How Big is a Trillion?

   I pondered this today, and what boggles me is how the U.S. deficit could get so big in the first place.  I mean, a million dollars is a huge amount of money.  If I had $1 million, I would live quite comfortably for the rest of my life, and probably have some money left to pass on to my descendants.
   If I had $1 billion, I would have way too much money and would have to give most of it away.  I imagine I could help a lot of people and still have more than enough for my descendants to live in comfort.
   But $1 trillion?  That is beyond ridiculous.  That, to me, is approaching "having all the money in the world."  How can we owe multi-trillions of dollars, and who do we owe it to?
   Here's what triggered my thinking about this huge debt crisis:  If some being with unlimited wealth gave me $1 billion told me to go out and spend $1 million a day and not come back until I'd spent it all, I'd be gone for less than three years.  If that same being gave me $1 trillion and told me to spend $1 million a day until it was gone, I would be gone for over 2700 years.
   I think a multi-trillion dollar deficit is beyond comprehension.  Maybe Congress and the President should focus on the here and now.  This whole money thing is ridiculous.  Printed on all our currency is "In God We Trust." 
   Doesn't anybody believe that any more?

For What it's Worth...

...I think the politicians in Washington are looking at the forest and forgetting about the trees.
   Sure, there is a deficit - a huge one.  But I don't think it's a good idea to slash spending to the point of laying off workers ( = unhappy taxpayers = unhappy voters ) when the unemployment figures are so high.
   A better idea, IMHO, would be to find a way to increase jobs.  More workers would mean more revenue because these people would be paying taxes on their income and they would be buying things which would increase demand which would increase production and sales, which would increase the need for more workers which would mean more taxpayers.  Heck, this could be done without increasing taxes - or, to jump-start it before things get worse, have a temporary tax increase with a well-defined goal and timeline.
  The biggest problem with my idea is that the the politicians are more interested in creating sound-bites to get themselves re-elected (isn't it odd that they never seem to suggest cutting their own salaries and staffs?).  They don't want to come up with ideas for growth because it's so much easier to bad-mouth everybody else.  Thinking isn't that hard, but it does require effort.  I guess when your salary is guaranteed (at taxpayers' expense), your health care is assured (at taxpayers' expense), your travel is covered (at taxpayers's expense), you get used to the easy life.  All you have to do is scare voters away from your opponent and/or the polls altogether, and you get another free ride.
   Maybe the voters should ignore the scare tactics and focus on candidates who have positive and constructive ideas.  The forest is big, but it's possible to thin out the overgrown areas without slashing and burning and destroying the good and useful trees.