Forums | MacLife

The crazy thing is people expect it to continue on as before.

Someone's sig around here is salient on this.

Hey, the proportions are about right, for two dimensional sacks of money. Usually, the designers get that one wrong. Technically, though, big bulging sacks of cash are three dimensional objects-- so the larger sack should only be 50% taller and 50% wider than the smaller sack.

I always have thought that this was terrible. And I continue to do so.

But, lately I've had to ask myself, if this is so terrible, then why have I been hearing about it my entire life... and nothing too horrible has really come of it?

What gives?

Me. Pay up, you deadbeats.

I know you remember your very own (late) Senator, kev.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his … n_Dies.htm

edit:

iirc, we're still paying off RTC bonds or whatever the instrument was.

Last edited by daemon (2009-05-31 6:34 am)

I agree with Kev's concerns. But then I have been waving the deficit flag for 30 years now.
Time was that there was some reasonable debate about funding a bill during debate over passage. It was not a perfect coupling but as often as not an expensive new program would contain a tax increase to fund that bill.
But in the 80's spending became decoupled from the spending debate and we just began to let the debt grow. From my point of view it was the Republicans that began with the "deficits don't matter" philosophy that got us into this mess.
Sanity returned, briefly, under Clinton where the reps actually seemed to regain their sense of fiscal responcibility and worked with Clinton to set the budget on a more sane path.
Unfortunately it turns out the Reps had not regained their fiscally conservative roots. But that was an illusion. Once they got a Republican in the Whitehouse they went right back to "deficits dont matter" on steroids.
Two major wars with no tax increase, which is simply unprecedented in history, combined with extremely misguided tax cuts set the stage for where we are now.
Mix in a big dose of ill considered deregulation and here we are.
I am confident that "The bailout" would have gone in very much the same direction under Republican majorities because there is NOTHING to suggest from recent history that the reps would not have been just as willing to bail out Wall Street or engage in stimulative spending.
The details of exactly how the stimulus would have been targeted would probably be different but the end result would have been the same.
Reagan took the brakes off the train in the early 80's, just took this long for the train to build up enough speed to crash.
Reagan=Casey Jones.