Skip to main content

Rick Perry has a problem with numbers

Texas Governor Rick Perry seems to have a problem with numbers. Remember what happened during the Republican Primaries in the last general election cycle? The following exchange occurred during one such debate:

Perry: "It's three agencies of agencies of government when I get there that are gone - Commerce, Education, and the um, what's the third one there? Let's see. Oh five - Commerce, Education and the um, um."

Romney: "The Environmental Protection Agency?"

Perry: "EPA, there you go."

After taking back his statement about the EPA, the lovely discussion continued:

CNBC moderator John Harwood: "But you can't name the third one?"

Perry: "The third agency of government I would do away with - the education, the uh, the commerce and let's see. I can't the third one. I can't. Sorry. Oops."


Then this past Sunday on Meet the Press, Perry told host David Gregory that, "I'm really worried about those 90 million people that are out of work."

To say that number is accurate would be like to say the name Newt is sexy. The April jobs report showed that there are currently 9.8 million whom are unemployed. So, let's break down these numbers, shall we?

Unemployed
Rick Perry's claim: 90 million

The actual number: 9.8 million (10.9% of 90 million)

Difference: 80.2 million (89.1% off)

Rick Perry's likely response: "Oops."


Not only was Rick Perry wrong with his claim, he was 89.1% off with it. That would be like if he made the following such statements:

- "There are 458 or 459 states in the United States of America."

- "When I learned a touchdown was worth 64 or 65 points, I was shocked, I tell you!"

- "We've had, what now, 403 or 404 presidents in this country?"

- "The 3-point basket in basketball is worth something like 27 or 28 points, I think."

- "The freezing temperature in Fahrenheit is something like 293 or 294 degrees."

Yeah - oops indeed...

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/05/perry-misleads-on-jobs/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"