One of the (oh so many) bad things that came out of the Obama Years was that the word “trillion” (as in, “this will lead to a national debt of x trillion”) became normalized, in the way that after WWII, the word billion became a substitute for million in government-speak. (I remember the rueful joke made in the early years of the Obama presidency, when the deficit and debt skyrocketed: “What comes after a trillion?” “Whatever it is, just don’t tell Obama.”)
So never mind the devaluation of the currency — an equal, and possibly worse devaluation occurred in political discourse.
Thus, when we learn that the fanciful dreams suggested policies of the radical Left will cost a hundred trillion dollars, we are somehow less alarmed because a “hundred” of something — anything — doesn’t sound like much.
And because Leftists (whether socialists, communists, Democrats, whatever) have a fairly cavalier attitude towards money (AOC: “We’ll just create more!” — like that’s a simple exercise), this escalation of the quantity of money and the accompanying devaluation of the terminology just becomes another means whereby they can disguise the true effect (and intent) of whatever nonsense they dream up next.
This works especially well with two groups:
- the extremely wealthy, who may be quite cognizant of the concept of vast sums of money being wasted, but who are sheltered from the consequences of political- and economic excesses by their own personal fortunes; and
- the very poor, for whom the purchase of a secondhand car or a modest house is about the limit of their concept of money, and who can therefore be fooled into accepting whatever large sums are bandied about both because they can’t comprehend it and because they won’t have to pay it.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that both groups are core constituencies of the Socialist Party, here and elsewhere.
It is we poor bastards in the middle who are going to get shafted, viz.:
I don’t want you to think that I’m making a damn joke about this, because I’m not. At some point, and soon, there’s going to be a financial and economic reckoning — and we of the middle class are going to lose everything: houses, jobs, savings, retirement benefits, the lot.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
True. So they’ll print more. As long as they can. Therefore, they don’t need your steenkin’ money. But none the less they’ll keep taking it, and ever raising the amount they take, via property taxes, sales tax, and a hundred other taxes.
Better start figuring it out, and get in front of it. The only solutions I’ve found that work, and you won’t like em, is to reduce your footprint all the way around, drastically. Instead of being frivolous, concentrate on what’s most important. They can’t take what you don’t have.
No, you don’t have enough ammo, and even if you can shoot like a bullet hose while running backward, they will still overtake you. “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
That picture pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
I saw a comment on a blog post somewhere this morning accusing Republicans–with no hint of irony–of not caring about Trump’s godawful deficits. Well, I can play that game, too. I replied “8 years of trillion-dollar deficits under Obama taught me deficits don’t matter.” If you didn’t have a problem with it when your guy did it, why should I care when my guy does it? (I actually do care, but that wasn’t my point with that comment.)
Indeed. How long before worth less becomes one word?
…or when bonus becomes two?
LOL Jack
Trillions….
Ev Dirksen liked to say:
A Billion here, a Billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money!
Discard use of the word “Trillion”, and substitute “Million Million” or “One-Thousand Billion”.
Make that 22 Trillion debt sound ginormous by saying “Twenty-Two Million-Million Dollars” (or, “Twenty-Two Thousand-Billion Dollars”).