Re: From Library Of Congress: Advisory: Possible Federal Shutdown
Hey guys...I appreciate the responses since my post. Anytime I try to strike the path of moderation, which is frankly pretty unpopular in the days when it's much easier to make one party the boogieman, I'm afraid I'll get a lot of hate for it. Bryan, you're totally right - as with anything in politics and economics, it's never as simple as "That one person" or "that one party" or "that one decision" was responsible for "that one disaster."
I just reread my post and realized I misstated something, in my sleep-deprivation. So for the record...in the credit card example - it's not that mom and dad had to give Junior permission to spend more per month. It's that when he got the credit card, mom and dad said Junior had a maximum debt limit of X on it. But now he's spent X (actually, a lot more than X, cause mom and dad keep increasing the limit) and in order to buy the Obamacar, mom and dad have to al low him to put even more debt on the credit card than he was previously allowed to.
I think the current federal borrowing limit is $16.4 trillion? And we've surpassed it.
Maybe it's coming from the everyman's perspective of someone who has to make a monthly budget and deal with real-world finances, but I still don't understand how saying, "Okay, we're allowed to go into this much more debt" has become part of a "responsible" budget. I know that, realistically, we've put ourselves in a position where we *can't* have a functional budget without increasing our debt...but seriously. If I told my wife, "So, in order to pay our bills this month, we need to acquire more debt than both of our paychecks combined"...she'd probably shoot me, lol.
If you can't tell, I'm a bit irritated with the economic situation our government is in, lol.
As a brief sidebar, I continue to be surprised at how one party is (by the media, at least) painted as the bad guys. I recently read up on the Republicans' provisions for increasing the borrowing limit, and they seemed pretty reasonable. Delaying for one year the requirement that everyone buy healthcare (one of the parts of Obamacare that still baffles me), and not allowing Congressmen and White House staff to have federal subsidies for their spam? (i.e., these politicians who we're always saying should take a pay cut would actually have to pay for their health spam?). I don't see how that's particularly unreasonable...but it's painted as though they're trying to kill Obamacare. Yes, their provisions would put some lower-paid junior staff members in a tight spot...but the law as a whole is going to put a whole lot more people than that in a bad place. It's going to be brutal for small business, and just about everyone who gets health care from their employer is going to start seeing less of their pay check. So I'm not sure their provisions are any worse than the issues that already come with the bill.
I just hope that the two parties can come together and actually start thinking about what is best for the American people - today, and in building a non-catastrophic financial future. Is that such a radical idea?
URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=150269#p150269
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
