Posted on 01/14/2013 4:50:06 AM PST by Kaslin
I have a serious question for readers. What’s worse, bailouts for government or bailouts for the private sector?
Yes, both are bad, but is it worse to bail out a bankrupt entitlement program, such as Social Security, or it is worse to bail out an industry, such as the financial sector?
To bail out the housing sector, or to bail out Medicare? Fannie and Freddie, or GM and Chrysler?
All these examples involve huge amounts of money, and both private-sector and public-sector bailouts have perverse long-run effects, but which is worse?
And don’t forget there are lots of other bailouts in our future, as discussed on this interview for Fox Business News.
The interview took place before Christmas, but the topic is even more relevant today since the budget season is about to begin.
Most of the discussion was about government agencies and programs that may get more handouts, though bailouts for the Federal Housing Administration and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would be indirect bailouts for big business and housing.
So we’d get the worst of all worlds, more government spending and more cronyism.
Or, as they call it in Washington, a win-win situation.
But I call it legal corruption.
Every so often, I try to appeal to statists by explaining to them that it’s not in their self interest to steal too much.
Why? Because if you kill off the geese that lay the golden eggs, what will you do tomorrow when nobody is left to produce?
Heck, even the former leftist President of Brazil understood that there can’t be any redistribution if there’s no production.
I’ve made this point by sharing a very clever cartoon. I’ve made this point on television. And I’ve tried to explain it using simple analysis.
I’m not sure I’ve been overly successful, but perhaps this Chuck Asay cartoon will help get the point across.
The cartoon is akin to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. But the “modern” version of the story, featuring coerced redistribution that causes the ant to no longer be productive.
Heck, it’s also what we see in the PC version of The Little Red Hen. And the same theme can be found in the amusing anecdote that uses beer to explain the corrosive impact of a “progressive” tax system.
The moral of the story – in every case – is that you shouldn’t be too greedy if you’re living off others.
In my speeches, I often joke that a tick or a flea is in trouble if it’s feasting on a dog that dies. Well, on a more serious note, this can happen to countries. Greece is in deep trouble because there are too many people riding in the wagon and not enough people pulling the wagon.
We’re not there yet, but I don’t like the trend.
I’m sure it is still in the lockbox.
You may be correct; but if we can just bump up the borrowing limit this one more time...
doesn’t anyone in the administration remimber about killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I guess thats their plan
Do you expect to get your $$ back when you’re mugged/robbed?
Why is gov’t any different? ‘Cuz they SAID so??
You payed into a Ponzi scheme for ~40yrs. $$ is gone and long spent. How about they give you the nice IOU print-out instead?
This statement and your insulting “Moocher” label in reference to my generation identifies you as a probable member of Generation X, and my only regret is that I probably won't live long enough to see you Generation Xers get your just rewards.
I’m surprised it took that long for someone to bring up that story.
Sorry to disappoint, not a Gen X-er
I’m just looking at the numbers, and you can feign insult all you want, but the numbers don’t care.
We’re broke.
While this may be true; we were TOLD that OUR money was INVESTED somewhere and it would be the INTEREST on this money that would sustain us; NOT 'other peoples money'.
Were we LIED to?
I doubt it; as the implementers of the system probably NEVER envisioned the money being looted by those later who wished to 'help' other folks out: mainly those who NEVER paid into the 'system'.
All I know is that not one single 'moocher' wrote ANY of the 'law' that we now have.
Sadly; life; like football; penalizes the WHOLE team when a foul is committed.
Do we want to punt; or try to make up the yardage?
The SYSTEM was designed for that.
Is was corrupted by those who came along later and CHANGED THE RULES.
“Do we want to punt; or try to make up the yardage? “
Localities and states should try to figure out how they are going to take care of the Elderly that families cannot assume responsibility for when the government cannot pay as they do now.
I don’t see any other course of action.
-— That is ultimately the only reasonable solution. But government is not reasonable. The solution Government has in store for us will take one of two forms: 1. Default on Debt, or 2. Hyperinflate. Either of those will be a defacto end to “benefits as we know them” -—
Sad but true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.