On 7/31/2011 12:53 PM, k-nuttle wrote:
On 7/31/2011 2:30 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:


The idea is that if they have to make ends meet on the same kind of
budget that most of us have available to us they might be a bit more
frugal.


But that's false logic. They have to deal with totally different issues.
Not to say they couldn't improve their decisions, but to expect those
running a country to bring individual priniciples to bear against the
demands of a country, is not realistic.

But they can vote themselves raises and vote the government raises and
it all comes out of the pockets of people who don't have that luxury.

Now you're close to my real gripe. I don't mind them making money, but
when
they decide that the electorate (SSI recipients, etc.) don't need more
than
1-3% increase, but vote themselves much larger increases, then I have a
problem.


If the government can not work within a balanced budget how do the
states that require the state operate with a balanced budget exist.
Indiana is one of those states and in the obama depression has manage to
end the year with about a 1.3 billion dollar surplus.

It does not matter if you are a teenager working on a summer job, or the
president of the United States, a budget is critical to managing your
money and remaining solvent.


Part of the trouble is, our current Prez and a good part of Congress
consider your money and mine part of the resources they can look to in
financing the bloated government they want to give us.