It does not depend on that definition. My first sentence explains why. Advocating for spending $1 trillion on bailouts means you're advocating for taking away $1 trillion from other purposes, and redirecting it to bailouts. You're not taking into account the "taking away" part and the hurt _that_ causes, while hyperfocusing on the hurt "prevented" by the bailouts. Both hurt; the former largely the wealthy, the latter largely the 99%.

What you're doing is like being scared of flying on commercial airplanes yet being fine with pitbulls and rottweilers. This is normal due to human psychology, but reality says the opposite.