My thought on Pretty Lady and economics is that, like most Americans, Pretty Lady has, I believe, learned that one cannot spend more than one earns indefinitely. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to have never been in the position to learn that uncomfortable lesson. I'm hoping for a decent third party candidate. I think the Republicans have done a remarkably good job of alienating the various subgroups that tend to support them, and may well, if a third party can get its act together, go the way of the Whigs. I think that may be for the best all around. We could argue all day about health care, wars on everything, and other various political topics, which you and I would likely disagree over to a great extent, but at the end of the day, if we haven't the money to pay our bills and pay down debts, then it doesn't much matter what we'd like to do. And being regular sorts of people who are stuck paying off our debts when we've incured them, we're aware of this. It seems very much that the political types who inhabit Washington are not.
PL sez: The Clinton Administration left office with a rather large budget surplus.
This can also be achieved by simply moving spending "off budget." They can do that? Why, yes they can. And do. The Post Office likes to brag that it hasn't cost the taxpayer any money in years, and that's because the entire Post Office operation was moved off-budget. Does that mean our government doesn't spend money on it? Heavens no! Without government money the Post Office would close down! It just means that spending isn't in the federal budget. Neither is Social Security.
My sources indicate that the Clinton administration started combining off-budget items with on-budget items in the budget totals so that the Social Security surpluses could even out the on-budget deficits. Bush & Co. sadly started out-spending even those, though. So Clinton's presidency wasn't exceptionally thrifty, really; but our current administration is shockingly wasteful.
Of course, we mostly owe the money to ourselves, anyway, so it's all kind of pointless.
During the many-multi billion - or trillion - dollar bank and S&L failures of the 1980's and early 1990's, I was a bank & S&L liquidator. Most of my job consisted of doing workouts and foreclosures on multi-million dollar commnercial real estate loans.
The entire debacle was off-budget, via President Reagan.
Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
3 comments:
My thought on Pretty Lady and economics is that, like most Americans, Pretty Lady has, I believe, learned that one cannot spend more than one earns indefinitely. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to have never been in the position to learn that uncomfortable lesson.
I'm hoping for a decent third party candidate. I think the Republicans have done a remarkably good job of alienating the various subgroups that tend to support them, and may well, if a third party can get its act together, go the way of the Whigs. I think that may be for the best all around.
We could argue all day about health care, wars on everything, and other various political topics, which you and I would likely disagree over to a great extent, but at the end of the day, if we haven't the money to pay our bills and pay down debts, then it doesn't much matter what we'd like to do. And being regular sorts of people who are stuck paying off our debts when we've incured them, we're aware of this.
It seems very much that the political types who inhabit Washington are not.
PL sez:
The Clinton Administration left office with a rather large budget surplus.
This can also be achieved by simply moving spending "off budget." They can do that? Why, yes they can. And do. The Post Office likes to brag that it hasn't cost the taxpayer any money in years, and that's because the entire Post Office operation was moved off-budget. Does that mean our government doesn't spend money on it? Heavens no! Without government money the Post Office would close down! It just means that spending isn't in the federal budget. Neither is Social Security.
My sources indicate that the Clinton administration started combining off-budget items with on-budget items in the budget totals so that the Social Security surpluses could even out the on-budget deficits. Bush & Co. sadly started out-spending even those, though. So Clinton's presidency wasn't exceptionally thrifty, really; but our current administration is shockingly wasteful.
Of course, we mostly owe the money to ourselves, anyway, so it's all kind of pointless.
During the many-multi billion - or trillion - dollar bank and S&L failures of the 1980's and early 1990's, I was a bank & S&L liquidator. Most of my job consisted of doing workouts and foreclosures on multi-million dollar commnercial real estate loans.
The entire debacle was off-budget, via President Reagan.
Post a Comment