Well, that does put it in perspective.

Thank you for posting this. Let's also keep in mind that this the bailout bills have nothing in them preventing this from happening in another 30-years.

This puts it into perspective!

I think I'm going to be sick....

Wait, so NASA didn't fund the moonshot?

I'm 100% opposed to the bailout, but this chart and most other opponents of the bailout show a fairly important lack of understanding about what the bailout actually is -- it's not an expenditure like all of those things in the right-hand chart, it's an assumption of debt. The government will get some percentage of this money back. The chart on the left and the right are different kinds of "costs" in many respects, and are therefore apples to oranges.

All of that said, the government STILL shouldn't be assuming private debt in order to erase responsibility for mistakes that it, banks and consumers all allowed to happen.

@m4ximusprim3: Because Wikipedia seems to think it was. Just curious.

@m4ximusprim3: There's the cost of the moon shot and the cost of the NASA budget for its entire existence.

As punkrawka points out, this is not money in the trash. It's actually investment. The US taxpayers actually own parts of these companies now and when they start making money again, well, so do we as taxpayers.

If we didn't back up these companies, their collapse would take the remainder of the US economy with it and it would take us decades to climb out of the hole. That's exactly what happened in Japan when their "bailout" came about a decade too late.

Unfortuantely, our economy would not work without AIG, Citigroup, etc...They are key players that cannot fail and as taxpayers, we're left to pick up their pieces.

Frankly, I am just amazed how cheap the Louisiana Purchase was. How about we find some more great deals like that one instead. The point above about the assumption of debt is valid. But I think its important to remeber what we got in return for these other investments. Territory, international stability, new technologies and prestige, compared with assuming bad debt, isn't really a good trade off. Seems like the only one that was a worse waste of money was Vietnam.

all the things on the right are investments expected to have a good return. The thing on the left is an investment in things known to not have a good return, on the assumption that "magically" we might get a good return (somehow, eventually, or something).

@Wally East: Right. Wouldn't the former be covered by the latter? Thats like saying "The total cost of the iraq war" and then having a separate column for "tomohawk missiles from '06-'08"

@facted: So when they start making money again, I can expect a check in the mail?

@punkrawka: Good point. It's easy to forget that.

@evilfremen: Yeah, we totally ripped France off for that one.

...and why do we need to bailout these companies?
If the Government put this money into use for the American people... WOW!

@evilfremen: Seriously, like half a country for that amount of money. That's the kind of deal we need. I think there was free shipping too.

@m4ximusprim3: Hey, I dunno. Going to the moon on its own was a hugely expensive project, one with which people are familiar, so I can see the benefit of pointing that out as a separate item.

If America can put a man on the Moon, why can't we hire CEOs who aren't idiots, or regulate Wall Street so that they can't simply make stuff up and call it profit?

@facted: I agree. People seem to forget that if we didn't do this, the alternative would be much more devastating. I'd like to see a graph next to it showing how many jobs were saved from this. How many banks are still open because of this. Imagine the domino effect that would occur with even more people out of work, not buying anything and bringing the country even further down the hole. American GDP is measured in trillions , so this is the equivalent of you or me taking out a car loan.

For those of you who hate the IRAQ war due to its cost, please take a 2nd gander at that chart.

@facted: Let's not mention the fact that any economy that depends on a few huge companies is screwed in the long run basically no matter what.

@Wally East: And the Apollo program was only part of the whole "race to the Moon." NASA was doing other things at the time, such as launching interplanetary probes, doing aircraft research, building radio telescopes, and doing fundamental physical research, all of which might have contributed to the race to some degree, but were not part of the full cost of the program.

@Ben Popken: White glove delivery, but it was just delivered to the frontier, they didn't carry it inside.

Not only is the this an investment for the future, this is also saving countless jobs that would no longer exsist had we have done nothing.

Imagine the ripple effect in our economy had we decided to let all these companies to fail and just deal with it. Not only would jobs vanish but also even more people would stop buying which would continue the downward spiral. It may have taken several decades to recover where as now, we may recover in a few years.

Nobody wants to have to spend this kind of money, but it's the lesser of two evils, the alternative would have made the great depression look like a picnic.

@moore850: IF it works, I'd say our continued existence as a nation would be a very good return.

@Angryrider: Nice sentiment, but what do you suggest? And keep in mind, these companeis are made up of the American people as well.

Screw the big 3, give the money to all of us and let them fail like any other business that can't keep up would.

And punch them all in the face for good measure. They need it.

Thus ends my daily pissed-off rant.

@NefariousNewt: Because hiring CEOs and regulating wall street aren't the same thing as shooting a rocket at the moon.

Seriously, the number of variables involved in hiring and regulation are FAR greater than the number of variables involved in a moon landing.

Where did the 4.6 trillion dollar figure for the current bailout come from, exactly?

@Bladefist: Agreed! That made me hate it even more.

Remember, most of these bailouts are loans, and if these companies do well, we will be paid back. Also, we have not paid out $4 trillion dollars, a lot of that money is just the US government saying we are backing some bad debt, every company would have to fail in the plan for us to lose $4 trillion.

@Bladefist: Whuh?

It costs more than:

the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, the Race to the Moon, the S&L Crisis, the Korean War and the New Deal. Not really a lot of value for the money in comparison, don't you think?

@evilfremen:

We didn't actually buy Louisiana. The French agreed to give up their claim to the land for the money.

We still had to go in and take it from the people who actually owned it.

@InfiniTrent: IKEA model of governance. Here's an Allen-wrench and land, go build some territories.

@Ben Popken: But we're stuck with Missouri, for like ever!

@EyeHeartPie: You already got your check earlier this year. Maybe if everything goes according to facted's plan, you'll see a return on your investment in the form of lowered taxes, a reduction in the deficit / national debt (that's money that you owe, after all) or even increased government spending in areas other than national defense. As for me, I'm not holding my breath that lending these companies huge sums of money will be enough to get them to return to profitability. There were no real stipulations, and it seems as if no one learned their lesson from past mistakes.

The right way to compare is as percentage of GDP (just like deficits). Also - th $4.6 T number is potential commitments, not spent funds - not fair to compare to solid numbers from the past.

@Bladefist: I did. What's your point? It's still expensive as hell.

@Wally East: But just think of everything we've gotten out of the Iraq war compared to those other expenditures!

@InfiniTrent: Having worked IT on Wall Street and knowing a little rocket science, I find that statement ludicrous.

And my statement was meant to be humorous.

So I'm guessing that the 4 trillion for the bailout doesn't include the 5 trillion in net wealth that's been destroyed by the stock market collapse, or the indeterminate amount of money that is disappearing as empty and foreclosed real estate sits and decays?

@tbbx: Actually, we had to take it from the people who lived there... they never claimed to actually own it, aside from some Old World settlers.

Also, it's not NASA's fault there haven't been any fun beach excursions...do you have any idea how long they've spent looking for water on Mars?

@nataku83: You're right! I'm thinking of them now! I won't take the time and effort to write down all of those things. We all know them.

@evilfremen: You should read morning deals a bit more carefully. That kind of stuff slips in there from time to time.

@Wally East: Might be easier to list what we didn't get:

1. WMDs
2. Osama Bin Laden

@evilfremen: Seriously! Thomas Jefferson kicks so much ass.

To those who think that this bailout's enormous outlay is somehow justified (or mitigated) by the fact that it is an _investment_ instead of a simple expenditure, I would make two points: 1.) The historical expenditures listed here have mostly produced massive benefits disproportionate to their expense, which I doubt a simple repayment from a beleaguered industry and a few months of job stability can hope to match. 2.) Our government doesn't have the best track record on its assumption of debt and allocation of credit, so I don't think we can reasonably hope to see a dividend on this expenditure once enough time has passed for taxpayers to forget how much they were fleeced for.

I already knew that this bailout was the proverbial waste of good money after bad, but now that I see the historical context, I'm even more disgusted.