I'm ok with taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. But as with everything government -- it starts out as a good idea and then they keep adding layers. And with a system that bloated you obviously can't turn it off immediately. There certainly are people in the system who don't need our help. Those are the ones I think we need to weed out. Like my brother's friend who has soaked up 2 years worth of unemployment without really trying to get a job. His wife's a teacher, so they get by. She gets benefits and a state guaranteed retirement when she's 50-something. But he sits on the couch waiting for high-paying employer to come knock on the door and offer him a job. Yet the 'illegal Mexican' finds his way to California. Were they better equipped with their backpack and water bottle? Or is it that those substandard jobs should go to others, so we can keep our kind nice and comfy? Kinda harsh, I know. But when you're basic needs are taken care of, there's really not much incentive for Podunkians to go west.
I think you're sensationalizing a bit, but I'll take a stab at it: You take care of the ones that can't take care of themselves. That includes kids, handicapped, disabled, whatever. But there needs to be a rigorous review process that includes exploring what family or private resources are available as an alternative.
Right, it's not exactly a business, but it needs to practice sound financial management nonetheless. There's a few thousand years of history to draw from to see what happens when you get that wrong. I'm not against government spending, and certainly don't think shutting it off is anywhere near possible. But like a business, the government should spend wisely, and operate within boundaries. It's abundantly clear to me that the current spending and borrowing patterns cannot continue on this trajectory. Everything, and I mean literally everything, is dependent on confidence in our fiscal stability. If that goes, we're gonna have problems that make the current ones seem tame in comparison. But.......only difference is we just keep them barely comfortable? Well, protecting too-big-to-fail companies comes in several flavors. Banks and the financial markets run on credit. If it dries up -- like it nearly did in the fall of 2008 -- you're facing problems of a magnitude that are almost unimaginable. Picture this: you've got money in the bank, but the bank can't clear your check, so the grocery store won't take it. Or your paycheck bounces. Not saying it's always justified, but it's a big one.
Saving Chrysler, GM, GMAC, whatever: I've got mixed feelings. Chrysler and GM were so shaky that they went from business as usual to insolvent in a matter of a few months. No politician anywhere is gonna thumb his nose at the UAW and say you're on your own. But, in the long run it might have been best to let them fail and let things readjust to equilibrium. That may have meant some pain for a lot of folks, but a brighter future. As it is, the pensions are still a mess with no fix in sight. Kinda like their new partner's.