Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

(90,061 posts)

7. $553 billion is not 59% of $1.34 trillion.

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:47 AM

May 2012

Just saying, that sort of thing doesn't help the argument being made.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 OP

Far too many chervilant May 2012 #2

No better to time re-evaluate the costs of war. Chris Hayes DirkGently May 2012 #3

knr, bookmarked and thank you eom. chknltl May 2012 #4

I think that graph actually understates the case. Jim Lane May 2012 #6

$553 billion is not 59% of $1.34 trillion. bemildred May 2012 #7

Good point- I just did the calculation WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 #8

Self-deleting WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 #9