Our government invests in failure

by Rocket Finance


What would our country be like if our government invested in success?

What would happen if schools with high test scores were given greater amounts of federal dollars? Instead, we invest in failing schools.

What would happen if we increased Amtrack subsidies based on whether or not the railroad turns a profit? Instead, we give them $1.3 trillion a year and increase it if they have a particularly poor year.

What  would happen if we gave taxpayer money to well-run banks? Instead we are giving billions of dollars to failing financial institutions.

What would happen if we gave taxpayer money to car manufacturers that manage to turn a profit? Instead, poorly run GM is begging for more taxpayer money.

What would happen if our government rewarded well-run casinos? Instead, Senator Harry Reid would like to give your tax money to failing casinos.

What would happen if our government rewarded states who balance their budgets? Instead, the federal government is giving your money to states who are about to go bankrupt.

What would happen if our government rewarded people who work? Instead, we incentivize sloth. I spoke with a woman last week who told me that she turned down a job that paid $9 an hour with benefits because government unemployment “pays more”.

What would happen if politicians had to forfeit their paychecks if the federal budget was not balanced during their previous year in office?

What do you think would happen?

Picture credit.

  1. 7 Responses to “Our government invests in failure”

  2. By David on Mar 23, 2009 | Reply

    Why is it a bad thing to give money to Amtrak, yet it’s ok to give subsidies to the airlines? We give subsidies to the oil companies, yet they make a fortune and don’t give back to the govt. So I am a little confused as to which side of the aisle this post is on. It’s OK to give money to oil companies who make money. It’s OK to give money to airlines who continually end up in bankruptcy. Yet it’s not OK to give money to Amtrak.

  3. By rocketc on Mar 23, 2009 | Reply

    I don’t think the government should give money to any of those entities unless it is in the form of tax breaks. My list was not meant to be exhaustive. I could have also added homeowners with current mortgages v homeowners who are over-extended. I personally would be a lot better off if I had quit paying my mortgage over the past year . . . on a home that I no longer live in.

    The whole system is corrupt – neither party is immune. Only politicians who advocate less government involvement in private business can be trusted – simply because they desire less power for themselves. The rest have been corrupted by lobbyists of big corporations, political favors or are seeking to grow their power over the wealth of this country.

    Look at the companies who are lobbying for nationalized health care – Walmart and others would like nothing better than to not have any pressure to provide health insurance to their employees – and Congressmen and our president would like nothing better than to take control of 1/7th of our nations economy under the guise of “doing it for the little guy”.

    Speaking of airlines, Tom Daschle was Senate majority leader while his wife (!!!) was a lobbyist for American Airlines, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Talk about a conflict of interest. Remember when our government was going to lease airplanes from Boeing for more than they would cost to purchase? Yep, Mrs. Daschle was part of that one. You can read more about her exploits here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312338/posts Mr. Daschle made over $5 million after leaving office, as a “consultant”. Do you think he was not peddling influence? Do you trust people like this to run our financial system? Do you want people like this in charge of our health care?

    David, I know that you trust government to solve all of our problems – poverty, disease, transportation, the environment and all the rest, however your trust is misplaced. (how has our government done with social security?) We need government to have as little to do with our daily lives as possible. Government should protect the weak and protect our soveriegnty as a nation.

    You and me and our neighbors and friends and relatives can solve just about everything else.

  4. By David on Mar 23, 2009 | Reply

    Where does it say that I trust government to solve anything at all? Please don’t put words in my mouth. But the fact is that we have a government who should be working for us, and they aren’t – I can admit that. We need to make a lot of changes, but it will never, ever happen. Ever.

    How has government done with SS? Well, for starters it allowed my mom to keep her house after my father died at 45 years old. It allows my grandmother to live on her own at 97. Will it be there for me? Probably not, but at least I know it. It’s not run correctly to balance the population growth, but it has done some good. Thank someone that some people are able to get it. All these people who lost 50% of their retirement funds because of the market lately will be thankful they can get it. Imagine if SS was in the market as GWBush had wanted? Scary.

  5. By rocketc on Mar 24, 2009 | Reply

    To your first point, you often ask that government set a minimum wage, provide for our retirement, take care of our education, provide health care, etc. You and I agree that a lot of changes are needed in government. The difference between you and me is that I want government (especially the federal kind) to be involved in as little as possible.

    You illustrate your bias in the second paragraph, you seem to think that the only way your mother could keep her house was through provision by the federal government. You also believe that your grandmother can live on her own only because of the wisdom of the federal government.

    There are many ways to solve these two problems without involving the federal government. Don’t you advocate that people should invest in IRA’s and 401K’s? I can’t afford to invest in such vehicles – I would sure love to take the 14% of my income that goes to D.C. every year . . . I would be much farther ahead if all of my FICA taxes were to be invested in the market. SS will go bankrupt when I am 65, furthermore, the market would be more stable with new investments flowing into the market every payday.

    The free, private market is not perfect, there are problems with it, but it is far preferable to the crooks in Washington taking care of our health care, education, retirement and the rest.

  1. 3 Trackback(s)

  2. Mar 26, 2009: Friday Stack: Please step down, Mr. Geithner Edition | rocket finance
  3. Apr 7, 2009: * Weekly Highlights: April 5, 2009
  4. Apr 16, 2009: Pay your taxes on time! | rocket finance

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.