Calamity (barely, and no thanks to the eeeeeevil GOP, who actually tolerate dissension in their ranks) averted, the olde-timey media assure me, with their funny, old-fashioned way of looking at things.
Oh, Hells no. The Fed.gov -- and the House in its role as money manager especially -- was (and is) in the position of the guy paying off loans and buying groceries with credit cards who keeps getting more loans to pay the credit card bills; for just a bit there, it seemed possible they might spend a little less and grab a bit more money to pay things with. (Sure, it's your money and mine and darned sure, I don't approve of the grabbing -- still, as governments go, it almost made sense, aside from the clown-car disproportion of the whole scheme).
And now, hooray, they've changed their mind; unless you make too much money ("too much" here defined as 400K/450K a year, single/married, or just about twice the salaries of the highest-paid Congressthings*), the status remains quo...for two whole more months. At which point they'll return to considering the "deep," essentially paltry, inadequate cuts they might've been obliged to let happen had they so desperately wanted to not get de-elected for jacking up taxes -- by amounts also paltry and inadequate, if you are trying to make any sense of all of the Federal checking account. (Savings? Hahahohoho -- the fed.gov hasn't any, no more than the guy sleeping a cardboard box behind a dumpster in the worst alley in Washington City.)
This entire brouhaha amounts to my initial example, the guy juggling credit he hasn't got, agonizing over the cost of a cheap steak dinner. Eat it or not, it's as nothing compared to the staggering stampede of the real defecit.
And not a thing has been done to stop it.
* Thus proving the rule of thumb that no matter how much you make, your mental image of the "the big bucks" is twice as that amount. "Philosopher-Kings? Clean-up on aisle DC!" Are we not fortunate to be in such exceptionally-clever hands? Aren't we?
Introduction to Sim
1 month ago