; Rep.WilliamsM
Subject: Where's the Differance
Where's the Difference
Gov's original bloated budget including all bonding and spending 60,346,104,400. That's just over 60 BILLION. The budget to be voted on 59,998,013,100. A fraction under 60 BILLION.
That figures out to 00.0058% difference. And some of you will vote yes on this budget because??
Bob
Bob is apparently a mathemagician, because he certainly works wonders with decimal points. The amount in question is .58% there, slugger, not .0058%. When you slap that percentage sign on the end, you have to move the decimal place two to the right. File that one away for future reference.
It's a good thing that Bob is the GOP's 1st District Vice-Chair and not its treasurer or they could have some real problems.
But the best part is how Bob completely undermines his own argument. In this case, .58% is nearly $350 million. But Bob speaks about that $350 million as though it's $3.50. If his attitude is "hell, why should anyone change their vote over $350 million in savings?" then perhaps we should assume he'd be just as cavalier if the GOP decided to spend $350 million more.
After all, it's just ".0058%" right?
2 comments:
How about Frank Lasee? Endless mindless ideological rambling is possibly my favorite part about the Wisconsin state legislature. I thought I had accidentally clicked over to rush or o'reilly. Tell me Playground Supervisor, do you count as part of the left-ist media? I think Frank has a brain-drain, and I still swear that he wanted to arm teachers so he could use them to fight in his war on lawyers.
It doesn't have anything to do with the post here, but I find very interesting the rumor that Greg Bump reported that Decker is now challenging Robson for Majority Leader. And of course the wingnut blogs want Huebsch gone too, but that's an entirely different story.
If true, and if this succeeds, I wonder who takes Decker's seat on JFC and who moves up to JFC co-chair (not that it matters much anymore till next session.) I guess chair would almost have to be Hansen or Jauch, and the open seat is a mystery.
Post a Comment