Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

01 Mar 2009, 11:27 pm

Obama has proposed spending a Trillion.

Many people think a Trillion is lot of money. And I guess it is if you are spending it on one person. But for the entire United States, a trillion is that much, not even peanuts.

How little is a trillion:

It is less than 12 cents a day per person in America for everyday of their life assuming there is not inflation and no change in the the population.


Do the math.

1,000,000,000,000
Divide by the number of people

300,000,000 = 3,334
Divide that by the number of years in a life span
80.

= 41.67

Divide by the number of days in a year:

365= 11.5 cents a year.

Even I can spring for 11.5 cents a day. I mean come'on.

So that number does not scare me. Now, 10 trillion might. But not one or two trillion.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

01 Mar 2009, 11:33 pm

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

02 Mar 2009, 1:02 am

twoshots wrote:
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.


I think it will take real money to turn around the economy.



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

02 Mar 2009, 1:08 pm

idahoaspie, i was rough at you on the political debate, you got an interesting point here. i like to do a little "visual experiment" from time to time, and this seems like a good time:

Whats a THOUSAND?
This is:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

one thousand X'es.
just to have seen a thousand, now you got a point of reference.
a trillion is a billion times those above, so a trillion, in itself is still a pretty big number :D

a thousand on the other hand, not that much at all.



The_Cucumber
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 514

02 Mar 2009, 3:07 pm

The problem isn't so much that the money isn't there, it's that we are paying for it with borrowed money. Currently the U.S. government is about 11 trillion dollars in the red and a sizable portion of our tax dollars are going to paying the interest on that debt. Should this trend continue for the next few decades, the U.S. government will be forced to default on the debt triggering a rapid collapse of our economy either through hyperinflation (because the government supports itself by printing money) or though crippling tax increases.

This isn't just Obama's fault (I voted for him), it's the fault of how Washington DC has done business for over half a century. They fail to understand that any debt incurred must to paid in full at the earliest possible moment, preferably before they are forced by a crises to deficit spend again. They need to look past the next election and decades into the future.


_________________
The improbable goal: Fear nothing, hate nothing, and let nothing anger you.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

02 Mar 2009, 3:13 pm

IdahoAspie wrote:
twoshots wrote:
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.


I think it will take real money to turn around the economy.


Just real money, or real money spent correctly? I would not define "spent correctly" as "giving money to those institutions who have shown the greatest talent for losing it."

But hey, that's just me. You may have a different opinion.



ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

03 Mar 2009, 4:59 am

Or by printed money, I presume?



Legato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 822

03 Mar 2009, 7:07 am

The_Cucumber wrote:
This isn't just Obama's fault


This is in no way Obama's fault. He didn't write or pass the legislation. And if you follow George Washington's method, vetoing is only reserved for those times when Congress attempts to pass something unconstitutional, so we cannot blame Obama for not vetoing it either. If one doesn't like what's happening, Obama is the last person one should blame -- blame the congressmen and women.



history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

04 Mar 2009, 8:49 pm

That reminds me of a kickass book I had as a kid called "How much is a million?"


_________________
X


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2009, 9:08 pm

The average lifespan is not 80 years. Last I checked it was 70-something. Then take into account the fact that most people are unproductive for large portions of their life (ie about the first 20 years and maybe the last 20), and a fair number of people are unemployed or disabled. A more accurate count would be to put it in reference to the typical worker's earnings. Of course, we are already simplifying greatly by assuming that the burden of the costs are evenly distributed.

I just don't think these kind of number games are really useful or give an accurate perspective on how much money we're pissing away.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

04 Mar 2009, 9:12 pm

Orwell wrote:
The average lifespan is not 80 years. Last I checked it was 70-something. Then take into account the fact that most people are unproductive for large portions of their life (ie about the first 20 years and maybe the last 20), and a fair number of people are unemployed or disabled. A more accurate count would be to put it in reference to the typical worker's earnings. Of course, we are already simplifying greatly by assuming that the burden of the costs are evenly distributed.

I just don't think these kind of number games are really useful or give an accurate perspective on how much money we're pissing away.


Not only that, but the average lifespans of males and females tends to differ.


_________________
X


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

04 Mar 2009, 9:14 pm

...And for a white woman, the average lifespan is around or even over 80 I think.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2009, 9:24 pm

twoshots wrote:
...And for a white woman, the average lifespan is around or even over 80 I think.

In the US, life expectancy for a woman is about 81, for a man about 75. This is for babies born in the year 2008 (according to CIA World Factbook). Those of us already born (say, in the late 80s like myself) would not have that same life expectancy, so to say 80 years as the typical lifespan is disingenuous. And lifespan alone is a stupid measure to use here, as I already said.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Mar 2009, 9:35 pm

10^12 $ /303,824,640 persons = 3291.37 $/person.

When is it that I'm suppose to get this free money? :P



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

04 Mar 2009, 9:42 pm

I know I'm gonna mess this up, but
I think a dollar bill is about .02" thick (correct me if I'm wrong)

1,666,666,666 (and 2/3rd...repeats ad infinitum)
26,304 miles high stack o' onesies...;)

but I've never been good at math...;)



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

05 Mar 2009, 3:29 am

Orwell wrote:
twoshots wrote:
...And for a white woman, the average lifespan is around or even over 80 I think.

In the US, life expectancy for a woman is about 81, for a man about 75. This is for babies born in the year 2008 (according to CIA World Factbook). Those of us already born (say, in the late 80s like myself) would not have that same life expectancy, so to say 80 years as the typical lifespan is disingenuous. And lifespan alone is a stupid measure to use here, as I already said.


Well, even if your lifespan is only 75 instead of 80, that is that still only a about 12.5 cents per person per day.

I think using the lifetime span to pay it off is accurate because that is how long we have to pay it off.