13 ways to spend a trillion dollars

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • andywend
    SBR MVP
    • 05-20-07
    • 4805

    #1
    13 ways to spend a trillion dollars
    Over the past 9 months of this NIGHTMARE Barack Obama administration, the federal government has spent 1 TRILLION DOLLARS more than it took in (added 1 TRILLION to our country's deficit). This is actually an IMPROVEMENT over last year under Obama.

    How does Barack Obama and congressional democrats respond to this mind numbing figure? They pass the unemployment bill extending payments to the unemployed beyond the 99 weeks they have already collected.

    The ONLY THING democrats know how to do is spend money they don't have and give it away to people who are NOT entitled to it.

    This is what happens when our country elects an affirmative action president.

    13 better ways to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS:

    $1 Trillion Would Buy ...


    ©Courtesy VW

    40,816,326 New Cars
    The 2010 Volkswagen Jetta TDI wins Kiplinger's Best in Class honors for cars in the $20,000-to-$25,000 price range. At a sticker price of $24,500 each, $1 trillion would let you drive away with a fleet of Jettas equivalent to 30% of all the cars already on U.S. highways. (The total U.S. car fleet is more than 135 million, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, excluding trucks and SUVs.)
    5,574,136 Typical American Homes
    According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median price for existing single-family homes in May was $179,400. There are about 80 million detached, single-family homes in the U.S., according to the NAR and the Census Bureau.
    140 Billion Hours of Labor
    That's calculated at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Still hard to get your mind around? How about this: One trillion dollars is enough to hire all 2.8 million residents of the state of Kansas -- men, women and children -- in full-time, minimum-wage jobs for the next 23 years.

    A Year's Salary for 14.7 Million Teachers
    According to the National Education Association, the average teacher salary in the state of California is about $68,000. The total number of teachers working in the U.S. was estimated at 6.2 million ten years ago, according to the 2000 U.S. Census (the last official estimate). So $1 trillion would pay Golden State salaries to more than twice that number of teachers.
    The Annual Salaries of All 535 Members of Congress for the Next 10,742 Years
    The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is $174,000. We're not even counting the extras paid to congressional leaders.
    The Star Power of LeBron James for the Next 50,000 Years
    A lot of numbers are being thrown around about just how much the basketball superstar will be paid for playing for the Miami Heat. But let's say it's just $20 million a year. At that rate, $1 trillion would cover the tab for King James for the next 50 millennia. Heck, King Tut was born less than four millennia ago.
    1.33 Trillion Chocolate Bars
    Got a hankering for something sweet? A sweet $1 trillion will buy you that many 1.55-ounce Hershey's Milk Chocolate bars at 75 cents apiece. That's 64 million tons of chocolate, equivalent to the weight of more than 150,000 Boeing 747-400s.
    1,333 Celebrity Divorce Settlements
    It's been widely reported that Tiger Woods may pay $750 million to settle the divorce with his wife, Elin Nordegren. Some commentators say that's a wild exaggeration, and that a mere $100 million will facilitate the split. But let's assume the worst (for Tiger). If it costs $750,000,000 to end his marriage, a trillion dollars would cover plenty more tabloid breakups.
    A Guaranteed $6.3 Billion Payout for a 65-Year-Old Man Each Year for the Rest of His Life
    or
    A Guaranteed $5.8 Billion for a 65-Year-Old Woman Each Year for the Rest of Her Life.
    With the demise of the company pension plan -- and its wonderful promise of regular checks in retirement -- immediate-payout annuities are garnering more and more attention. These investments let you trade a lump sum for a guaranteed stream of income for the rest of your life. Even at today's record-low interest rates (the lower the interest rate, the more expensive it is to buy future income), $1 trillion earns its way -- and then some. Because women live longer than men, on average, $1 trillion would buy a 65-year-old woman a little less. But having $5.8 billion a year to fall back on is nothing to sneeze at.


    ©Image Source/AGEFotostock

    A One-Year CD Yielding $15.5 Billion in Interest
    Everyone knows that interest rates on bank accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit are ludicrously low. But even at just 1.55% -- the best rate we could find recently -- $1 trillion socked away in a one-year CD would still yield a handsome return.
    Annual Base Pay for 59.5 Million U.S. Army Privates
    Basic pay for an active-duty U.S. Army private with less than two years of experience is $16,794 a year. So $1 trillion goes a mighty long way, even by military spending standards. To put that in perspective, 59.5 million privates is more than 100 times the total number of active-duty soldiers in the Army today.
    Replace Annual Incomes for 19.2 Million American Families</B>
    Median household income in the U.S. (half the families earn more, half earn less) was $52,029 in 2008, according to the Bureau of the Census. At that level, $1 trillion would be enough to cover the incomes of a sizable percentage of total U.S. family households. There are no recent official estimates, but the 2000 U.S. Census figured there were about 71.8 million family households.
    Pay the Estate Taxes for 2,222 Billionaires
    Let's assume that, as we expect, Congress reinstates the federal estate tax retroactively to January 1, 2010, with a $3.5 million exemption and a rate of 45%. And assume that the late George Steinbrenner's taxable estate is $1 billion. The tax bill would be almost $450 million. That $1 trillion would be enough to cover the estate taxes of a lot more billionaires who might die before Congress acts.
  • golfrulz
    SBR MVP
    • 02-02-10
    • 2425

    #2
    and one trillion wasted on a war...based on lies... that has cost thousands of american lives over in iraq....get a grip.
    Comment
    • golfrulz
      SBR MVP
      • 02-02-10
      • 2425

      #3
      nice copy n paste from the kiplinger report lol
      Comment
      • The fiddler
        SBR Wise Guy
        • 01-27-10
        • 554

        #4
        OP...you do understand that Bush did the same thing in 2008, right? what is your point again?

        Comment
        • andywend
          SBR MVP
          • 05-20-07
          • 4805

          #5
          Once again, we have an Obama worshipper in Golfrulz who can't defend what his president is doing and has no choice but to deflect the conversation in a different direction away from Obama by bringing up something that took place almost 10 years ago.

          Obama wasting TRILLIONS of dollars and his flock respond by saying "well Bush did this and Bush did that".

          PATHETIC, PATHETIC DEMOCRATS!!!!

          BTW, I challenge you to provide even one link from a neutral source that says Bush directly lied about Iraq.

          For the record, I disagreed with Bush's nation-building and I disagree with Obama's as well. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and use all the money that is being spent to protect our country from within with the first item being investigating every single Muslim living in the U.S. to ensure they are not part of any Islamic terrorist networks.

          France has allowed radical Muslims to infect their country and the same thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless we take drastic measures.
          Comment
          • andywend
            SBR MVP
            • 05-20-07
            • 4805

            #6
            OP...you do understand that Bush did the same thing in 2008, right? what is your point again
            Fiddler, I openly admit that Bush was guilty of the same overspending but in much smaller numbers. Also, the democrats had full control of congress in 2008 and they filled every single spending measure with pork from top to bottom and Bush had no choice but to go along with it.

            If you do an honest, politically neutral analysis of how much our country has spent when the democrats control congress as opposed to republicans, you will see a clear and distinct pattern of congressional democrats constantly adding to our country's deficit.

            Fiddler, you'll probably respond back about the 2001-2006 republican controlled congress overspending and you would be right. They were a terrible disappointment and got the punishment they deserved when they lost power in 2006.

            Dating back 100 years, the democrats have always done far more damage to our country when they control congress as opposed to controlling the White House. What our country needs is a democratic president and a republican controlled congress and it needs to remain this way until our country gets the deficit under control.

            When its a democratic president and a republican controlled congress, very little socialist pork gets added to spending bills and thus less money is spent which is why the Clinton administration ended with a surplus while the Bush administraton ended with such large deficits.
            Comment
            • The fiddler
              SBR Wise Guy
              • 01-27-10
              • 554

              #7
              Originally posted by andywend
              Fiddler, I openly admit that Bush was guilty of the same overspending but in much smaller numbers. Also, the democrats had full control of congress in 2008 and they filled every single spending measure with pork from top to bottom and Bush had no choice but to go along with it.
              The numbers were not that much smaller than Obama's expendorama. Secondly, don't blame the Congress for spending. If the pres. doesn't like it, all he has to do is veto it...and tell them to be responsible with the nect proposal.

              If you do an honest, politically neutral analysis of how much our country has spent when the democrats control congress as opposed to republicans, you will see a clear and distinct pattern of congressional democrats constantly adding to our country's deficit.
              See above...the president holds the hammer on all discretionary spending. He has the final say...so he gets the blame...as he should. Doesn't like the pork? Veto it or no dice. That's what he's supposed to do.

              And before you tell me that the Congress can override the veto and get their slobber spending bill through anyhow, well...you need to know that over the history of the US...only 4% of all vetoes were ever overridden by Congress.

              Fiddler, you'll probably respond back about the 2001-2006 republican controlled congress overspending and you would be right. They were a terrible disappointment and got the punishment they deserved when they lost power in 2006.
              IMO, they were thrown out for a myriad of reasons...not just there over spending. People had had enough of Bush's act, and the democrats took advantage.

              Dating back 100 years, the democrats have always done far more damage to our country when they control congress as opposed to controlling the White House. What our country needs is a democratic president and a republican controlled congress and it needs to remain this way until our country gets the deficit under control.
              I will give you some credit here as many agree with what you say. But unfortunately, I don't see this scenario as a slam dunk either. Newt's Congress was fsically responsible I concur. But it helped that Clinton was fiscally responsible as well. Secondly, Slick Willey was the beneficiary of the dot com bubble of the nineties and all the windfall tax revenues that helped balance the budget.

              When its a democratic president and a republican controlled congress, very little socialist pork gets added to spending bills and thus less money is spent which is why the Clinton administration ended with a surplus while the Bush administraton ended with such large deficits.
              Again I agree to a point, but I think that the combo of Newt and Slick Willy had more to do with excessive revenues generated by the dot com boom.

              I will check my own link above, and then take a look at the federal spending during that period.

              BTW...I might vote for Newt in 2 years for pres. The reason? I like most of his views, and he recently stated that Afghanistan is a losing proposition.
              Comment
              • andywend
                SBR MVP
                • 05-20-07
                • 4805

                #8
                While I have to check on this, aren't the democrats the ones who continue to object to giving the president the power of the "line item veto".
                The numbers were not that much smaller than Obama's expendorama. Secondly, don't blame the Congress for spending. If the pres. doesn't like it, all he has to do is veto it...and tell them to be responsible with the nect proposal.
                Obama is spending at a rate of over 2X that of Bush. The numbers aren't even close.

                Until the president is granted the power of the "line item veto", congress deserves the vast majority of the blame when it comes to overspending. Do some research as to what the democratic congress did during the last 2 years of the Bush administration.

                EVERY SINGLE BILL that congress sent to President Bush was filled with liberal democratic social pork spending.

                If you want to blame Bush for the first 6 years, then have at it as you won't get any objections from me. However, the last 2 years of the Bush administration and all of the deficit spending that occurred falls squarely on the shoulders of congressional democrats.

                Now lets talk about the first 18 months of the Obama administration with democratic filibuster proof majorities in both the house and senate. You can't possibly blame republicans for the MASSIVE WASTEFUL SPENDING that has occurred as they have ABSOLUTELY NO POWER to stop any of it.

                Its time for all the liberal democrats who blasted Bush for his reckless spending to now do the same now that one of their own is doing the EXACT SAME THING but on a much bigger scale.

                Its time for liberal democrats to step up to the plate and join the tea party in protest of Barack Obama's WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

                Prove to the world that you aren't hypocrites. It was wrong for Bush to overspend and its equally as wrong now that Obama is doing so.
                Comment
                • Emily_Haines
                  SBR Posting Legend
                  • 04-14-09
                  • 15847

                  #9
                  Obama has spent a lot of money to tryong to repair the immense damage that GWB had caused and you know what he only has spent about half as much as GWB did during his last term which would put the spending on par with him. However unlike the Bush clown Obama has stated that next year there are going to be massive cuts while tax revenue will be higher. It's what you GOP trash like to do is use current projections to claim gloom and doom when that simply is not the case.
                  Comment
                  • golfrulz
                    SBR MVP
                    • 02-02-10
                    • 2425

                    #10
                    [quote=andywend;5587511]

                    For the record, I disagreed with Bush's nation-building and I disagree with Obama's as well. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and use all the money that is being spent to protect our country from within with the first item being investigating every single Muslim living in the U.S. to ensure they are not part of any Islamic terrorist networks.

                    agree with getting out of the middle east BUT you just showed your ignorance once again with.......
                    the first item being investigating every single Muslim living in the U.S. to ensure they are not part of any Islamic terrorist networks....omfg another kkk/nazi.....that alone would be costly...intrusive and a clear violation of human rights......how in the hell do you formulate these extremist positions? not enough hugs as a child?
                    Comment
                    • golfrulz
                      SBR MVP
                      • 02-02-10
                      • 2425

                      #11
                      here ya go andywad.......http://liesofbush.com/iraq-Lies.shtml
                      Comment
                      • brooks85
                        SBR Aristocracy
                        • 01-05-09
                        • 44644

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Emily_Haines
                        Obama has spent a lot of money to trying to repair the immense damage that GWB had caused and you know what he only has spent about half as much as GWB did during his last term which would put the spending on par with him. However unlike the Bush clown Obama has stated that next year there are going to be massive cuts while tax revenue will be higher. It's what you GOP trash like to do is use current projections to claim gloom and doom when that simply is not the case.


                        you are an idiot for typing that first sentence and believing that second one
                        Comment
                        • DwightShrute
                          SBR Aristocracy
                          • 01-17-09
                          • 101238

                          #13
                          ...
                          Comment
                          • The fiddler
                            SBR Wise Guy
                            • 01-27-10
                            • 554

                            #14
                            Originally posted by andywend
                            While I have to check on this, aren't the democrats the ones who continue to object to giving the president the power of the "line item veto".Obama is spending at a rate of over 2X that of Bush. The numbers aren't even close.
                            I'm gonna tell you one last time there com padre. Don't make asinine statements that you cannot back up. Don't do it. Again...don't do it.

                            If you want to rail on Obama's spending that's fine. I don't like it either. But here are the facts,...

                            Obama's first budget was 3.6 trillion. Bush's last budget was 3.2 trillion. Do the math.

                            Here is the list of spending....at the top of the page, you can hit the scroll down menu to compare the yearly spending.

                            I like debating you....and you do know some shit. But come on man...get the numbers right.

                            Comment
                            Search
                            Collapse
                            SBR Contests
                            Collapse
                            Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                            Collapse
                            Working...