"We were all hit with sticker shock: $87 billion is a huge number"
About this Quote
Then comes the second half, almost comically redundant: “$87 billion is a huge number.” The simplicity is the point. It reduces a complicated argument about war costs, reconstruction, or emergency spending into a single, emotionally legible fact: big equals alarming. That’s not analysis; it’s atmosphere. The subtext is less “we oppose this” than “we recognize your suspicion of it,” a preemptive empathy play aimed at taxpayers who hear “billion” as a synonym for waste.
The “we” is doing political work, too. It spreads responsibility and dampens accusations of partisanship: everyone, supposedly, is startled; no one is being ideological. In the post-9/11 era of massive supplemental bills, this kind of language functioned as a permission slip to question spending without directly questioning the mission. It’s skepticism with a seatbelt on: fiscal alarm that doesn’t quite dare to name what it might cost morally, strategically, or politically to say no.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
| Cite |
Citation Formats
APA Style (7th ed.)
Wamp, Zack. (2026, January 15). We were all hit with sticker shock: $87 billion is a huge number. FixQuotes. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/we-were-all-hit-with-sticker-shock-87-billion-is-150238/
Chicago Style
Wamp, Zack. "We were all hit with sticker shock: $87 billion is a huge number." FixQuotes. January 15, 2026. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/we-were-all-hit-with-sticker-shock-87-billion-is-150238/.
MLA Style (9th ed.)
"We were all hit with sticker shock: $87 billion is a huge number." FixQuotes, 15 Jan. 2026, https://fixquotes.com/quotes/we-were-all-hit-with-sticker-shock-87-billion-is-150238/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.


