From: Richard Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:46:47 -0400
I've never understood this; it seems to be an arbitrary distinction. If one budget is short, why can't funds from one be shifted to the other? It seems like spiting the right hand to benefit the left, or something like that. Can anyone explain this to me? Borrowing money to cover regular operating expenses means that you don't have a realistic budget. So, I assume that the constitution or the state or someone says that the city can't sell bonds to pay operating expenses. To use some personal examples: You need to buy a new car cause your old one broke and you need a car for your work. You can't afford to pay cash, but you can afford to pay $200 a month, so you borrow the money. That's OK because the car is a capital expense, and you can afford the payments. You break your leg and can't work for a few weeks. During that time you run out of money and need to pay the mortgage/rent and credit card bills. So, you borrow money. That's OK, because it's an emergency, and you'll adjust you budget after you are back to work to make the payments. Every month you make $1000, and you spend $1100. So, once a year you borrow $1200 to cover your day to day expenses. This is stupid, and if your lenders knew about it they probably wouldn't lend you the money. What you should do is get a cheaper apartment, a cheaper car, a cheaper lifestyle, a better paying job, or all four. This is why the city can borrow money for capital expenditures, and that money goes into a separate budget that can't be used for operating expenses. --- Chip ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
