Remember, not too long ago, how much noise Congresscritters were making about “rewarding irresponsible investment bankers”? Well, CNBC has come full circle today. After The Beard was prodded after bailing out state and local governments, since we are in the bailout mood, you just knew that CNBC was going to ask why we are rewarding all those irresponsible state governments with bailouts.
Ah, the symmetry runs strong with that one.
Comments (15)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
I think given the level of whining from all levels of Federal Government during the Federal Patriot Bailout Hand Job Reconciliation Act of 2008, it would be only fair to let them rot in hell.
Plus, given the Economics of the situation, bailing out/correcting the street will have a trickle down effect on state governments sooner or later. The inverse wouldn’t have been true.
Banks just provide money for cars and houses to people who probably would not become antisocial if they did not get them.
State governments provide welfare payments to people who are often on the brink of antisocial behavior and the resources which act to restrain them (cops) and to deal with the consequences of their behavior (fire departments, hospitals.)
Not fifty miles from where I sit is a concentration of hundreds of thousands of individuals who, in the vast majority, depend on government payouts for their shelter and their daily bread. A serious cutback in these payments would provide a real possibility of social disruption.
I am a small-l libertarian from way, way back. I despise transfer payments. But I am also a rational individual. I don’t have enough ammunition to deal with this if it really goes south, and neither does the CPD. Those anti-welfare types who are secretly thinking that this is their big chance to really get ride of transfer payments by breaking local governments are, if anything, more short-sighted than the idiots who got us into this. You cannot undo literally generations of dependency by cutting off the payments.
Ever seen an addict go through withdrawl? It’s not pretty. Millions of people going through withdrawl from basic welfare payments – and shortly thereafter, withdrawl from food – is going to be even less pretty. I’d just as soon avoid it.
I wonder if the “bailout money” will find a way to make it back to key political figures via lobbyists? Someone needs to drop a die-pack in this bag.
@2
Avoidance NEVER solves anything. We shouldn’t just “Keep Paying the Lazy” and “Feeding Them” because “Shooting Them Is Too Hard.”
The Key here, is to just walk up to those who you’re afraid of, and tell them why. They’ll understand, and you’ll be a better person for it.
–Mrs. Manners.
@4
Have you ever actually dealt with poor / anger people?
Wait to you see the violence in the U.S. if unemployment hits 10/15/20%.
What do you think happens when people realize the American Dream is BS?
Good thing Wal-Mart sells guns.
@4
Have you ever actually dealt with poor / anger people?
Wait to see the violence in the U.S. if unemployment hits 10/15/20%.
What do you think happens when people realize the American Dream is BS?
Good thing Wal-Mart sells guns.
let me throw this out there. A few months ago David Brooks wrote a column about two americas: the lottery class and the investor class. Kind of mourning the fact that half of americans have no savings. That half of america though could care less about the recent 25% market decline. They are however starting to get angry over the thought of having to foot the bill for the bailout (they probably wont, cause they dont pay much in taxes, but dont really understand that and the rants of Rush and Hannity are not helping matters). And at the same time they’re gonna get very angry when job losses happen.
@2-Great take. I also have libertarian stripes or small “l” as you put it. Govt serves a valuable function in protecting our nation (via military) and providing basic services such as hospitals, fire dept, and transportation (roads etc.) that cannot and should not be duplicated. Can you imagine the people who would sit on their streets and charge a toll everytime somebody drove by? Who is going to stop giving health care to Grandma & Grandpa (very soon to be Mom & Dad)?
Furthermore, few people are discussing the fallacy of W’s Social Security plans a few years ago. Can you imagine the distress if the stock market collapses (like it did this year) if you rely on it as your primary saftey net? Then who takes care of the people? Hate to say it because I love Randian philosophy, but there has to be a middle ground.
Not only is the Reagan small govt model forever broken. Free market capitalism is yet another casualty.
Hate to say it because I voted for Dutch. The biggest losers in the ’08 election are Greenspan & Reagan.
I didn’t say they were lazy. I said they were dependent, which they are. The total obliteration of the public school system and the warehousing of the poor has made it impossible for them to be anything else.
Most people have a basic urge to provide for themselves, to accomplish, to feel that they are productive. I don’t think the people in North Lawndale are any different from the people in North Riverside, by and large, in this respect. But between total lack of employable skills, lack of support networks necessary to hold a reasonable job (try getting and holding an entry level job when you don’t have a dependable car, or a dependable phone, or a dependable address) and lack of suitable employment, the deck is stacked against them.
I’d like to reshuffle the deck, but in the meantime, cutting them off is not a viable option. Hungry people are dangerous. (I assure you *I* would be, and you’re damn skippy I’d loot a grocery store to feed my kid.) Period.
Well Hello @5!
I have seen many a poor people, yes! The American Dream is all about Americans helping other Americans be all they can be! So why don’tcha do this: the next time a “Shiftless Hobo” or a “Crack Head With A Styrofoam Cup” asks you for a little bit of your hard earned money, Just do your American Duty: Shoot Them.
Killing poor people helps them feel like less of a failure, and ultimately it means more stuff for the rest of us!
–Mrs. Manners.
2/9-
In history, it seems that people will be poor until they decide, for themselves, that they no longer want to be poor. History provides numerous examples of people who have risen from poverty through their own efforts. (Southeast asia most easily comes to mind.) I cannot think of one historic example of direct wealth transfers creating a prosperous groupe of people. I can, however, think of examples where direct wealth tranfers have failed miserably (Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, South Africa, moving residents of “blighted” areas to housing projects, etc.) From the statement, “I despise transfer payments” I think you probably agree with all this.
In framing the problem as one similar to physiological dependence, your solution is self-obviously flawed: I know of no addiction specialist who would argue that the best path to take with a dependent indivudial is let him continue abusing his substance of choice. To do so might be the simplest course of action for that moment, but eventually a day of reckoning must come. If the addiction is not confronted, this reckoning is usually death. Similary, allowing America’s poor to continue on their current path is to cast us (the well-meaning, non-poor) as enablers–not advocates.
Good points. We’re between a rock and a hard place here, hell, I don’t have the solution but I sure as hell know that any extreme (cold-turky stop or letting things continue ad-infinitum) certainly won’t be it
Discussion too well mannered, didn’t read
There are several reasons we should get rid of forced transfer payments (read legalized theft) besides the fact that they encourage people to be dependent.
First of all, no one is suggesting we let anyone starve. Forced government help is the most dehumanizing and least compassionate way to provide assistance. By moving those processes back to the private sector (read churches and non-profits) charity becomes more than a pack of food stamps in the mail. One of the reasons everyone walks by the crackhead begging for change is because our conscience is sated by knowing there is a government safety net. We should all feel responsibility to help that individual, but the government takes an extra 3% of our paycheck and tells us we don’t have to be.
The elimination of transfer payments gives the poor the freedom to receive substantive help and pull themselves up just as much as it gives the wealthy the freedom to help people how they want.
The argument that the private sector couldn’t handle this problem is bogus as well. Americans took care of the poor in this country for over a century without any federally run programs, and wealthy people that don’t give to charity are few and far between. Maybe if we didn’t have transfer payments in this country, Hollywood actors would set up schools in New York instead of South Africa.
Just because Wall Street is entering a depression doesn’t mean that the rest of the country deserves one, or wants one. Think about it, the Fed has run out of ammunition. The collapse continues. Demand is going to 0 except for the most basic essentials. What could follow can get really ugly in no time.