Posted by
NSSA (Not So Silent Anymore) on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:00:00 PM
Child #1
is responsible with money earned/received so Child #1 has money saved
when a big 'want' or 'need' comes along -- iPod, computer, cell phone,
college, vacation, -- & for future purchases; Child #1 strives to
live within their means.
Child #2
is irresponsible, spends every penny earned/received & runs up
massive debts to 'pay later' so when a big 'want' or 'need' comes
along, they run to Mommy & Daddy for $$. Child #2 continues to
spend & accumulate more debt even after being rescued time &
again by Mommy & Daddy.
Substitute the words "Most state governments/taxpayers" for "Child #1"
Substitute the word "California " for "Child #2"
Substitute the words "Federal Government" for "Mommy & Daddy"
Last question:
if California can continue to spend like congress & the president,
i.e. with nothing to back it up & no money to cover the debts, why
should any other state in the country try to operate in the black?
A
bailout of irresponsible state governments (AND businesses) rewards
them for being irresponsible & penalizes responsible state
governments (AND responsible businesses).