I'm going to shock my fellow bloggers when I say that I favor smaller government with less taxation and less spending.
..........
So now that you've recovered from the shock of that revelation, I'll discuss the current problems with spending. We're going to throw hundreds of billions, and ultimately trillions of public dollars to keep private institutions from going under, including the automobile industry which America maybe has no business even being in at the size it is in it.
At the same time, we're *not* spending tens of billions to keep the states' public institutions solvent. So hundreds of billions to have AiG purchased by a hedge fund, or 24 billion to keep public employees of the State of California employed? Seriously, even for you hard-core Democrats, isn't the choice obvious for what is supposed to be a capitalist nation?
..........
So now that you've recovered from the shock of that revelation, I'll discuss the current problems with spending. We're going to throw hundreds of billions, and ultimately trillions of public dollars to keep private institutions from going under, including the automobile industry which America maybe has no business even being in at the size it is in it.
At the same time, we're *not* spending tens of billions to keep the states' public institutions solvent. So hundreds of billions to have AiG purchased by a hedge fund, or 24 billion to keep public employees of the State of California employed? Seriously, even for you hard-core Democrats, isn't the choice obvious for what is supposed to be a capitalist nation?
2 comments:
Are you saying it would be more capitalist to spend money to keep state and local governments afloat than to spend money to keep private companies afloat? I guess that is true.
Is it anti-capitalist to prevent the auto industry & insurance and banking industries from collapsing? I guess that is true, too.
I think what the federal government is supposed to do is what is best for the governed. Perhaps it is foolish to attempt to bailout these industries, and it would be better to let them crash. Perhaps we are extending things allowing for a more gentle less painful collapse. I don't really care whether we can tag the conduct capitalist or socialist or anarchist.
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that the Feds should be bailing out states' budget deficits?
For the record, I think it's pretty atrocious what's going on in CA -- the shrinkage of the public sector there can be really devastating.
But I'm not sure I'm equipped to say which is a "more" beneficial thing for the government to do -- stabilize the financial market or save California. They might be both worthy.
Having said that, California is so fucked, fiscally, that it really might just be prolonging the agony. The only way I could see bailing them out would be to attach strings to the cash to ensure that by next year they would have a sane budgetary system in place so that they could actually pay for their own government.
Post a Comment