Bailouts, Socialism, & bankrupt reasoning

1. X is too big to fail, and if it failed bad things would happen. Therefore the government should give X a bailout.

If we accept the idea of something being “too big to fail” as a reason to justify a bailout, then is the government too big to fail?

If you accept that the government is too big to fail, then the same kind of reasoning applies. The question then is, what would it look like for “the government to fail” and what could cause a “government to fail”?

In the same way a business fails due to lack of funds, the state could fail for the same reason. California is a great example of failure since it’s currently so bankrupt, from its citizens voting massive spending, that it actually talked about giving people “IOU’s” instead of the tax money they were owed. California even wanted to get a bailout of its own.

"I propose that we should get help from the federal government if we can again, also like the car manufacturers, prove that we have our fiscal house in order and that we can solve our problems ourselves but give us in this emergency kind of a situation or this crisis some addition money," – Schwarzenegger

So, now that we answered what it means for a government to fail, what would cause it? In California it was massive spending. If too much spending can cause a state to fail, what is a bailout? – Massive spending.

What does this mean? This means that simply by thinking for 1-2 minutes about the logic behind bailouts, you can be opposed to them *using the very same reasoning* people use to be in favor of them. If X is too big to fail, then Y ought to bail it out. Replace X with government and what could you possibly replace Y with? The only thing truly bankrupt is the logic used by the socialists in favor of bailouts. (Please don’t point out that Bush & Schwarzenegger favor bailouts as a way of showing it’s not socialist. Bush & Schwarzenegger are both socialists in that respect, and simply because you claim to be a conservative does not mean you are.)