What does $1 Trillion dollars look like?Follow

Yeah, even as a greeny hippy ***** pinko commie socialist disabled whale I think that money is good, and that investments, dividends and interest are even better.

Never said money was a bad thing, I was more implying to just hitting the reset button on the global economy. And while waiting for the reboot in safe mode, I will trade my chicken for your biscuit.

And I have killer chickens, they lay golden eggs.

He didn't say that it wasn't real until he takes the money out and then stacks it up on pallets. It's "real" the moment you exchange one thing for another. Until then, it's just a number on a price tag.

When we spend money that is in short supply on things, the lessened value of the money being spent (taxed out of the economy or printed outright) becomes "real". That's the point. The second point is that this sort of spending would be insane if we *weren't* in the midst of a financial crisis. It's doubly so now.

The third (and main point) is that we can debate about what caused the financial problems, but there is no debate over who is responsible for the dollar cost for the money being spent in Washington right now. Inheriting a problem does not give you a license to do whatever you damn well please without taking responsibility. I just think that excuse wore thin about a month ago...

One could also argue for the tax revenue that will not be made this year as a direct result of the crash. And don't even try to argue that potential income doesn't matter; after all, it's all just numbers, right?

We understand that you still cling to your failed economic ideology, but if you could at least put one foot in the real world long enough to recognize (like most accredited economists do) that spending is really the only way out of this, then you'd be a lot happier in the long run. Particularly as the stimulus (or stimuli) works, and reality slaps you hard in the face yet again.

...or the value of my home, or the income lost by the millions of newly unemployed folk.

Let's be fair here though. The meltdown itself didn't cost us a dollar.

False.


It's the "fixes" that are costing so much money.

False.


We can debate which things are necessary and all that, but let's not ignore that the decision to spend money is made "now".


False.


Unless you're arguing that the decision to spend the most recent 800ish Billion dollars on stimulus was made by anyone other than the people currently sitting in office? Cause that would be a neat trick for Republicans to continue writing legislation two years after they lost control of both houses and for Bush to continue to hold veto power even though he's not president anymore...


There was no "decision". There is no other plausible option. None. Zero. Zilch. This is why the GOP can't offer one. No one can.


Obama didn't inherit the spending he and the Dems are doing right now, so let's not push that little cart too far up the hill, shall we?

Oh, heavens, no. Why, he's been in office almost 10 weeks now, plenty of time to unravel the economic clusterfuck I told you was coming for years, and explained how and why.

Here's the reality: The actions taken now may, in fact, not work. If that's the case, it's unlikely to be because the wrong actions were taken. If you provide the worlds greatest physician with a corpse, his inability to resurrect it doesn't reflect poorly on his medical skills.

When you can offer any sort of conceivable alternate action that could have been taken, let me know. Until then, stop wasting everyone's time. If the health care stuff somehow magically passes and even vaguely resembles the intended plan, and that fails, let me know. If Cap and Trade passes (hahaha, right) and that fails, let me know. Assigning responsibility for *required reactionary decisions with no other options available* is partisan hackery at its most ludicrous.

Smash? Allow me to refute your arguments.

That would be a refreshing change of pace. It's only been 6 years since the last time.