Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Well that's one way to put it. I'd have used "Special," but we can go with "simple."I'm a simple girl.
Willowtree said:So I'll explain it thusly. Think about your household. Could you run it that way?
It ain't a household. It ain't a business. It's a government. The rules and motivations are different. Stop trying to make a complex issue simple.
However, if it WAS a household, we've just had a massive flood and the foundation needs to be fixed. You bet that this year you're going to spend more than you make this year, because you have to keep the house from collapsing.
You might also come to conclusion that because of this problem, you and the other people in your house are going to have to pony up more to fix this problem than they might be accustomed to for 'Normal' living expenses.
You're confusing a one time capital expenditure with an operating expenditure. The foundation will need to be fixed once.
A better analogy is if you went out to dinner every night and spent $200 doing so. Then found your hours at work were cut back. Do you go to your employer and demand he give you more so you can go out to dinner every night?
Well I think it goes without saying that we disagree on how much we're 'going out to dinner' and which expenditures constitute 'going out.'
The financial crisis was the flood; The resulting massive contraction of the economy is the damaged foundation. That damage is causing the lions' share of these deficits we're now seeing - With Obama, but would be similar with anyone else. It's easy now in a comparatively stable economy to forget just how serious the crisis was.
But - And here's where it gets complicated - Even if I stipulate that the deficit was mostly going out - The people who live in the house work at the restaurant. For every time you stay in and watch Netflix, you deny someone else the opportunity to go out, and like dominoes...
Last edited: