Ah... Yes. I should have said, "If $20 of stock was purchased, and other $40 was on order"...
Forgive. And I would say, "$60 has been risked"...
Astounding $9.7 TRILLION risked on bailouts!
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
Forgive. And I would say, "$60 has been risked"...
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep it was the BIG Drudge headline this morning.
This:
"U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes"
Is the title of the article, and the title of Dano's thread reiterates that title, which reiterates the first sentence of the article:
The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
"U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes"
Is the title of the article, and the title of Dano's thread reiterates that title, which reiterates the first sentence of the article:
The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
The headline is misleading. The thread title is misleading and the first sentence is correct.
I'm not defending Dano, I'm talking about grammar. I don't care what the article says (at this moment), I do care about grammar.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
None of them are "misleading" they are simplified versions of the article. They are rather accurate considering some titles I have read for articles in the past.
And none of that matters to the post you jumped to defend Watermark on. Spent is not the same think as risked, which is in fact an accurate synonym for 'insured' as he was using it.
I am, only when somebody tries to "correct" somebody but are wrong to begin with.frickin grammar nazi!
But in simplifying they state something that is not accurate. All they had to do was drop a "to" in there but they didn't. I assume it didn't fit.
Further, the headline is more accurate than the title of the post. The title of the post is flat wrong.
Edit: I wasn't defending H20. I was making an independent observation.
Again, that is simply a ridiculous opinion based on what you want it to say.
US Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
Change it to "an astounding" 9.7, drop "as Senate Votes" and assume "US Taxpayers" and it is simply repeating the title of the article in different words.
The title of the article is repeating the first sentence of the Article, shortened a bit.
Your objection is how it gets people to read the article, it is an effective title because it does just that.
The bolded portion is the problem, as is changing the tense of the verb "risk" to risked.
"As the Senate votes" serves to place the events in the future making that statement "US taxpayers risk $9.7 trillion" somewhat accurate.
Changing it the way Dano did renders the title of the post misleading.
Finally, the first sentence of the article is accurate and is very different from what Dano posted:
I'm content to leave this discussion wherever you want to take it with the last word since it is abundantly clear that I am correct.
IMO, not only are you incorrect, you are picking partisan nits. It's simply a title. However, it is an accurate one, it is, as all good titles of articles are, repeated and fleshed out in the article. The problem you have is the truth sounds like we are risking much, and you don't like to see that.
Picking partisan nits? No. Being a grammar nazi? Yes.
And, since you seem interested, I agree that we have risked too much on the bailouts but I think we are not "risking" (not even sure that is at all accurate) enough on the stimulus.
Nah, the assumed is what you miss in your "nazi" attempt that makes it all fail. Often in Titles assumed knowledge as well as subject exists, because they know that you will get that knowledge from the article...
We all know that Congress is voting on this, and to do that one better the author "informs" how he reaches his conclusions. (Of course we don't even know if the author chose the title, often they don't get to). We know that it is "ordered" and that past participles are the correct tense therefore. You are now upset that it gives people the impression that we are "risking" a lot and fear that it will make people afraid to "risk" more.
We began this by my telling Watermark that Dano clearly did understand the difference between "spent" and "insured" because of the use of "risk" rather than "spend", you started in on how the "tense" was "wrong", but it has been explained why it isn't. Now we are finally getting to the meat.
You fear we will be unwilling to go far enough if people start understanding the amount we risk to buy an uncertain result and object to the title, not because it is grammatically incorrect (it isn't) but because it presents an opinion that you fear too many will find alluring and therefore we will not "risk" even more in the future...
1. If the stimulus bill has not been approved yet, and it hasn't, then it hasn't been "risked." This is very simple stuff. Further, even after the Senate votes it will not have been risked (see how I properly use the past participle to talk about future events) until the conference bill is voted on. The article gets it right. You get it wrong.
2. My position (on grammar and on the merits of the stimulus and bailouts) is independent of this particular piece. I have exactly zero fear that too many will find if alluring (?) and cetera.
1. Rubbish. It has been explained why it is rubbish. Refusal to acknowledge that we are risking what they are currently voting on, thus "have risked" fits, is only because you want it to be so, not an objection to grammar usage. The stock was ordered, even though we can still cancel it it has been risked... This is on the table, it is at risk, and thus is a portion of what the US Taxpayer has risked.
2. I believe that your only objection to the title flows from your assumption that it "misinforms", and it is because of this your objection flows. That you want to desperately reflect away from the fact that we risk even more than we are currently spending.
1. "To risk" is appropriate. "Risked" is not.
2. Really? I think when we're talking in terms of 8 trillion or 9 trillion the degrees of magnitude obscure any real differences. We just come away with the sense that its a shit-ton of money.
3. You should really refrain from speculating about people's motives. You aren't very good at it.
4. I believe you are reflexively defending Dano's poor grammar because he has pictures of you in a compromising position.
1. Risked is accurate, and explained ad infitum.
2. True. Yet you still tell me that we need to "risk" far more, and such a position is put at risk (very alliterative this is) because people believe we have risked too much already.
3. Yet you continue to try to get people to say it your way, because (as you said earlier) it was not "precise" enough for you. I can only speculate as to why "preciseness" in your specific way is important. Whether you think I am "good at it" or not, I believe that I am right even so. It is my opinion, acting otherwise would be a bit confusing.
4. I believe you are attempting to reverse speculation in a silly way to deflect from the accuracy of my previous speculation. You don't like the fact that people reading the article may later refuse to "risk" more and fear that it will "doom" us to the "catastrophe" the current administration has been saying is on the way.
I think you have fallen for something, if it had been done by Bush, you would have decried as fear mongering. And that your answer will be the same as it would be from the Rs if the positions were reversed, "saying the truth is not fear mongering"... I also believe that the only difference is the person in the WH. It's fun to watch and quite amazing.