Viper1 on 16 July 2009
superchunk said:
ok, and my figure was over 3.3 million.... so even if you doubled the 3% to 6% thus nearly 7m you still have barely reached the same amount of both stimulus packages and I still feel it would have been far more productive use of the money with far less risk. It would have obviously directly helped those in the most need as well. |
"This 3% is more than triple the less than 1% change over the last year of homes lost."
But according to your quote ^ the figure is less than 1 percent, not 3%. Why did your originally say it was less than 1% of homes and why now are you saying it is over 6% of homes?
The rEVOLution is not being televised
