what does a trillion bucks look like???

namvet

Active member
ever wonder if you could see it???

[URL="http://www.ptm.org/uni/resources/ptmupdate/032309/conclusion.html"]a trillion[/URL]

ATT00032.jpg


atrillion
 
If you want an organization that's epic on waste, look no further than the military. There has to be more efficient ways to run it but apparently that's not as sexy as an F-22.
 
Only after 187 were made at $130 Million a copy. Thats $24.3 Billion only for the cost of aircraft.
 
pfff....pocket change!

My girlfriend spent about twice that amount on her usual saturday shopping spree... And she doesn't leave any pocket change at all! Perhaps I should cancel her credit card (or better yet, my credit card she uses ;)
 
Ya want that money back?
Quit giving handouts of foreign aid to countries who take the money and line their pockets with it. or the ones that want us all dead.
 
I can't believe that the USAF is retiring 250 fighter aircraft, canceled the F-22 program, and the F-35 is going to be a huge cluster f#ck. I think instead of this "wonderful" bailout we could have spent that money on the USAF and DoD and still had money left over for other projects and programs.

Hell..... instead of bailing out banks and car companies. Why not simply spend a trillion dollars and divide it up amongst the US populace. That would jump start the economy. With a current population of 308,699,000 people... one trillion dollars would be $3,239.41 per person.

Now that's per person. Every man, woman, and child in the USA. Let's do it so only those that contribute to the Federal Income Tax get's a chunk of the change. Thus a much larger amount would go to every tax payer.

So if you work and pay taxes.... you get money. There is a estimated 138 million working tax payers in the country. So one trillion dollars per working tax payer would be $7,246.38. That's a good chunk of change per person instead of that crappy $400 they did back in '09.
 
And by not bailing out those companies (believe me, I am not to crazy about it either), the collapse of the American economy (and therefore the world economy too) would have been quite probable. Even if you gave everyone $10,000, it will not mean much if it costs $1,000 to get a loaf of bread.
But for the sake of the argument (in a very unrealistic scenario) lets say that the value of the American dollar stayed exactly the same after not bailing out the companies. Do you honestly believe that individuals with $10,000 can actually start up useful and profitable businesses that can create jobs that pay money that a person can raise a family with?
Very, VERY unlikely. So who is likely to be able to create those jobs? People who have enough money to do it anyway. So why even give out money at all in terms of rescuing the economy?
Oh, and we have not even covered the fact that banks will be very reluctant to give out loans or credit. Try running a real business without credit.
So in your point of view, everything should have been left alone?

Oh and here is one that you might not like: Lets say that there was no global collapse but what simply happened was the American dollar became depreciated BIG time (that would actually be the least that would happen in the event of no bail out), that would mean that relative to everything abroad, everything in America would be cheaper, very much like how if you went to a poor country, US$5 would go much further there than in Florida. The survivors of the recession or depression would be in need of money that is actually worth something. The only way to really go about this is to sell to foreign buyers. So foreign companies will own many major American companies in their entirity or own large branches of them among other things. American industry has a powerful lobbying power in the US government, if the American industry were to be mostly foreign owned, it means that a large portion of this lobby will be foreign.
 
Last edited:
Spot on 13th. Whilst unappealing and instinctually wrong, the bail out was necessary to try and preserve the wealth that everyone has - although the impact was felt most severly amongst the working and middle class.

My gut is that the whole recession has really only just got started. It was begun by over extension in the domestic mortgage market, but now will spread to the commercial mortgage market. I've heard and read several articles which show that there are lots of loans coming due on malls etc, where the landlord is going to default and the bank take a huge hit, I hope it ain't so, but I'm a firm believer in Murphy and his immutable laws. So I'm getting below the horizon and digging in for a long, hard ride.
 
This whole thing started back in the 70's when the banks lobbied congress to remove the restrictions that were placed on banks after the great depression. after they got what they wanted a mortgage company could make a load called sub prime to anybody weather or not they could afford it/ and the stock market people started gambling on weather or not you would default on your home loan.
That complicated by the fact that all those mortages with teaser rates weer made and almost all of them ballooned at once. when I got my house I was offered one of two loan on one of two houses loan opne was 7.5% fixed rate 30 year with a payment due in full each month on a 51,000 house, I took that loan, the second was on a house that was 250,000, but since teh monthly payment would be too high for me to afford they would make it to where it was a variable rate mortgage and all I had to pay the first 10 years was the interest, sounds good right? thank GOD I read the fine print, anybody who took that type of loan now has a house that they no linger live in with a monthly payment they can no longer afford, when a bank owns a house they lose money, one or two is ok, not 30 million crashed the housing market.
 
I think a trillion dollars looks like Congress' bank and big corp bailout plan.
Actually now the total amount of bailout money given out is 3.1 trillion. 700 billion from Bush's borked bailout, 900 billion from Obama's botched bailout, and another 1.5 trillion from Obama's other doomed to fail bailout.

Just because we live in a capitalist society doesn't mean you can solve all your problems by throwing a pile of money at them. Although, it is a nice start.

Rather, we should have watched those banks and the housing business more closely. Every now and then, the number of idiotic decisions in wall street done by equally idiotic business men reaches critical mass and crashes the economy.
 
Last edited:
Actually now the total amount of bailout money given out is 3.1 trillion. 700 billion from Bush's borked bailout, 900 billion from Obama's botched bailout, and another 1.5 trillion from Obama's other doomed to fail bailout.

You could probably case that it could have been handled better but considering how relatively stable things are right now, I wouldn't call the bailout a botched bailout.
Have you seen a country where the banks failed and there was very limited money for bailout? I have. The IMF was called in to help with the bailout and they made demands that ultimately took down the government. In this case, it was probably a good thing because it was a corrupt dictatorship that was eventually weakened to the point of being overthrown (forced to resign but essentially the same thing).
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publish/papers/wp2003/wp-econ-2003-05.pdf
But imagine that happened in the US and there was no cavalry to help.
If there was no bailout in Indonesia in any shape or form, the crisis there would have become more severe, it may not have been able to stay as one country and may have even become a failed state with a few pockets of stable areas running autonomously.
Although I doubt the US would have turned into a failed State, life right now might be very different (for the worse) had it not been for the bail out.
 
You could probably case that it could have been handled better but considering how relatively stable things are right now, I wouldn't call the bailout a botched bailout.
Have you seen a country where the banks failed and there was very limited money for bailout? I have. The IMF was called in to help with the bailout and they made demands that ultimately took down the government. In this case, it was probably a good thing because it was a corrupt dictatorship that was eventually weakened to the point of being overthrown (forced to resign but essentially the same thing).
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publish/papers/wp2003/wp-econ-2003-05.pdf
But imagine that happened in the US and there was no cavalry to help.
If there was no bailout in Indonesia in any shape or form, the crisis there would have become more severe, it may not have been able to stay as one country and may have even become a failed state with a few pockets of stable areas running autonomously.
Although I doubt the US would have turned into a failed State, life right now might be very different (for the worse) had it not been for the bail out.
I see your point. Perhaps the bailouts worked, though it apparently took 3 of them to prevent things from slipping too far.
 
Actually now the total amount of bailout money given out is 3.1 trillion. 700 billion from Bush's borked bailout, 900 billion from Obama's botched bailout, and another 1.5 trillion from Obama's other doomed to fail bailout.

Just because we live in a capitalist society doesn't you can solve all your problems by throwing a pile of money at them. Although, it is a nice start.
.

And yet if they threw that much money at ME, I'd tell them exactly how and what to do to fix their problem. My plan would work too :) Its just too complicated to post on here before my go crazy from hearing the keys go click click click
 
Back
Top